Should you get tested for this dangerous kind of cholesterol? ⁠100%

By Matt Galloway⁠0%

5/7/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Loss Aversion, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 73.8% saturation with 59 hits. Analysis detected 472 faulty-reasoning hits from 80 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠100% (33 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 99.90% of the article peer group.

Darren Ali was a healthy 45 year old when he had a massive heart attack that could have killed him. 
He wants everyone to learn from his experience and get tested for the cholesterol Lipoprotein(a) because it could save their lives. 
And we'll hear from a doctor about how this cholesterol can cause unexpected heart attacks among younger and otherwise healthy people -- and why new guidance recommends getting tested. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 26.3%Matt Galloway: 2.9%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias26.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.2%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 25.0%Matt Galloway: 8.0%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic25.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.3%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.4%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 48.8%Matt Galloway: 14.8%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect48.8%This article: 38.8%Matt Galloway: 1.0%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion38.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.5%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.4%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 26.3%Matt Galloway: 5.7%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias26.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.5%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 73.8%Matt Galloway: 13.0%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias73.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.3%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.2%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.1%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 8.4%CBC: 3.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.6%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.7%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 36.3%Matt Galloway: 11.5%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority36.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.4%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 36.3%Matt Galloway: 0.6%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning36.3%This article: 26.3%Matt Galloway: 7.4%CBC: 4.8%Hasty Generalization26.3%This article: 36.3%Matt Galloway: 0.7%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring36.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 2.7%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 38.8%Matt Galloway: 5.9%CBC: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion38.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.6%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.5%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 26.3%Matt Galloway: 0.4%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof26.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.5%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 25.0%Matt Galloway: 5.8%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal25.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.8%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.2%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 36.3%Matt Galloway: 1.0%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection36.3%This article: 37.5%Matt Galloway: 15.9%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice37.5%This article: 26.3%Matt Galloway: 6.0%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination26.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 1.5%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Galloway: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 26.3%Matt Galloway: 4.8%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…26.3%

80 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker51%attributed speech39writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageDarren Ali • 20 words • 100.0% coverageDarren Ali • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Darren Ali

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Quote-first Misdirection-74.4 ptsWriter: 74.4%Darren Ali: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+51.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Darren Ali: 51.2%51.2%Attempt to Sell a Product +51.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Darren Ali: 51.2%51.2%Biased Writer Voice+23.1 ptsWriter: 25.6%Darren Ali: 48.8%48.8%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.