BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.7% saturation with 219 hits. Analysis detected 1,635 faulty-reasoning hits from 923 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.9% and a BS Rank of 76% (5,282 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.90% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration’s latest nominee to lead the nation’ top public health agency drew frustrated reactions from some U.S. senators on Wednesday when they pressed her on whether she would protect the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from political meddling. 
Dr. 
Erica Schwartz told the Senate health committee she “will never betray the science” and pledged to use “radical transparency” in a bid to rebuild public trust in the agency. 
But several senators questioned how she might handle pressure from Health Secretary Robert F. 
Kennedy Jr., who has repeatedly moved to alter U.S. vaccine and CDC policies. 
Schwartz repeatedly declined to dissent from some of those actions. 
Schwartz, 54, is up for director of the Atlanta-based CDC, which is charged with protecting Americans from preventable health threats. 
Her career has largely been spent in military uniform, including in a leadership position at the U.S. 
Coast Guard where she oversaw the organization’s system of 41 clinics and 150 sick bays  as well as policies promoting vaccinations of service members. 
She later served as deputy surgeon general, where she helped lead uniformed medical and health professionals posted at the CDC and government health agencies that serve the general public. 
The CDC long enjoyed a sterling international reputation but has been in turmoil since Trump returned to office last year. 
Largely due to layoffs and resignations, the agency has lost more than 3,000 employees, or more than a quarter of its workforce. 
Morale has plummeted as a succession of mostly temporary leaders have come and gone  the front office filled with political appointees, many of them with little or no training in medicine or public health. 
“There’s still really good people who work there (at the CDC). 
They are doing their best to navigate choppy waters,” said Dr. 
David Margolius, director of Cleveland’s health department and a leader in a U.S. coalition of big city health departments. 
But CDC no longer seems to the authoritative and communicative lead that it was on outbreaks and other public health emergencies. 
“Basically everybody’s got to kind of choose their own adventure, as opposed to being led by a national public health department,” Margolius said. 
On Wednesday, some senators suggested Schwartz should follow Monarez’s example, and they asked her about actions Kennedy has taken that have affected CDC. 
Schwartz said she was unaware that CDC programs that worked to prevent smoking and promote vaccinations had been curtailed. 
She declined to commit to taking down a CDC website that suggests there’s a link between childhood vaccines and autism (she said she had not seen it), though she agreed existing medical evidence has not found a link. 
Sen. 
Maggie Hassan, a New Hampshire Democrat, asked if she would  if Kennedy ordered her  suspend promotion of a flu vaccination campaign during a deadly flu season. 
“Senator, I don’t speak in hypotheticals,” Schwartz responded. 
“It isn’t hypothetical. 
It happened,” said Hassan, referring to internal CDC emails, released by Sen. 
Bernie Sanders last month, that documented such a directive from Kennedy to CDC staff last year. 
Schwartz said she agreed that CDC should prioritize responding to infectious diseases. 
“I think over time, the CDC has had some mission creep, and it’s trying to be all things to all people,” she said. 
But she also agreed to requests from Republican senators to  if confirmed  look into whether AI data centers cause health problems and into the possibility of establishing a World Trade Center Health Program clinical center in Florida. 
In April, Trump nominated Schwartz, calling her “incredibly talented.” 
In a congressional hearing in April, Kennedy said he approved of the choice, but refused to commit to supporting whatever vaccine guidance she might issue. 
Last month, Schwartz filed letters with the government that address her finances and potential conflicts of interest. 
She wrote that if confirmed, she will leave her current job with UnitedHealth Group, where she’s making about $850,000 in salary and bonus money and cash out her stock options. 
She also will resign from the board of directors of Butterfly Network Inc., a Massachusetts company that makes ultrasound devices; from the board of Atlanta-based Aveanna Healthcare, a medical home care provider; and from the board of the Florida-based Searching for Solutions Institute. 
At Wednesday’s hearing, senators also considered the nomination of Sean Kaufman as the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, or ASPR. 
That job entails overseeing preparations and response to public health emergencies and disasters. 
Last year, the Trump administration announced a plan to bring those responsibilities under CDC, but the dramatic HHS restructuring has not happened. 
The assistant secretary’s office is involved in decisions about funding next-generation vaccines against pandemic flu or other infectious disease threats. 
In postings on LinkedIn, Kaufman has made comments cheered by vaccine skeptics, arguing against hepatitis B vaccinations for newborns and saying he served as an expert witness to advocate for people who refused the COVID-19 vaccine. 
On Wednesday, Kaufman faced questions about past social media posts, including one in which he expressed hatred for the CDC. 
He also repeatedly was asked about his support of a Trump administration decision last year to cancel 22 projects, totaling $500 million, to develop vaccines using mRNA technology. 
Infectious disease experts say the mRNA technology used in vaccines is safe, and they credit its development during the first Trump administration with slowing the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. 
Future pandemics, they warned, will be harder to stop without the help of mRNA. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.2%Mike Stobbe: 1.7%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.7%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.1%Mike Stobbe: 3.9%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic12.1%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.4%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.5%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Mike Stobbe: 3.7%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect8.2%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.2%Mike Stobbe: 0.2%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.2%Mike Stobbe: 1.1%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias1.2%This article: 6.2%Mike Stobbe: 0.9%AP News: 2.1%Pessimism Bias6.2%This article: 23.7%Mike Stobbe: 6.6%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias23.7%This article: 3.3%Mike Stobbe: 0.8%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.3%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Mike Stobbe: 1.1%AP News: 1.4%Halo Effect9.9%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Mike Stobbe: 2.6%AP News: 1.3%Recency Bias3.0%This article: 4.4%Mike Stobbe: 0.4%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Mike Stobbe: 0.6%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem2.2%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.8%Mike Stobbe: 3.2%AP News: 3.7%Appeal to Authority7.8%This article: 5.7%Mike Stobbe: 0.9%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma5.7%This article: 3.9%Mike Stobbe: 0.4%AP News: 0.8%Slippery Slope3.9%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.3%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.6%Mike Stobbe: 2.4%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization11.6%This article: 2.5%Mike Stobbe: 0.5%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring2.5%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.3%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.3%Mike Stobbe: 0.5%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion1.3%This article: 0.9%Mike Stobbe: 0.2%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question0.9%This article: 9.0%Mike Stobbe: 1.6%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.1%Mike Stobbe: 0.7%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof1.1%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.4%AP News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.4%Mike Stobbe: 0.7%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal7.4%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.2%Mike Stobbe: 2.6%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.2%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.4%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.3%Mike Stobbe: 1.1%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote7.3%This article: 1.2%Mike Stobbe: 1.7%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection1.2%This article: 16.8%Mike Stobbe: 2.1%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice16.8%This article: 3.1%Mike Stobbe: 5.4%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination3.1%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 0.0%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Mike Stobbe: 0.4%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Mike Stobbe: 1.1%AP News: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

923 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers39%attributed speech562writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageDr. David Margolius • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDr. David Margolius • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageDr. David Margolius • 21 words • 100.0% coverageDr. David Margolius • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 19 words • 0.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageMaggie Hassan • 28 words • 0.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMaggie Hassan • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMaggie Hassan • 12 words • 0.0% coverageBernie Sanders • 16 words • 0.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 12 words • 0.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageRobert F. Kennedy Jr. • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 30 words • 0.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Dr. David Margolius

100%flagged-word coverage
66 attributed words18% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice+8.0 ptsWriter: 23.8%Dr. David Margolius: 31.8%31.8%Quote-first Misdirection+16.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dr. David Margolius: 16.7%16.7%Politically Right Leaning -6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%Dr. David Margolius: 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.