Futurism88%

Trump’s Explosive Diarrhea Scandal Is Getting Worse and Worse 55%

By Victor Tangermann83%

7/22/2026, 5:53:25 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Politically Right Leaning Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 50.9% saturation with 416 hits. Analysis detected 2,240 faulty-reasoning hits from 817 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.6% and a BS Rank of 55% (10,028 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.20% of the article peer group.

There’s something undeniably fishy about the Trump administration’s handling of the rising outbreak of an explosive diarrhea-causing parasite  and we’re not talking about tainted iceberg lettuce. 
On Saturday, the FDA announced that it had found traces of the Cyclospora cayetanensis parasite  which more than likely won’t kill you, but will almost certainly cause weeks of violent diarrhea  in samples of bagged shredded lettuce ⁠supplied by Taylor Farms, one of Taco Bell’s lead suppliers. 
One day later, the agency suddenly reversed its decision , announcing that its test results were a false positive, seemingly exonerating Taylor Farms. 
The company is still carrying out a voluntary recall of the offending greens, a move first announced on Friday. 
The unexpected twists and turns of the devastating outbreak highlight how the Trump administration is struggling to get coherent messaging out to the American people, a public health disaster facilitated by massive health budget cuts and major layoffs at the FDA, USDA, and CDC. 
We still don’t know exactly how many people are affected , numbers that vary wildly depending on whether you ask the CDC or individual states. 
It’s a confounding mess, compounded by the fact that the parasite is notoriously difficult to trace in a lab. 
There are plenty of reasons to be suspicious of the FDA’s baffling reversal on Sunday. 
For one, the Trump administration’s relationship with the embattled food supplier goes way back. 
Case in point, Taylor Farms made a mysterious $1 million donation to the Trump-aligned super PAC MAGA Inc on March 26, 2025, as first spotted by lawyer and public health policy leader Matthew Cortland  six days before the FDA loosened food traceability rules which could’ve helped prevent outbreaks like the current one. 
The company appears to have considerable sway in Washington, DC. 
On July 17, a day before the FDA announced it had found traces of the parasite, the New York Times reported that Taylor Farms representatives had met with White House and FDA officials the day before to discuss what the company viewed as “shortfalls in the FDA and CDC’s outbreak response process.” 
While it’s unclear whether the supplier successfully strong-armed the FDA into going back on its initial claims of having found traces of the parasite, the timelines are certainly suspect. 
According to the NYT , Taylor Farms had also hired lobbyist Trent Morse, who served as the deputy director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office before he resigned in September. 
The story only gets stranger after the FDA issued its mea culpa. 
In the early morning hours of Monday, Taylor Farms published an “update   which has since been deleted for an unknown reason  claiming that the FDA had “apologized to us” while trying to reassure customers that “all other Taylor Farms products… are not involved in the recall.” 
Less than 12 hours later, the FDA once again pulled a 180. 
“To clarify, this false-positive lab sample DOES NOT change the basis for FDA’s ongoing outbreak investigation or the overwhelming epidemiological data supporting the current voluntary recall by Taylor Farms,” the agency tweeted on Monday. 
“FDA’s traceback investigation and outbreak data continue to converge on shredded iceberg lettuce from Taylor Farms locations in central Mexico,” the statement reads. 
“FDA will continue to work with federal and state partners to investigate this multistate outbreak and ensure products implicated in this outbreak have been removed from the market.” 
It’s hard to rule out that White House officials were trying to vindicate Taylor Farms, considering the Trump administration has long been accused of giving major MAGA Inc donors favorable “pay for access” treatment . 
Taylor Farms’ willingness to recall the lettuce alone speaks volumes. 
Naturally, the White House is now accusing the media of putting far too much of a spin on the story. 
“This is how the FAKE NEWS works: imply collusion, ignore the facts,” the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees the FDA, tweeted on Monday , replying to reporting by Meidas Touch about Taylor Farms’ PAC donation. 
“Nothing influences our decisions except science and the safety of the American people.” 
By Tuesday, the White House had already declared victory , with HHS secretary and notorious anti-vaccine activist Robert Kennedy Jr claiming that the outbreak was “under control.” 
He vaguely referred to “companies that are involved,” which had “implemented a recall”  but never mentioned Taylor Farms by name. 
We’ll leave it up to you whether that’s reassuring enough to pick up a heavily discounted pack of shredded iceberg lettuce at the local Whole Foods. 
As of Tuesday, Michigan alone is dealing with over 6,500 cases . 
More on the saga: Taylor Farms Made Huge Donation to Trump Group After Loosening of Rules That Could Have Prevented Explosive Diarrhea Outbreak 
The post Trump’s Explosive Diarrhea Scandal Is Getting Worse and Worse appeared first on Futurism . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.1%Victor Tangermann: 6.3%Futurism: 6.1%Confirmation Bias15.1%This article: 1.7%Victor Tangermann: 2.6%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias1.7%This article: 16.9%Victor Tangermann: 5.5%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic16.9%This article: 5.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.4%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 11.3%Futurism: 11.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion3.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.8%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Victor Tangermann: 6.1%Futurism: 4.4%Pessimism Bias1.1%This article: 28.6%Victor Tangermann: 23.7%Futurism: 22.5%Negativity Bias28.6%This article: 1.6%Victor Tangermann: 2.1%Futurism: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.7%Futurism: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect1.2%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.1%Victor Tangermann: 2.3%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Victor Tangermann: 1.9%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem8.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.4%Victor Tangermann: 7.8%Futurism: 6.8%Appeal to Authority6.4%This article: 3.3%Victor Tangermann: 2.5%Futurism: 2.6%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.2%Futurism: 2.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.8%Victor Tangermann: 10.0%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization13.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.9%Futurism: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.3%Victor Tangermann: 8.8%Futurism: 9.5%Appeal to Emotion13.3%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 19.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.9%Futurism: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.0%This article: 2.4%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque2.4%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 1.0%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 3.8%Futurism: 4.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.9%Victor Tangermann: 3.1%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.9%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.5%Victor Tangermann: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground3.5%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.6%Victor Tangermann: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Special Pleading1.6%This article: 5.5%Victor Tangermann: 0.1%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy5.5%This article: 14.0%Victor Tangermann: 4.1%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote14.0%This article: 8.7%Victor Tangermann: 2.4%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection8.7%This article: 50.9%Victor Tangermann: 21.7%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice50.9%This article: 1.8%Victor Tangermann: 1.3%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination1.8%This article: 0.0%Victor Tangermann: 2.2%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 19.5%Victor Tangermann: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias19.5%This article: 3.2%Victor Tangermann: 1.2%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.2%

817 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers19%attributed speech661writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageFDA • 34 words • 100.0% coverageFDA • 23 words • 0.0% coverageFDA • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageHealth and Human Services Department • 37 words • 100.0% coverageHealth and Human Services Department • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageRobert Kennedy Jr • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
50 attributed words32% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Quote-first Misdirection+74.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Health and Human Services Department: 74.0%74.0%Biased Writer Voice-62.9 ptsWriter: 62.9%Health and Human Services Department: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+10.7 ptsWriter: 15.3%Health and Human Services Department: 26.0%26.0%Politically Right Leaning -24.1 ptsWriter: 24.1%Health and Human Services Department: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%Health and Human Services Department: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Health and Human Services Department: 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.