Cases of the “explosive diarrhea” parasite increase in Colorado, but still no worry of an outbreak 65%

By John Ingold28%

7/23/2026, 2:51:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Negativity Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 36.1% saturation with 169 hits. Analysis detected 624 faulty-reasoning hits from 468 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.4% and a BS Rank of 65% (7,681 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.90% of the article peer group.

Colorado has now recorded 178 cases of cyclosporiasis, the so-called “explosive diarrhea” parasitic illness, but state health officials still have not detected any indication of an outbreak here. 
Out of those cases, public health workers have been able to complete investigations on 154 of them. 
Of those, only 18 of the infections are believed to have been contracted in the United States, said Hope Shuler, a spokesperson for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 
The vast majority of the Colorado cases  more than 80%  have been linked to international travel, Shuler said. 
The numbers are current as of Monday, when CDPHE updates weekly counts. 
Cyclosporiasis continues to make headlines across the country, with Michigan alone reporting more than 7,000 cases as of Wednesday. 
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has focused its outbreak investigation on five states: Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky. 
But the investigation has been chaotic, with federal authorities first linking iceberg lettuce distributed by Taylor Farms to the outbreak and then later retracting the claim of a positive test result while saying that Taylor Farms lettuce is still the prime suspect. 
Adding to the chaos have been reports about possible political maneuvering by Taylor Farms, though whether politics played a role in the retraction is unproven. 
Taylor Farms has conducted a voluntary recall of iceberg lettuce distributed to 27 states  a list that doesn’t include Colorado. 
Amid all that, Colorado’s case counts are almost a relief, though of course the disease itself is brutal for those who catch it. 
Colorado typically sees dozens of cyclosporiasis cases per year, mostly connected to international travel. 
Last year, Colorado recorded 204 cases for the entire year, putting the state on track to beat that number for 2026. 
Summer is typically the high season for cyclosporiasis. 
It is unclear what may be driving the increased numbers this year, but one possibility is that the publicity around the outbreak nationally has led more people locally to be tested when they have an intestinal illness. 
Shuler said five of the Colorado cases this year reported spending time in states that are part of the multistate outbreak. 
She said, among the handful of cases where those afflicted did not report traveling outside of Colorado, no common sources of infection have been identified. 
Cyclosporiasis is caused by a parasite that typically hitches a ride on contaminated produce or water. 
It does not spread directly person-to-person. 
Its most famous symptoms are the now-infamous trio of stomach cramps, gas and frequent, watery diarrhea. 
The disease is rarely fatal, but it can cause hospitalization due to dehydration. 
In Colorado this year, four people have been hospitalized due to cyclosporiasis, according to CDPHE. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.3%John Ingold: 1.2%The Colorado Sun: 1.2%Confirmation Bias5.3%This article: 4.5%John Ingold: 1.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Anchoring Bias4.5%This article: 15.4%John Ingold: 5.1%The Colorado Sun: 2.2%Availability Heuristic15.4%This article: 6.0%John Ingold: 2.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%John Ingold: 8.7%The Colorado Sun: 3.6%Framing Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.5%John Ingold: 0.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Status Quo Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.0%John Ingold: 3.3%The Colorado Sun: 4.2%Optimism Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 1.3%The Colorado Sun: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%John Ingold: 9.9%The Colorado Sun: 5.7%Negativity Bias15.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 1.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.3%The Colorado Sun: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 1.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.7%John Ingold: 3.0%The Colorado Sun: 3.0%Appeal to Authority4.7%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 1.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 1.1%The Colorado Sun: 1.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 5.3%John Ingold: 0.7%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Red Herring5.3%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.9%John Ingold: 6.6%The Colorado Sun: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion4.9%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.9%John Ingold: 2.6%The Colorado Sun: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.9%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 1.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.2%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 2.1%The Colorado Sun: 1.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.3%John Ingold: 1.5%The Colorado Sun: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.3%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 1.4%The Colorado Sun: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.6%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 36.1%John Ingold: 4.1%The Colorado Sun: 2.1%Biased Writer Voice36.1%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.4%The Colorado Sun: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Ingold: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

468 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker21%attributed speech371writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageHope Shuler • 31 words • 0.0% coverageHope Shuler • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageHope Shuler • 21 words • 0.0% coverageHope Shuler • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Hope Shuler

46%flagged-word coverage
97 attributed words100% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-45.6 ptsWriter: 45.6%Hope Shuler: 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.