Senators press CDC nominee on cyclosporiasis outbreak, vaccine policy 37%

7/16/2026, 4:09:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 21.6% saturation with 118 hits. Analysis detected 814 faulty-reasoning hits from 547 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.8% and a BS Rank of 37% (13,016 of 20,515 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 63.40% of the article peer group.

Erica Schwartz, President Donald J. 
Trump’s nominee to be the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, faced questions on Wednesday relating to vaccine hesitancy and the ongoing cyclospora outbreak, during her confirmation hearing with the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 
Sen. 
Patty Murray (D-WA) questioned Schwartz, a deputy surgeon general during Trump’s first term, about the role of the CDC in tracking outbreaks like the current cyclospora outbreak. 
Cyclospora is one of eight pathogens the CDC tracks through its Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, also known as FoodNet, a partnership among government agencies and 10 state health departments. 
In July 2025, the agency made reporting optional for Cyclospora and five other pathogens. 
“You are a public health expert. 
Is there any scientific or medical justification for CDC having eliminated mandatory reporting of that parasite?” 
Murray asked Schwartz. 
Schwartz replied that she was unaware that the FoodNet monitoring was made optional in 2025, while acknowledging that cyclosporiasis is “a terrible, terrible disease.” 
When asked by Murray if she would commit to reinstating mandatory reporting of cyclospora if confirmed, Schwartz replied, “You have my commitment to work with your staff and work with the CDC scientists to understand what can be done, why did it stop, and what can we do moving forward.” 
Sen. 
Bill Cassidy (R-LA), chairman of the Senate health committee, mentioned in his opening statement that Schwartz will need to rebuild public trust as it relates to ongoing and future public health issues, including the cyclosporiasis outbreak. 
Since May, the CDC has been tracking an outbreak of cyclosporiasis, a parasitic infection caused by Cyclospora that can cause gastrointestinal symptoms like watery diarrhea, according to the agency’s web page on the outbreak. 
The outbreak has led to 1,645 confirmed cases of the infection in 34 states, with an additional 5,100 cases that require further analysis. 
In a press call on July 14, Gwen Biggerstaff, deputy director of the CDC’s Division of Foodborne, Waterborne, and Environmental Diseases, told reporters that the goal of FoodNet is to “look at trends over time to inform our policy and prevention activities.” 
The 2025 changes mean “FoodNet sites are no longer required to report FoodNet-specific data for cases of cyclosporiasis. 
Instead, they continue to participate in national surveillance.” 
In 2025 the agency also disbanded the Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, according to Politico. 
Recent reports have questioned whether the CDC cuts, including the scaling back of FoodNet, have impacted the agency’s ability to deal with outbreaks of cyclosporiasis and other infectious diseases. 
The CDC did not respond to C&EN questions about cyclosporiasis disease monitoring or the FoodNet program by publication time. 
Republicans and Democrats on the committee also asked Schwartz about her stance on vaccines and how she would handle political pressure from the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. 
Kennedy Jr., on his vaccine agenda. 
The senators cited former CDC director Susan Monarez’s disputes with the health secretary that led to her eventual firing. 
“We need a CDC director that will actually stand up to crazy, stupid things being said that undermine faith in immunization,” Cassidy said. 
Schwartz reiterated throughout the hearing that she will “never betray the science.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.4%Chemical & Engineering News: 3.9%Confirmation Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Chemical & Engineering News: 5.7%Availability Heuristic9.5%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.5%Chemical & Engineering News: 1.2%Hindsight Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Chemical & Engineering News: 4.6%Framing Effect13.9%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.1%Chemical & Engineering News: 10.4%Negativity Bias16.1%This article: 4.4%Chemical & Engineering News: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Chemical & Engineering News: 1.8%Halo Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Chemical & Engineering News: 1.8%Recency Bias5.5%This article: 4.9%Chemical & Engineering News: 1.6%Primacy Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Chemical & Engineering News: 4.2%Ad Hominem4.2%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.6%Chemical & Engineering News: 8.7%Appeal to Authority21.6%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 5.3%Chemical & Engineering News: 1.8%Red Herring5.3%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.2%Chemical & Engineering News: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion4.2%This article: 2.9%Chemical & Engineering News: 2.0%Begging the Question2.9%This article: 11.7%Chemical & Engineering News: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.7%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.6%Chemical & Engineering News: 2.2%Burden of Proof6.6%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.1%Chemical & Engineering News: 3.0%Middle Ground9.1%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.5%Chemical & Engineering News: 1.2%Unattributed Quote3.5%This article: 7.1%Chemical & Engineering News: 2.7%Quote-first Misdirection7.1%This article: 2.9%Chemical & Engineering News: 1.0%Biased Writer Voice2.9%This article: 2.2%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.7%Indoctrination2.2%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chemical & Engineering News: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

547 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers42%attributed speech317writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coveragePatty Murray • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coveragePatty Murray • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 24 words • 0.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageGwen Biggerstaff • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 23 words • 100.0% coverageErica Schwartz • 12 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bill Cassidy

100%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words26% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Quote-first Misdirection+39.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Bill Cassidy: 39.0%39.0%Unattributed Quote-6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Bill Cassidy: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%Bill Cassidy: 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.