Semafor⁠85%

Eli Lilly makes $3.8 billion bet on psychedelic drugs ⁠100%

By Tom Chivers⁠87%

7/17/2026, 12:54:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Framing Effect, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 73.6% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 676 faulty-reasoning hits from 121 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠100% (10 of 21,170 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

Eli Lilly will buy a psychedelic drug developer for up to $3.8 billion, a sign of rising interest in using the chemicals as psychiatric treatments. 
AtaiBeckley’s BPL-003 psychedelic nasal spray is in late-stage trials to test its effectiveness against treatment-resistant depression; analysts estimate that if it succeeds, it could generate annual sales of up to $1-$2 billion. 
The theory is that psychedelic drugs relax strongly held but inappropriate negative beliefs and, in combination with therapy, allow patients to form truer ones. 
But testing that theory is difficult — placebo-blinded trials are tricky to do when the real drug makes patients hallucinate — and the industry has faced scandals where therapists abused subjects. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 40.5%Tom Chivers: 9.4%Semafor: 4.7%Confirmation Bias40.5%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 4.8%Semafor: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 52.1%Tom Chivers: 7.7%Semafor: 5.4%Availability Heuristic52.1%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.0%Semafor: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.0%Semafor: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 3.5%Semafor: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 47.9%Tom Chivers: 16.9%Semafor: 16.1%Framing Effect47.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.0%Semafor: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.0%Semafor: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.7%Semafor: 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 33.9%Tom Chivers: 10.4%Semafor: 5.2%Optimism Bias33.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 7.2%Semafor: 4.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.6%Tom Chivers: 20.0%Semafor: 12.7%Negativity Bias25.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.0%Semafor: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.1%Semafor: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.6%Semafor: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 3.2%Semafor: 3.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.7%Semafor: 0.8%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 11.3%Semafor: 7.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 3.9%Semafor: 2.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 25.6%Tom Chivers: 0.7%Semafor: 2.1%Slippery Slope25.6%This article: 19.8%Tom Chivers: 0.6%Semafor: 0.1%Circular Reasoning19.8%This article: 26.4%Tom Chivers: 16.2%Semafor: 8.1%Hasty Generalization26.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.4%Semafor: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.3%Semafor: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 4.3%Semafor: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 19.8%Tom Chivers: 2.6%Semafor: 1.2%Begging the Question19.8%This article: 20.7%Tom Chivers: 11.3%Semafor: 5.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)20.7%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 26.4%Tom Chivers: 1.1%Semafor: 0.3%Burden of Proof26.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.8%Semafor: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 25.6%Tom Chivers: 2.1%Semafor: 2.0%Anecdotal25.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 47.9%Tom Chivers: 3.3%Semafor: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)47.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.9%Semafor: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 26.4%Tom Chivers: 4.1%Semafor: 5.3%Unattributed Quote26.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 4.6%Semafor: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 73.6%Tom Chivers: 14.2%Semafor: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice73.6%This article: 19.8%Tom Chivers: 0.6%Semafor: 1.8%Indoctrination19.8%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 26.4%Tom Chivers: 1.5%Semafor: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…26.4%

121 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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