STAT⁠44%

GOP lawmakers push Trump’s FDA to make sure clinical trials are diverse ⁠61%

By John Wilkerson⁠0%

7/6/2026, 8:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 67 hits. Analysis detected 347 faulty-reasoning hits from 134 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠61% (8,651 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.50% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON — Clinical trial policy got caught up in the Trump administration’s attack on policies related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. 
Republicans in Congress would like to change that. 
Days after Trump took office, the Health and Human Services Department began purging all references to DEI from the websites of its agencies. 
Those efforts were supposed to target DEI initiatives focused on hiring practices, communications, and social issues. 
But supporters of clinical trial diversity say the policy has nothing to do with DEI in that sense. 
Instead, it aims to ensure that clinical trials enroll people who are similar to the patients who would use the drugs and medical devices being tested. 
To read the rest of this story subscribe to STAT+. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.4%John Wilkerson: 1.5%STAT: 3.4%Confirmation Bias13.4%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.4%STAT: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 3.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 19.4%John Wilkerson: 2.2%STAT: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic19.4%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 50.0%John Wilkerson: 14.2%STAT: 8.2%Framing Effect50.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 3.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 32.8%John Wilkerson: 13.1%STAT: 8.5%Negativity Bias32.8%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%John Wilkerson: 0.7%STAT: 0.4%In-Group Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 1.5%STAT: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.9%John Wilkerson: 1.4%STAT: 4.7%Appeal to Authority11.9%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 4.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 1.6%STAT: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.4%John Wilkerson: 4.1%STAT: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion13.4%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 32.8%John Wilkerson: 3.8%STAT: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)32.8%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 1.6%STAT: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.4%John Wilkerson: 2.2%STAT: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.4%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.4%John Wilkerson: 2.2%STAT: 0.3%Middle Ground19.4%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 32.8%John Wilkerson: 11.3%STAT: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice32.8%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 2.8%STAT: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 5.6%STAT: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Wilkerson: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%John Wilkerson: 11.7%STAT: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.5%

134 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.