Driving home the point of medical safety 85%

By Letters to the Editor91%

7/20/2026, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Negativity Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 20.2% saturation with 183 hits. Analysis detected 1,638 faulty-reasoning hits from 906 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 77% and a BS Rank of 85% (3,185 of 20,557 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.50% of the article peer group.

Eight million people in the U.S. use medical sharps  needles, scalpels, lancets  at home to manage conditions, such as diabetes, arthritis, allergies and autoimmune disorders. 
Disposing of these sharps properly is a critical, yet often overlooked, part of keeping patients and communities safe. 
Recent studies highlight this gap in awareness. 
One study of patients with diabetes at an endocrinology clinic found that only 41% of participants disposed of their sharps correctly. 
Even in a healthcare setting where patients receive ongoing medical care, gaps in sharps disposal knowledge and practices remain widespread. 
Without clear guidance, Illinoisans managing conditions at home are left to figure it out on their own, increasing the likelihood sharps will end up where they shouldn't. 
Fortunately, Illinois residents have access to clear disposal guidance and a wide range of convenient disposal options through MyOldMeds.com , which is overseen by my organization, the Pharmaceutical Product Stewardship Work Group. 
The site offers a free, easy-to-use locator tool that connects people to 75 safe sharps disposal sites across the state. 
Many of these locations are places people already visit regularly, such as pharmacies, grocery stores and medical clinics, making proper sharps disposal a practical part of everyday life. 
When sharps are discarded improperly, the consequences can extend well beyond a single household. 
Needles placed loosely in trash bags, recycling bins or public spaces can create unnecessary hazards for sanitation workers who handle waste every day, and for children and pets who may accidentally come into contact with them. 
Safe disposal is not simply a matter of convenience; it is an important part of protecting communities and supporting public health. 
I encourage Illinois residents to visit MyOldMeds.com to learn more about proper sharps disposal and share these resources with their family members and friends. 
Together, we can make safe sharps disposal a routine part of responsible healthcare and community safety. 
Irina Butler, executive director, Pharmaceutical Product Stewardship Work Group 
Send letters to the editor to letters@suntimes.com . 
To be considered for publication, letters must include your full name, your neighborhood or hometown and a phone number for verification purposes. 
Letters should be a maximum of approximately 375 words. 
Nexstar-Tegna merger will protect local news 
Local journalism is more than a business  it is one of the most important institutions our communities depend on. 
As someone who has dedicated his career to advocating for children, families and individuals with disabilities, I've seen firsthand how important trusted local journalism is to strong communities. 
Whether it's coverage of school board meetings, community programs or public safety updates, local broadcasters provide a public service that no algorithm can replace. 
Local news helps families stay informed about the decisions that shape their daily lives. 
It shines a light on organizations serving our communities, connects people with vital resources and holds leaders accountable. 
For many nonprofits, it is also one of the most effective ways to reach volunteers, donors and families in need. 
Just as importantly, it gives a voice to organizations and individuals who might otherwise go unheard. 
Today, however, local broadcasters are under tremendous pressure. 
As advertising dollars and audience attention continue to shift to global technology and streaming platforms, local news organizations face growing challenges in sustaining the journalism our communities rely on. 
Companies like Google, Meta, Amazon and Netflix command enormous audiences and advertising revenue, but they don't attend school board meetings, report on neighborhood issues or tell the stories of the people and organizations working every day to strengthen our communities. 
That is why I support the proposed combination of Nexstar Media Group and Tegna . 
If local broadcasters are going to continue investing in strong local newsrooms and serving communities like ours, they need the scale and resources to compete in today's media landscape. 
The proposed merger represents a practical way to strengthen local journalism, invest in modern infrastructure and help ensure local stations can continue to provide the trusted reporting our communities depend on. 
The future of local journalism should matter to all of us  not because of any one company, but because informed communities are stronger communities. 
Preserving local news means preserving accountability, civic engagement and a trusted source of information families rely on every day. 
For Chicago and communities across Illinois, supporting local broadcasters is ultimately an investment in the strength, safety and connectedness of the places we call home. 
Dan Vosnos, Glenview 
Appreciating free-speech rights 
I recently read Alma Campos, Anna Savchenko and Keenan Chen's fine article in the Sun-Times on the fate of dissidents to Russia's ongoing war against Ukraine. 
They are sometimes threatened for views contrary to those of Vladimir Putin, and finding refuge in our own country is becoming increasingly difficult. 
We need to be more appreciative of our right to free speech and should not take it for granted. 
Thomas Dupre, Romeoville 
Amazing Aragon memories 
When I was a young college student in the late 1950s, I had a job at the parking lot adjacent to the Aragon Ballroom , which is celebrating 100 years. 
It was in the pre-concert days. 
What I remember most is the joy and cheerfulness of the singles and couples who came for a night of dancing and entertainment. 
The men wore suits and ties, and the ladies wore dresses. 
You could see that they had optimistic anticipation of what the evening might bring. 
The Aragon was the place. 
Philip S. 
Witt, Northbrook 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.1%Letters to the Editor: 2.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Confirmation Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Letters to the Editor: 4.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Availability Heuristic8.3%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Letters to the Editor: 5.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.6%Framing Effect7.3%This article: 4.3%Letters to the Editor: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Loss Aversion4.3%This article: 5.3%Letters to the Editor: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Status Quo Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.5%Letters to the Editor: 2.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Optimism Bias9.5%This article: 3.0%Letters to the Editor: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Pessimism Bias3.0%This article: 9.6%Letters to the Editor: 6.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 8.7%Negativity Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Letters to the Editor: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error1.5%This article: 3.1%Letters to the Editor: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias3.1%This article: 1.8%Letters to the Editor: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%In-Group Bias1.8%This article: 4.4%Letters to the Editor: 1.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.4%This article: 6.8%Letters to the Editor: 4.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.7%Halo Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.8%Letters to the Editor: 1.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Recency Bias6.8%This article: 3.3%Letters to the Editor: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Primacy Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 2.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 4.4%Letters to the Editor: 1.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man4.4%This article: 7.3%Letters to the Editor: 5.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.0%Appeal to Authority7.3%This article: 5.8%Letters to the Editor: 4.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%False Dilemma5.8%This article: 3.0%Letters to the Editor: 2.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Slippery Slope3.0%This article: 2.8%Letters to the Editor: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning2.8%This article: 7.6%Letters to the Editor: 9.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.9%Hasty Generalization7.6%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.9%Letters to the Editor: 2.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Bandwagon4.9%This article: 20.2%Letters to the Editor: 13.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion20.2%This article: 5.8%Letters to the Editor: 2.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Begging the Question5.8%This article: 4.7%Letters to the Editor: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.7%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.9%Letters to the Editor: 7.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.2%Anecdotal8.9%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.5%Letters to the Editor: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.5%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%Letters to the Editor: 6.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.9%Unattributed Quote2.9%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.6%Letters to the Editor: 5.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice2.6%This article: 8.3%Letters to the Editor: 6.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.3%Indoctrination8.3%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Letters to the Editor: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Letters to the Editor: 4.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.8%

906 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers7.6%attributed speech837writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coveragePharmaceutical Product Stewardship Work Group • 32 words • 100.0% coveragePharmaceutical Product Stewardship Work Group • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageIrina Butler • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDan Vosnos • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageThomas Dupre • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coveragePhilip S. Witt • 2 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words75% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +93.4 ptsWriter: 6.6%Pharmaceutical Product Stewardship Work Group: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+56.4 ptsWriter: 5.1%Pharmaceutical Product Stewardship Work Group: 61.5%61.5%Unattributed Quote-3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Pharmaceutical Product Stewardship Work Group: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Pharmaceutical Product Stewardship Work Group: 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.