Given a paragraph and a claim, classify it this way: If the claim contradicts the evidence present in the paragraph, classify the claim as '0'. If the claim has multiple supporting *AND* contradicting evidences, classify the claim as '1'. If the claim has supporting evidence and the paragraph is in overall favor of the claim, then classify the claim as '2'.

Paragraph: US-Patent 8835624 is for the H1N1 virus. The patent with this number was for a strand of DNA that binds to the H1N1 virus, not the virus itself. US patent number 20120251502 is for Ebola. This application number was for a strain of the Ebola virus but the application has now been abandoned. The virus was not created by those who filed the patent. US patent number CA2741523 is for swine flu. This is the application number for a patent for the Ebola virus made to the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. This patent has not been granted, and doesn’t mean the Ebola virus was created by someone. 0070031450 A1 is a US patent for BSE (mad cow disease). There is a patent application number one digit away from this that mentions BSE, but is not a patent for BSE itself. ATTC VR-84 is a patent for Zika virus that comes from the Rockefeller Foundation. This is the name of a certain strain of Zika virus, which was first isolated in the 1940s in a lab funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. This strain was not patented. US patents 7897744 and 8506968 are for SARS. The first number is the US patent number for the SARS virus. The patent application was made by the CDC, but after the outbreak in 2002. The second number is a patent for a SARS vaccine which has now expired. US patent 10130701 is for coronavirus. This number is not a patent for the new Wuhan virus, Covid-19. It’s a patent for a weakened version of a virus in the same family as Covid-19, a family which includes the common cold and SARS. Claim 1 of 8 Claim: US patents 7897744 and 8506968 are for SARS.
2

Paragraph: The release does not include any cost information. The summary gives an absolute risk reduction percentage of 0.27% for patients who received radiation compared to those who did not. It also includes the number needed to treat (370) to save one patient. This is good detail, but we would also have liked more context on the controversies of DCIS treatment. A HealthNewsReview.org podcast provides a deeper look here. The release briefly discusses harms. The release says patients who received radiation and lumpectomy had more “local” recurrences of the cancer, but their overall survival was modestly better than patients who did not have radiation (a 0.27% reduction over 15 years). The release should have given some mention to the harms of radiation treatment, particularly since the potential benefit of radiotherapy was very small. The release provides details on the association study, which reviewed records from thousands of patients. The release also includes limitations of the study. There is no disease mongering. The release provides context on the prevalence of DCIS in the U.S. The style of this news release was to punt the question of funders and “conflicts” into a web link where the reader has to chase it down. It would better serve readers to have funders and any conflicts of interest spelled out in the release. Here is what the release states: Editor’s Note: The article contains conflict of interest disclosures. Please see the article for additional information, including other authors, author contributions and affiliations, financial disclosures, funding and support, etc. The study notes that researchers received funding from Canadian government agencies. The release let readers down in providing the broader context about controversies over appropriate treatment — if any — for women diagnosed with DCIS. It’s common knowledge that radiation and surgery are widely available treatments. There was no claim of novelty. The release stated that results are based on an association study of a national database containing more than 140,000 patient records. It’s unclear if similar studies have been completed. We found no unjustifiable language. Claim: Association of radiation therapy plus lumpectomy in reduced risk of dying in women with DCIS
1

Paragraph: Attorney and Democratic state Sen. Jacob Candelaria recently filed a lawsuit in state district court on behalf of Joe Montano, who said authorities recently seized his medical cannabis, KOAT-TV reports. According to court documents, correctional officers searched Montano’s home while he was on house arrest, found the marijuana, and put him in jail for a month as punishment. The petition is seeking a judge to order the jail to allow him to possess and use his medical marijuana. State lawmakers passed a measure last year to allow people on house arrest to use medical marijuana. In a statement, Metropolitan Detention Center Chief of Corrections Ralph Fernadez said Community Custody Program inmates are considered in jail custody, and medical marijuana use is prohibited in the detention center. Claim: New Mexico man in house arrest sues to use medical marijuana.

2

