Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Paragraph: "The story includes the cost of this test $1,625 and mentions that insurance companies currently don’t cover the cost of the new genetic test for breast cancer. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. It is not clear how this test improves on these current practice as there was no evidence presented about it. The story appropriately expresses caution when presenting the value of this new test to predict a woman’s lifetime risk of developing cancer. There is a wide range of experts interviewed, all of whom express concern about the current available evidence for the predictive value of this test. Most experts advise against women taking this test, and the American Cancer Society does not promote the test. The story provides appropriate caveats for women who are considering this test. Namely, a lower than average score might suggest a woman could forgo screening. Women with a higher than average risk score could experience unnecessary anxiety and possibly choose treatments they do not need (such as prophylactic mastectomy). The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. Additionally, peer-reviewed studies need to be done to determine the best course of prevention if a woman chooses to take the test and discovers she is at higher risk of developing breast cancer. Because the story raised appropriate questions about the quality of the evidence, we give this a satisfactory score. The story lists the annual incidence of new breast cancers and mortality rate. The story is tempered in reporting about a new genetic test which may or may not be another option for women looking to assess their risk. The story mentions that knowing individual risk may inform a woman’s decision whether to increase surveillance and/or take chemoprevention medication, such as tamoxifen. Several leading breast cancer researchers, a member of the American Cancer Society and a spokesperson for the FDA are interviewed for this story. These interviewees do not have a vested interest in this test–unlike Decode’s chief executive, who is also interviewed, mainly promoting his company’s product. Researchers help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered at higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However, the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer  mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. The test discussed in this story has not been studied long enough, nor have results of company studies been subjected to an external review. The focus of the story is a new, widely available genetic test. The story says that any doctor can order this test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there are questions about the validity of tests that have not been subjected to external review. The story notes that there are other genetic tests, but this is one of the first for breast cancer for women who do not carry the BRCA1/2 gene. The story does not mention that there are several other risk calculators to estimate a women’s risk. The story does not rely on the Decode Genetics press release. There is independent reporting and a balanced review of this new genetic test." Claim: Firm says test judges risk for common breast cancers
"The focus of the story is a newly available genetic test to assess a woman’s risk of developing of developing one of the more common forms of breast cancer. The story does not provide any evidence about the test itself (despite alluding to it). The story does mention that this test has not been validated in an external review, so any evidence would be from company-sponsored studies. The story notes that the FDA does not regulate this or similar types of predictive genetic tests, and there is concern about the validity of such tests that have not been subjected to external review. The test manufacturer CEO’s speculation that insurance companies will eventually cover the test because it’s easy to perform and ""any doctor can order the test"" is an inappropriate rationale for any screening, especially when such screening may place a woman at risk for unnecessary surgery or other treatments. The story mentions current prevention guidelines for women who are considered higher than average risk of developing breast cancer. This includes additional surveillance with MRI and mammography, chemoprevention and adopting a healthier lifestyle, namely reducing alcohol consumption and lowering body fat. However,the evidence of survival benefit for lifestyle and screening is fairly limited. Most of recent decrease in breast cancer mortality is attributed to advances in treatment not necessarily screening. Currently, breast cancer risk for women who do not carry the BRAC1/2 genes is determined via population-based calculators such as the Gail Risk Model. This tool provides an estimated 5-year risk and is only validated for Caucasian women, so a well-validated, individualized predictive test would, in theory, be useful for some women. It is not clear how the new genetic test improves on this current practice, as there was no evidence presented. Researchers and clinicians interviewed help educate the reader about a new test may have many more cons than pros. The story does note, via a patient advocate, that some women may still go ahead with the test if they feel it may help guide them in future breast cancer prevention efforts."

Paragraph: "Raising backyard chickens has been satisfying some foodies’ affection for the uber-local egg and lower-fat meat in urban areas, including metro Atlanta, for about a decade. Now the Centers for Disease Control is warning of a downside to the popular trend: salmonella outbreaks traced to some backyard owners kissing and cuddling their flocks. The CDC findings drew some media attention last month, and a PolitiFact reader who heard the health alert on NPR’s ""Morning Edition"" on July 16 asked us to dig deeper. We went directly to the source, the CDC, which is headquartered in Atlanta and has been investigating four recent Salmonella outbreaks that, as of July 29, had infected 218 people in 41 states. Five of them were in Georgia, 19 were in Alabama, 5 were in North Carolina, 11 were in South Carolina and 6 were in Tennessee. Fifty of the 218 people have required hospitalization for Salmonella, the major symptoms of which are usually diarrhea, fever and abdominal pain. No deaths have been reported, CDC spokeswoman Kristen Nordlund said. So how exactly do CDC officials know that some of these cases are due to backyard breeders kissing and cuddling live poultry? Dr. Megin Nichols, a veterinarian with the CDC, told PolitiFact the agency has been tracking upward trends in both the number of outbreaks and people infected in the past five years and has been working to trace their causes. ""We’ve been trying to interview these people to find out how they are getting sick,"" Nichols said. ""We are finding a certain proportion that are due to very close contact -- something that surprised us here at the CDC."" Salmonella is a germ that lives naturally in the intestine of chickens, ducks and many other animals. It doesn’t typically make the birds sick, but they can transmit the germs in their droppings and on their feet, feathers and beaks, even when they look clean and healthy, the CDC says. The germs also can get on their cages, coops, feed, water dishes, hay, plants and the area where they live and roam. In addition, the bacteria can rest on the hands, shoes and clothes of those who work around the birds or play with them. And Nichols told us that among the people who became ill between 2008 and 2014 due to baby poultry exposure, 49 percent, or 196 out of 400, reported snuggling and holding baby birds. Another 13 percent, or about 53, reported kissing baby birds, she said. Those people, many of whom were young children, became sick through fecal oral contact, Nichols said. Those same interviews also showed that about 46 percent of backyard breeders are keeping live poultry in their homes, she said. Epidemiologic, laboratory, and traceback findings have linked the most recent four outbreaks of human Salmonella infections to contact with chicks, ducklings, and other live poultry from multiple hatcheries. Interviews have been conducted with 140 of those who were recently ill and, 117, or 84 percent, reported contact with live poultry in the week before their illness began, according to the CDC website. Additional interviews to determine whether that contact included snuggling and kissing have yet to be conducted, Nichols said. An increasing number of people around the country are choosing to keep live poultry - mostly chickens, ducks, turkeys and geese as part of a greener, healthier lifestyle. Local governments, including several in metro Atlanta, have changed their zoning ordinances in recent years to accommodate the trend, and groups of backyard poultry buffs meet regularly in the region to talk chicken. Backyard owners have told reporters at The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the benefits include fresh eggs and meat, a built-in source of fertilizer for their gardens and ready-made bug-killers. Some say they give their chickens names, the freedom to roam the house and yard and cuddle and coddle them like family pets. The larger problem According to the CDC, salmonella, named for an American scientist who discovered the bacteria, is estimated to cause a million illnesses in the United States a year, with 19,000 hospitalizations and 380 deaths. Most people develop diarrhea and the other conditions within 12 to 72 hour after infection and recover without treatment in four to seven days. It has the potential to turn deadly if it spreads from the intestines to the bloodstream, and then to other body sites. Prompt treatment with antibiotics is critical, and the elderly, infants, and people with impaired immune systems are more likely to have a severe illness. In the largest recent outbreak, which occurred between March 2013 and July 2014, more than 600 people in 29 states and Puerto Rico were infected with seven outbreak strains. The outbreak was associated with one brand of chicken, which led to a company recall of more than 40,000 pounds of chicken products, according to the CDC. To prevent salmonella infections related to backyard farming, the CDC’s Nichols encourages several common-sense rules. These include thorough handwashing after contact with the chicken, keeping live poultry out of the home, and avoiding snuggling, close contact with the birds’ beaks or other close exposure that would allow ingestion of bacteria. She will be one of the experts featured in a webinar on the topic of practicing backyard bird biosecurity at 7p.m. Thursday. Our conclusion The CDC has issued a warning against kissing or snuggling backyard chickens. It follows four recent Salmonella outbreaks that, as of July 29, had infected 218 people in 41 states. Five of them were in Georgia. Interviews have been conducted with 140 of the ill and 117, or 84 percent, reported contact with live poultry in the week before their illness began, according to the CDC website. The CDC also has evidence from outbreaks between 2008 to 2014. In that period, they found that of the people who became infected with salmonella due to baby poultry exposure, 49 percent, or 196 out of 400 people, reported snuggling and holding baby birds. Another 13 percent, or about 53, reported kissing baby birds.. That’s cause to sound the alarm." Claim: Caution: Kissing and cuddling chickens can be hazardous to your health.
CDC: Kissing and cuddling backyard chickens linked to salmonella infections

Paragraph: "During his campaign for governor, Nathan Deal has repeatedly cited his work on immigration issues as a U.S. congressman as evidence he has leadership skills. He brought it up in May during a gubernatorial debate in Gwinnett County. Fox Business TV host Neil Cavuto said Deal ""led the fight against illegal immigration in the House"" during an April 29 interview. And when fellow Republican Karen Handel challenged him to prove he was a leader on the issue during his 17-year tenure, he reiterated the point in a news release. “While Karen Handel was busy preparing her resume to run for Secretary of State or Governor, Nathan Deal was leading in Congress to protect our borders. ""The release outlined five of his accomplishments as proof. We will analyze these points one at a time. Deal ""led the fight"" to require citizenship verification for recipients of Medicaid services under the health care overhaul signed into law this year. He led the fight, but he didn't win it. Deal was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Energy and Commerce in July 2009 when he offered an amendment to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 that would have required citizenship verification for people applying for and renewing their Medicaid benefits. The proposal was narrowly defeated, 29-28. Deal was ""lead sponsor"" of legislation to prevent automatic citizenship for babies born in the United States to illegal immigrants. Yes he was, again and again. We found four instances in which Deal sponsored bills that would end this path to U.S. citizenship: the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009; the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007; the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005; and the Citizenship Reform Act of 2003.Even before Deal began sponsoring these birthright bills, he supported similar congressional efforts. He was a regular co-sponsor of such resolutions starting when he took office in 1993. He did so for 10 years before he began to sponsor the bills himself. None of the bills passed. Deal ""authored and passed"" a law that requires that the citizenship of Medicaid applicants be verified. Deal and the late U.S. Rep. Charlie Norwood of Augusta share credit for this successful measure, which attracted widespread media coverage in 2005 and 2006. They introduced this provision as part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, a massive budget bill that trimmed funding for entitlement programs. It required that Medicaid recipients show proof of citizenship when they apply for benefits or renew them. Deal was a ""longtime leader"" in the U.S. House of Representatives' Immigration Reform Caucus. The Immigration Reform Caucus is a group of more than 90 U.S. congressmen, almost all Republicans, that advocates for placing more restrictions on illegal immigrants and immigration, as well as taking a more aggressive approach to enforcing existing laws. Deal was a member of the caucus and was mentioned in a March 2007 Roll Call article as leading its team on birthright citizenship, a cause he has supported since 1993. We have found articles mentioning his membership in the group dating to 2001. The group was founded in May 1999. Deal worked ""hand-in-hand"" with Norwood on the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act, which proposed to allow local law enforcement to assist federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws. This bill ""became the origin"" of the  287(g) program of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which delegates some immigration law enforcement power to certain state and local law enforcement agencies. Yes. And no. Deal did work closely with Norwood on the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act, according to Greg Louer, who served as Norwood's policy director, and James R. Edwards Jr., a fellow for the conservative Center for Immigration Studies who consulted Norwood on the bill while he was with the conservative think tank the Hudson Institute. They fought for it for years. It was introduced four times, starting in 2003. While the bill never passed, it became influential, Louer said. Portions of its language appeared in as many as 20 similar bills. Deal's campaign argues CLEAR ""became the origin"" of the 287(g) program, and that it in turn opened the door for the March arrest of Kennesaw State student Jessica Colotl. Colotl entered the country illegally when she was 10 and was taken into custody and cited with immigration violations after she was unable to produce identification during a March traffic stop. Her case has since become a flash point for immigration policy debate. But CLEAR did not originate the 287(g) program. It was named after a section in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 -- seven years before the first CLEAR bill was even introduced. State and local law enforcement agencies began participation in 2002, one year before Norwood submitted the first CLEAR bill to Congress. Yet while CLEAR never made it into law, its popularity among conservative lawmakers did pressure ICE to beef up the 287(g) program, Louer and Edwards said. The program received additional funding. More law enforcement agencies signed up to take on immigration enforcement roles. Plus one of the legislation's major goals -- to improve information sharing on immigration violations between the federal government and local law enforcement -- was adopted administratively by ICE during the later years of the Bush administration.So was Deal a leader on immigration reform while he was in Congress? He certainly was consistent. His approach on illegal immigration stretches back to his first year in Congress. He was also persistent. He was willing to press issues such as birthright citizenship repeatedly. Deal is also recognized by a nationally known immigration watchdog group as taking a lead on the issue. ""He certainly was one of the leaders,"" said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform.And while his success changing actual U.S. immigration law is limited and his campaign's portrayal of the CLEAR bill's influence over the 287(g) program is incorrect, Deal did play a notable behind-the-scenes role beefing up immigration enforcement.o be ." Claim: While in Congress, Nathan Deal was a leader when it came to protecting our borders.

Nathan Deal says he's a leader on immigration