Diagnostic dilemma: Junk-food diet caused a teen's permanent blindness 5%

By Mindy Weisberger3%

7/15/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 13.7% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 328 faulty-reasoning hits from 371 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.7% and a BS Rank of 5% (19,526 of 20,517 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.20% of the article peer group.

A teen's nutrient-poor diet led to irreversible vision problems. 
A 17-year-old boy in the United Kingdom was referred to a neuro-ophthalmologist because he felt unusually tired. 
His doctor described him as a fussy eater, noting that his diet consisted of fast-food french fries, white bread, potato chips, sausages and processed ham. 
The teen had avoided most foods since elementary school due to texture issues. 
Tests revealed the teen had mild anemia and low levels of vitamin B12, which is essential for red blood cell and nervous system health. 
His doctor prescribed B12 injections and advised him on dietary changes. 
Later, at age 15, the teen began experiencing vision problems. 
An eye exam showed no abnormalities, and the cause of the worsening vision loss remained unknown. 
When he was 17, his doctor referred him to a neuro-ophthalmologist for further testing. 
Additional vision tests showed the teen had a visual acuity of 20/200 in both eyes, which falls within the parameters of legal blindness. 
The ophthalmologist was unable to determine the cause of the vision loss. 
However, blood tests revealed that his red blood cells were enlarged, suggesting vitamin deficiencies. 
Elevated concentrations of homocysteine and methylmalonic acid, compounds that B12 helps to break down, further indicated a B12 deficiency. 
The doctors diagnosed the patient with nutritional optic neuropathy, a rare condition often caused by severe B12 and other B vitamin deficiencies. 
This condition leads to atrophy of the optic nerve, which relays visual information to the brain, resulting in vision loss. 
The doctors prescribed supplements to correct the deficiencies and referred the teen to mental health services to address his eating disorder. 
While his vision loss did not improve, it also did not worsen after treatment. 
Nutritional optic neuropathy is rarely caused by dietary deficiencies alone. 
Historically, cases have been linked to malnutrition from war and famine, or to restrictive diets not adequately supplemented. 
More recent cases have involved vitamin deficiencies combined with smoking or alcohol and drug abuse. 
The teen's case is unusual because his normal BMI masked the vitamin deficiencies. 
Doctors noted that nutritional optic neuropathy should be considered in patients with unexplained vision symptoms and poor diets, regardless of their BMI. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 1.5%Live Science: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Mindy Weisberger: 2.9%Live Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic2.7%This article: 5.9%Mindy Weisberger: 0.6%Live Science: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic5.9%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.3%Live Science: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Mindy Weisberger: 1.5%Live Science: 3.3%Framing Effect5.9%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 1.2%Live Science: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Mindy Weisberger: 0.4%Live Science: 3.6%Optimism Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.4%Live Science: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 2.3%Live Science: 3.2%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.9%Mindy Weisberger: 1.4%Live Science: 0.9%Recency Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.9%Mindy Weisberger: 1.3%Live Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority5.9%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.9%Mindy Weisberger: 3.1%Live Science: 3.9%Hasty Generalization8.9%This article: 6.7%Mindy Weisberger: 1.8%Live Science: 0.2%Red Herring6.7%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.4%Mindy Weisberger: 1.4%Live Science: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion2.4%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.8%Live Science: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.7%Mindy Weisberger: 4.1%Live Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.7%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.9%Mindy Weisberger: 0.6%Live Science: 0.4%Burden of Proof5.9%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 1.6%Live Science: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.1%Mindy Weisberger: 0.9%Live Science: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.1%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.5%Mindy Weisberger: 0.4%Live Science: 0.1%Special Pleading3.5%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 1.7%Live Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.3%Live Science: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.8%Live Science: 3.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 5.9%Mindy Weisberger: 0.6%Live Science: 1.0%Indoctrination5.9%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mindy Weisberger: 0.4%Live Science: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

371 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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