Ancient-DNA analysis solves 500-year-old mystery of what killed 2 Medici brothers 30%

By Kristina Killgrove15%

7/1/2026, 1:50:26 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 32.3% saturation with 146 hits. Analysis detected 1,084 faulty-reasoning hits from 452 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.7% and a BS Rank of 30% (15,487 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.80% of the article peer group.

Two brothers from the wealthy and powerful Medici family died of malaria and were not poisoned as a rumor had suggested, archaeologists have confirmed based on a DNA analysis of the brothers' skeletons. 
The analysis also revealed a unique, mutated strain of malaria that may hold the key to understanding the evolution of the disease in Europe. 
The Medici family rose to power in the 15th century by creating the largest bank in Europe. 
The family used their extraordinary wealth to fund Renaissance artists and to start a political dynasty that eventually included numerous dukes, four popes and two queens of France. 
To get to the bottom of the 500-year-old Medici cold case, an international group of researchers tested the bones of two of Cosimo I's sons: Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici and Grand Duke Francesco I de' Medici, for the DNA of Plasmodium falciparum, the parasite that causes the deadliest form of malaria and that is transmitted by mosquitoes. 
The researchers extracted ancient DNA from the bones of Cardinal Giovanni, who died in 1562 at age 19 in the same month as his mother and younger brother Garzia, and from Grand Duke Francesco I, who died at age 46 in 1587 along with his wife. 
The team's study was published online June 17 in the journal iScience. 
"Now we can say with scientific certainty that malaria, not poisoning, killed Grand Duke Francesco de Medici," study co-author Valentina Giuffra, a medical historian at the University of Pisa, said in a statement. 
But the ancient-DNA study held two additional surprises. 
The Grand Duke's bones were positive not only for P. falciparum but also for Plasmodium malariae, a different parasite species that also causes malaria in humans, suggesting that both species contributed to the severe illness that killed him and his wife. 
Cardinal Giovanni, on the other hand, had only P. falciparum, but the specific strain that infected him was previously unknown. 
The strain is similar to those found in ancient and early modern Europe, but with two mutations the researchers had never seen before, they wrote in the study. 
"The study of ancient DNA offers us an opportunity not only to diagnose malaria in the remains of individuals from the past, but it also offers us a window for understanding the evolution of malaria species, Plasmodium falciparum in this case, which can help scientists better understand how the pathogen adapts over time," study first author Alexander Ochoa, an evolutionary biologist at Yale University, said in the statement. 
Further analysis of the brothers' bones is needed to determine the evolutionary relationship between the strains of malaria they carried, the researchers wrote in the study. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.4%Kristina Killgrove: 4.1%Live Science: 2.7%Confirmation Bias16.4%This article: 12.6%Kristina Killgrove: 1.1%Live Science: 1.2%Anchoring Bias12.6%This article: 3.8%Kristina Killgrove: 2.7%Live Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 4.4%Kristina Killgrove: 2.1%Live Science: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.4%This article: 9.1%Kristina Killgrove: 0.5%Live Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias9.1%This article: 9.7%Kristina Killgrove: 3.4%Live Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias9.7%This article: 2.4%Kristina Killgrove: 1.5%Live Science: 3.3%Framing Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 20.4%Kristina Killgrove: 2.7%Live Science: 3.5%Optimism Bias20.4%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 1.3%Live Science: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Kristina Killgrove: 1.5%Live Science: 3.3%Negativity Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.3%Live Science: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Kristina Killgrove: 0.7%Live Science: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.2%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.3%Live Science: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Kristina Killgrove: 1.7%Live Science: 1.3%Halo Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%Kristina Killgrove: 0.3%Live Science: 0.9%Recency Bias1.8%This article: 13.5%Kristina Killgrove: 0.7%Live Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect13.5%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 32.3%Kristina Killgrove: 5.0%Live Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority32.3%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 1.5%Live Science: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.8%Kristina Killgrove: 4.9%Live Science: 3.8%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 12.6%Kristina Killgrove: 0.5%Live Science: 0.3%Red Herring12.6%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 1.2%Live Science: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.7%Live Science: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.4%Kristina Killgrove: 1.8%Live Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.4%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 16.4%Kristina Killgrove: 0.4%Live Science: 0.4%Burden of Proof16.4%This article: 12.6%Kristina Killgrove: 0.8%Live Science: 0.5%Appeal to Nature12.6%This article: 6.2%Kristina Killgrove: 0.4%Live Science: 0.3%Composition/Division6.2%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 1.0%Live Science: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 2.4%Live Science: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.3%Live Science: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.1%Live Science: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.3%Live Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.3%Kristina Killgrove: 1.1%Live Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote7.3%This article: 7.3%Kristina Killgrove: 0.8%Live Science: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection7.3%This article: 22.3%Kristina Killgrove: 1.8%Live Science: 3.5%Biased Writer Voice22.3%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 1.0%Live Science: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kristina Killgrove: 3.0%Live Science: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

452 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers22%attributed speech351writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageValentina Giuffra • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageAlexander Ochoa • 68 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Valentina Giuffra

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words33% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Valentina Giuffra: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Valentina Giuffra: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Valentina Giuffra: 100.0%100.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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