The FDA drilled into patients’ skulls for a placebo. Heidi Overton can end that era 65%

By Benjamin Johnson0%

7/11/2026, 12:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Indoctrination, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 31.1% saturation with 265 hits. Analysis detected 2,751 faulty-reasoning hits from 851 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.6% and a BS Rank of 65% (7,411 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.00% of the article peer group.

“Human life is not disposable, but a precious gift from God , with inherent worth and dignity.” 
It’s encouraging to learn that the author of those words, Dr. 
Heidi Overton, is reportedly one of three candidates under consideration to become the next commissioner of the U.S. 
Food and Drug Administration . 
The FDA’s recent turmoil was driven in part by outrage over its handling of rare disease treatments. 
Whoever inherits that agency, 30 million people living with rare diseases (half of them children) deserve to know whether they should expect meaningful reform . 
Overton built an impressive resume at a remarkably young age. 
Her experience spans medicine, public health, the White House policy shop, and think tank experience as a healthcare policy leader at America First Policy Institute. 
She managed the U.S. response to the Ebola crisis in Africa this spring, and HHS Secretary Robert F. 
Kennedy Jr. thanked both former FDA Commissioner Dr. 
Marty Makary and Overton for their roles in negotiating lower drug prices last fall. 
Overton now appears poised to become the youngest FDA commissioner in U.S. history . 
If confirmed, she would replace Makary, whose tenure Sen. 
Josh Hawley (R-MO) described as “uniquely destructive to the pro-life movement.” 
By contrast, Overton has rightly pointed out the Democratic Party’s abortion extremism and advanced an anti-abortion policy agenda. 
She has close ties to her predecessor: Makary began mentoring her 10 years ago, when she was a general surgery resident at Johns Hopkins University. 
The two collaborated on a number of peer-reviewed studies, sometimes funded by Arnold Ventures, a left-leaning organization whose structure evades financial transparency and which exercised influence in Makary’s FDA. 
He clearly saw great potential in the young physician . 
The question is whether she will carry on his legacy of setting up roadblocks to treatments for people suffering from rare diseases. 
If Overton breaks with Makary’s record on approval decisions, she could bring a clean slate to an issue begging for a clear-eyed vision. 
Overton would have an extraordinary opportunity to restore trust between the FDA and those living with rare diseases. 
But as Overton worked closely with Makary in the past, patients must question whether a change in commissioner will amount to a change in direction. 
These patients hope the next commissioner’s term is not filled with the disappointments of the past, but with gold-standard science, moral courage, and a steadfast commitment to putting patients first. 
The average person with a rare disease loses almost five years obtaining an accurate diagnosis. 
One in 4 waits more than seven. 
Yet they have often encountered more discouragement from FDA leadership, which denied them the right to avail themselves of new treatments . 
Former Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Chief Dr. 
Vinay Prasad paused access to Elevidys, a genetic treatment for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, then released it on a limited basis. 
He also rejected or took adverse actions against treatments for Hunter syndrome, advanced melanoma, Barth syndrome, Hereditary Angioedema, and Sanfilippo syndrome. 
In perhaps the worst example, Prasad ordered uniQure’s gene therapy treatment for Huntington’s Disease, AMT-130, to be tested in a study that would involve drilling through patients’ skulls and injecting the control group’s brains with a placebo. 
This record, in part, led President Donald Trump to order Prasad’s termination. 
The environment began to shift after acting FDA Chief Kyle Diamantas met with rare disease representatives in June. 
He immediately reopened uniQure’s application. 
Though the FDA rejected the use of RP1 to treat melanoma during Prasad’s last days on the job, the agency now plans to reconsider approval by Aug. 
2. 
If confirmed, Overton has an opportunity to embrace accelerated approval in limited circumstances and ensure rare disease patients have a permanent seat at the table. 
She can staff advisory commissions with ethicists and experts uniquely knowledgeable about the impact of rare disease treatments. 
That approach is more compatible with Trump’s Right to Try Act and the MAHA movement’s emphasis on informed consent than Prasad’s denials. 
It’s clearly an ethical best practice for the government to offer suffering people the right to choose experimental treatment when the alternative is 100% likelihood of early death. 
These therapies can provide immediate relief while the FDA emphasizes preventive medicine for long-term national health and wellness. 
Overton is right; her mentor was wrong. 
Life is a precious, divine gift with its own infinite value. 
The gift of life comes to us minute by minute, each second bearing inherent worth  however painful, labored, or disparaged it may be. 
WE SAVED OUR DAUGHTER OVERSEAS. 
CONGRESS CAN HELP THE NEXT FAMILY DO IT HERE 
No one should deny patients the right to claw back a few moments disease steals from them or to live their lives to the fullest on their own terms. 
The rare disease community deserves a commissioner finally willing to chart that course. 
Anything less would be more of the same. 
Benjamin Johnson is an Eastern Orthodox priest and conservative editor, journalist, and commentator. 
Follow him at @therightswriter . 
His views are his own. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.1%Benjamin Johnson: 7.1%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias14.1%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.9%Benjamin Johnson: 4.0%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic12.9%This article: 2.9%Benjamin Johnson: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.9%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.8%Benjamin Johnson: 6.9%Washington Examiner: 8.5%Framing Effect16.8%This article: 3.4%Benjamin Johnson: 0.9%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.4%This article: 4.6%Benjamin Johnson: 1.1%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.1%Benjamin Johnson: 4.6%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Optimism Bias10.1%This article: 4.5%Benjamin Johnson: 1.1%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias4.5%This article: 30.2%Benjamin Johnson: 14.5%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias30.2%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Benjamin Johnson: 1.5%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error5.9%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Benjamin Johnson: 2.6%Washington Examiner: 2.1%In-Group Bias1.5%This article: 1.3%Benjamin Johnson: 0.9%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.3%This article: 8.3%Benjamin Johnson: 5.1%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect8.3%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.5%Benjamin Johnson: 2.9%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias11.5%This article: 2.5%Benjamin Johnson: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Benjamin Johnson: 1.9%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Ad Hominem2.8%This article: 2.1%Benjamin Johnson: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Straw Man2.1%This article: 12.1%Benjamin Johnson: 4.9%Washington Examiner: 3.9%Appeal to Authority12.1%This article: 18.2%Benjamin Johnson: 8.3%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma18.2%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.9%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.2%Benjamin Johnson: 5.4%Washington Examiner: 9.0%Hasty Generalization8.2%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.1%Benjamin Johnson: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Bandwagon1.1%This article: 30.1%Benjamin Johnson: 18.9%Washington Examiner: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion30.1%This article: 10.1%Benjamin Johnson: 4.2%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Begging the Question10.1%This article: 12.7%Benjamin Johnson: 3.2%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.7%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.6%Benjamin Johnson: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof6.6%This article: 1.3%Benjamin Johnson: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature1.3%This article: 2.1%Benjamin Johnson: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division2.1%This article: 6.1%Benjamin Johnson: 1.8%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal6.1%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Benjamin Johnson: 2.4%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.0%Benjamin Johnson: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Unattributed Quote2.0%This article: 1.6%Benjamin Johnson: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection1.6%This article: 31.1%Benjamin Johnson: 9.6%Washington Examiner: 11.7%Biased Writer Voice31.1%This article: 27.5%Benjamin Johnson: 13.3%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination27.5%This article: 3.4%Benjamin Johnson: 0.9%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.4%This article: 11.9%Benjamin Johnson: 7.9%Washington Examiner: 4.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias11.9%This article: 1.6%Benjamin Johnson: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.6%

851 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers11%attributed speech757writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Hawley (R-MO) • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageVinay Prasad • 20 words • 0.0% coverageVinay Prasad • 21 words • 0.0% coverageVinay Prasad • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageKyle Diamantas • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Josh Hawley (R-MO)

100%flagged-word coverage
11 attributed words12% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +88.1 ptsWriter: 11.9%Josh Hawley (R-MO): 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-30.9 ptsWriter: 30.9%Josh Hawley (R-MO): 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-30.1 ptsWriter: 30.1%Josh Hawley (R-MO): 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%Josh Hawley (R-MO): 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Josh Hawley (R-MO): 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%Josh Hawley (R-MO): 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%Josh Hawley (R-MO): 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.