Dog hospitalized with 106 degree fever after eating meth on walk in Hollywood 53%

By Rachel Dobkin54%

4/24/2026, 3:15:57 PM

Topics: Meth, Dog, Hollywood
Keywords: Meth, Dog, Hollywood

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Anecdotal, and Negativity Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 29% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 571 faulty-reasoning hits from 345 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.9% and a BS Rank of 53% (10,305 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.90% of the article peer group.

A dog has been hospitalized with a 106-degree fever after eating meth on a walk in North Hollywood. 
Nikolas and Jenifer Dorhoutmees took their pup, Uni, for a walk around their neighborhood this week and it ended in an emergency trip to the vet. 
Uni fell sick soon after sniffing around a local park. 
“Drooling, diarrhea, all of it,” Jenifer told KTLA. 
“We decided to start bringing her back home. 
We checked her gums  her gums were white.” 
The Australian cattle mix was rushed to the vet, where Jenifer insisted she get a drug test after remembering a similar story of a dog acting strange after eating meth. 
Another North Hollywood resident, Karla Vicuña, and her husband rushed their dog, Atreyu, to the vet after the German Shepherd Husky mix accidentally ate meth. 
“His heart rate was really elevated and he was panting a lot and couldn’t settle down,” she told KTLA last November. 
“He had a 103-degree fever.” 
Uni’s drug test came back positive for methamphetamine and the vet staff helped bring her high temperature down. 
“They said her temperature was 106 degrees, which, anything at 106 and above could cause brain damage, organ failure,” Jenifer said. 
“They were working for about 45 minutes to an hour trying to get her temperature to drop.” 
Both Atreyu and Uni survived their accidental meth exposure. 
“If even one person is just a little bit more mindful and it saves their dog from being in this critical condition, this interview was more than enough,” Nikolas said. 
ASPCA Poison Control staff helped more than 334,000 animals with exposures to toxic substances, plants and poisons last year, according to a March press release. 
Over-the-counter medications remained the top animal toxin on the ASPCA Poison Control’s list in 2025. 
The easily accessible drugs accounted for 16.9 percent of all the exposures that poison control staff helped with. 
Recreational drugs, including marijuana and hallucinogenic mushrooms, placed 10th on ASPCA’s list for the fourth year in a row. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.7%Rachel Dobkin: 1.8%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Rachel Dobkin: 2.5%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic13.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Rachel Dobkin: 2.9%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias7.2%This article: 13.9%Rachel Dobkin: 8.5%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect13.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.3%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Rachel Dobkin: 2.7%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.0%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%Rachel Dobkin: 9.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.9%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.6%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.9%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.7%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Rachel Dobkin: 1.3%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.9%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.2%Rachel Dobkin: 2.9%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority23.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.1%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 3.1%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 5.9%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.8%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.9%Rachel Dobkin: 2.1%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.4%Rachel Dobkin: 1.3%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal17.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.2%Rachel Dobkin: 1.8%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 29.0%Rachel Dobkin: 3.3%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote29.0%This article: 2.3%Rachel Dobkin: 1.6%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 6.1%Rachel Dobkin: 7.9%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice6.1%This article: 8.7%Rachel Dobkin: 0.8%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination8.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.6%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

345 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers34%attributed speech226writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJenifer Dorhoutmees • 8 words • 100.0% coverageJenifer Dorhoutmees • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJenifer Dorhoutmees • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageKarla Vicuña • 21 words • 100.0% coverageKarla Vicuña • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJenifer Dorhoutmees • 21 words • 100.0% coverageJenifer Dorhoutmees • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageNikolas Dorhoutmees • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nikolas Dorhoutmees

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words25% of attributed speech56% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Nikolas Dorhoutmees: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%Nikolas Dorhoutmees: 0.0%0.0%

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.