Shriners, MUSC open doors on pediatric burn clinic in Charleston, the 5th in the country 31%

By Tom Corwin19%

8/4/2026, 12:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Optimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24.4% saturation with 135 hits. Analysis detected 870 faulty-reasoning hits from 554 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34% and a BS Rank of 31% (19,783 of 28,460 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.50% of the article peer group.

CHARLESTON  They came for a ceremony, but it felt more like a family reunion. 
Jahzelle Byrd, 2, smiled and held out her arms as Tiffany Smith approached, the nurse and pediatric burn coordinator scooping her up. 
Then she was carried around on the hip of Alli Burns, a child life specialist, while the bubbly girl accepted hugs from other staff members. 
Jahzelle and her parents were on the downtown Charleston medical campus for the opening of the outpatient pediatric burn clinic, a partnership between the Medical University of South Carolina and Shriners Children’s burn services, where Jahzelle is a patient. 
The new unit is the the fifth American Burn Association-verified pediatric unit for Shriners in the U.S., joining ones in Boston, Dayton, Ohio; Galveston, Texas; and Sacramento, Calif. 
It was a dream for the past decade of Dr. 
Leslie Stewart, chairman of the Board of Trustees of Shriners Children’s and a graduate of both the College of Charleston and MUSC College of Medicine. 
A retired general, vascular and trauma surgeon who practiced, among other places, at McLeod Regional Medical Center in Florence, Stewart choked up as he talked about the partnership that led to a new clinic for patients and families on a long road of recovery. 
“But if that day comes, they deserve to know that extraordinary pediatric burn specialists are here, locally, in their community, in their state, ready to care for their child, not only in the critical moments after an injury, but more importantly throughout the lifelong journey of healing that follows,” he added. 
“Even after they go home, we see these patients for years,” said Dr. 
Rohit Mittal, the pediatric burn medical director and Shriners Children’s endowed professor in pediatric burn care at MUSC. 
Their bodies grow but their scars don’t keep pace so “they have unique functional and reconstructive challenges,” Mittal said, and more work is needed to help them. 
He treated a girl at age 12 who was burned over a third of her body. 
That same girl now runs marathons and is thriving, Mittal said, and he recently wrote her a letter of recommendation for college. 
Closer to home, Jahzelle and her family in Columbia spent a month at MUSC after she was burned at age 1 when she pulled boiling water off the stove onto herself. 
The white patch of scars cover the right side of her chest, her right leg and her left foot, where she received a skin graft to help her heal. 
But there is no lingering sign of the mental trauma that can accompany these injuries as she cheerfully greeted everyone. 
“She won’t remember the pain, none of that,” said her father, Ladarian Byrd. 
But she does remember the people who cared for her. 
It’s that way for every patient, said Denny Sansone of Jacksonville, Fla., grandmother to Dominic, 8, who was burned in a fire pit accident and whose family “lived” at the hospital and got to know the staff well. 
It is not just the patient, but there is a “family atmosphere” that takes in siblings, parents and the whole family into that care, she said. 
“They get to know you as an individual,” Sansone said. 
”They get to know your family life.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.3%Tom Corwin: 2.0%Post and Courier: 1.6%Confirmation Bias10.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 1.2%Post and Courier: 2.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.1%Tom Corwin: 1.0%Post and Courier: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic5.1%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 1.3%Post and Courier: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.8%Post and Courier: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Tom Corwin: 1.2%Post and Courier: 2.3%Framing Effect11.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.2%Post and Courier: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.3%Post and Courier: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Tom Corwin: 0.3%Post and Courier: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect1.8%This article: 16.8%Tom Corwin: 3.8%Post and Courier: 3.0%Optimism Bias16.8%This article: 3.6%Tom Corwin: 1.1%Post and Courier: 0.5%Pessimism Bias3.6%This article: 3.6%Tom Corwin: 2.0%Post and Courier: 3.1%Negativity Bias3.6%This article: 1.8%Tom Corwin: 0.6%Post and Courier: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Tom Corwin: 1.1%Post and Courier: 0.6%In-Group Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.4%Post and Courier: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Tom Corwin: 1.0%Post and Courier: 3.2%Halo Effect7.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.2%Post and Courier: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.2%Post and Courier: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.4%Tom Corwin: 1.7%Post and Courier: 2.6%Appeal to Authority24.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 1.0%Post and Courier: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.3%Post and Courier: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.4%Tom Corwin: 2.1%Post and Courier: 1.8%Hasty Generalization14.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.3%Tom Corwin: 2.8%Post and Courier: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion14.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 1.2%Post and Courier: 1.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 19.3%Tom Corwin: 4.7%Post and Courier: 2.5%Anecdotal19.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.9%Tom Corwin: 0.8%Post and Courier: 0.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.2%Post and Courier: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.3%Tom Corwin: 1.1%Post and Courier: 0.7%Unattributed Quote2.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 10.6%Tom Corwin: 1.6%Post and Courier: 1.6%Biased Writer Voice10.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.8%Post and Courier: 0.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.0%Post and Courier: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Corwin: 0.3%Post and Courier: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

554 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers58%attributed speech234writer words
Selected voice

Leslie Stewart

100%flagged-word coverage
120 attributed words38% of attributed speech62% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice+30.3 ptsWriter: 6.4%Leslie Stewart: 36.7%36.7%

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.