Futurism⁠88%

Evidence Grows That Taco Bell Infected Massive Number of Customers With Explosive Diarrhea ⁠47%

By Frank Landymore⁠67%

7/15/2026, 9:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Biased Writer Voice, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 24.7% saturation with 107 hits. Analysis detected 1,075 faulty-reasoning hits from 433 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠47% (11,714 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.50% of the article peer group.

Apocryphal tales of its meals causing the runs have plagued Taco Bell since time immemorial. 
But this latest parasitic outbreak is something else entirely. 
As the Washington Post reports , federal and state authorities are investigating whether the fast food chain is behind the outbreak of explosive diarrhea cases across the country — further cementing its scatological legacy. 
The illness, caused by the cyclosporiasis parasite, has sickened as many as 5,100 people across the country, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . 
In Michigan, which appears to be the epicenter of the outbreak, over 3,700 people have been infected, state authorities said. 
Taco Bell’s suspected role in the outbreak comes after reports that the chain’s Michigan locations began pulling some of its ingredients . 
Signs in front of the restaurants stated that they were no longer serving lettuce, cilantro, onion, pico de gallo, and guacamole due to a “nationwide recall,” though what recall they were referring to is unclear. 
Health officials have so far struggled to narrow down how the parasite is spreading. 
While usually found on fresh produce, symptoms can take weeks to manifest, making it difficult to trace back to the source. 
Lettuce has emerged as one of the likeliest culprits. 
In an update this week , Michigan’s chief medical executive Natasha Bagdasarian said that “early information has shown lettuce as a common product that regularly comes up during the investigation.” 
“Although we do not have a definite product identified as the source of the outbreak, we want to let Michiganders know what we have learned so far so they can take steps to protect their families,” Bagdasarian added. 
Federal authorities haven’t singled out any veggies yet, though acting Food and Drug Administration director Don Prater acknowledged Michigan’s fixation on lettuce. 
“What I can say at this point is that we’re continuing our traceback investigation on multiple produce items, including the lettuce,” he said, per WaPo . 
So far, no nationwide recalls have been made related to the outbreak. 
One person familiar with the federal investigation, however, praised Taco Bell’s response. 
“It’s good the chain has already voluntarily stopped serving a number of items,” they told the newspaper. 
They added that some who became sick said they didn’t eat at the chain, suggesting that it’s not the only one responsible. 
More on parasites: If You’ve Been Having Explosive Diarrhea, You May Want to Read This 
The post Evidence Grows That Taco Bell Infected Massive Number of Customers With Explosive Diarrhea appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.3%Frank Landymore: 4.4%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias14.3%This article: 4.6%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias4.6%This article: 21.7%Frank Landymore: 5.8%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic21.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.5%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.9%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.9%Frank Landymore: 10.6%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect15.9%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.5%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.5%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Frank Landymore: 1.4%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias2.8%This article: 2.1%Frank Landymore: 2.9%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias2.1%This article: 17.8%Frank Landymore: 20.9%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias17.8%This article: 5.1%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.6%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 7.9%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Frank Landymore: 0.8%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.9%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.1%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.8%Frank Landymore: 5.5%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority23.8%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.2%Frank Landymore: 9.7%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization9.2%This article: 8.1%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring8.1%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.5%Frank Landymore: 8.2%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion3.5%This article: 5.1%Frank Landymore: 1.1%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question5.1%This article: 5.1%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.1%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.9%Frank Landymore: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof7.9%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.6%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.2%Frank Landymore: 5.1%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal10.2%This article: 3.5%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman3.5%This article: 24.7%Frank Landymore: 3.2%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)24.7%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.8%Frank Landymore: 4.3%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote11.8%This article: 3.0%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection3.0%This article: 21.5%Frank Landymore: 17.6%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice21.5%This article: 8.8%Frank Landymore: 2.2%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination8.8%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.2%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Frank Landymore: 0.0%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Frank Landymore: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.5%

433 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers45%attributed speech236writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWashington Post • 34 words • 100.0% coverageCenters for Disease Control and Prevention • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageNatasha Bagdasarian • 30 words • 0.0% coverageNatasha Bagdasarian • 38 words • 100.0% coverageDon Prater • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDon Prater • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageFuturism • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Washington Post

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words17% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+75.0 ptsWriter: 25.0%Washington Post: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-21.6 ptsWriter: 21.6%Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%

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.