STAT⁠44%

Predicting biotech clinical trials and a new Alzheimer’s drug controversy ⁠74%

By Elaine Chen⁠14% Adam Feuerstein⁠43% Allison DeAngelis⁠25%

7/16/2026, 1:06:43 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 30.7% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 230 faulty-reasoning hits from 166 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (5,740 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.80% of the article peer group.

On this week’s episode of “The Readout LOUD”: The Kalshi prediction markets are coming for biotech, plus the controversy over an experimental Alzheimer’s disease treatment from Biogen. 
Kalshi, the maker of prediction markets, announced this week that it is expanding into biotech. 
Soon, you’ll be able to make bets on the outcomes of clinical trials and FDA drug reviews. 
Is that a good thing? 
We’ll discuss the issues with Jonathan Kimmelman, a bioethicist at McGill University who has researched prediction in clinical trials. 
We also chat about Biogen and its tau-lowering drug for Alzheimer’s. 
A mid-stage clinical trial presented this week showed the drug reduced levels of the tau protein and slowed the rate of cognitive decline in patients. 
But the data also raised a lot of questions that left experts and investors debating the drug’s future. 
Be sure to sign up for “The Readout LOUD” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Elaine Chen: 1.4%STAT: 3.9%Availability Heuristic15.1%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.3%Elaine Chen: 6.6%STAT: 8.2%Framing Effect16.3%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.2%Elaine Chen: 3.0%STAT: 3.3%Optimism Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.8%STAT: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 27.1%Elaine Chen: 9.2%STAT: 8.5%Negativity Bias27.1%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 1.6%STAT: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.8%Elaine Chen: 1.6%STAT: 1.6%Recency Bias10.8%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.4%Elaine Chen: 2.4%STAT: 4.7%Appeal to Authority11.4%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.2%STAT: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.8%Elaine Chen: 0.8%STAT: 4.6%Hasty Generalization10.8%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 2.4%STAT: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 2.1%STAT: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 3.0%Elaine Chen: 0.2%STAT: 0.9%Begging the Question3.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 2.0%STAT: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.3%STAT: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.0%Elaine Chen: 0.2%STAT: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice3.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.8%STAT: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elaine Chen: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 30.7%Elaine Chen: 8.8%STAT: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…30.7%

166 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers20%attributed speech132writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageKalshi • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageJonathan Kimmelman • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jonathan Kimmelman

100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words56% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -27.3 ptsWriter: 27.3%Jonathan Kimmelman: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%Jonathan Kimmelman: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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