What are the latest tick-borne diseases in Canada? ⁠75%

5/28/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Negativity Bias, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 61.8% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 359 faulty-reasoning hits from 110 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67% and a BS Rank of ⁠75% (5,363 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.70% of the article peer group.

As ticks and tick-borne diseases rise across Canada due to warmer weather, experts are warning about two invasive species: the lone star and Asian longhorned ticks. 
Entomologist Jade Savage, creator and director of the eTick monitoring platform, says authorities are closely tracking them. 
In the meantime, she gives practical steps we can take to reduce the risk of tick bites. 
For our episode on anaplasmosis, an emerging tick-borne disease in Canada, click here. 
For transcripts of The Dose, please visit: lnk.to/dose-transcripts. 
Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. 
For more episodes of this podcast, click this link. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.6%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic23.6%This article: 0.0%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 15.5%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias15.5%This article: 0.0%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.6%CBC: 5.6%Negativity Bias23.6%This article: 0.0%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%CBC: 3.7%Halo Effect15.5%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.8%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias11.8%This article: 15.5%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect15.5%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 39.1%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority39.1%This article: 0.0%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 4.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 23.6%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.6%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 15.5%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof15.5%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.5%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote15.5%This article: 15.5%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection15.5%This article: 23.6%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice23.6%This article: 15.5%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination15.5%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 61.8%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…61.8%

110 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker31%attributed speech76writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageJade Savage • 17 words • 100.0% coverageJade Savage • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jade Savage

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words100% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%45.0%90.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -89.5 ptsWriter: 89.5%Jade Savage: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+50.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jade Savage: 50.0%50.0%Quote-first Misdirection+50.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jade Savage: 50.0%50.0%Indoctrination+50.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jade Savage: 50.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.2 ptsWriter: 34.2%Jade Savage: 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.