Breitbart89%

Exclusive  Shawn Carney: NIH Used Aborted Babies for Coronavirus Research Under Fauci’s Leadership 34%

By Hannah Knudsen92%

8/4/2026, 6:47:05 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Confirmation Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.4% saturation with 309 hits. Analysis detected 2,537 faulty-reasoning hits from 850 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.4% and a BS Rank of 34% (19,165 of 28,846 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.40% of the article peer group.

Exclusive  Shawn Carney: NIH Used Aborted Babies for Coronavirus Research Under Fauci’s Leadership 
The left is incapable of owning abortion and the results of it despite championing it, Shawn Carney, President of 40 Days For Life, said during an appearance on Breitbart News Daily, discussing the gruesome reality of aborted babies being used for coronavirus research. 
Host Mike Slater played a clip of Sen. 
Joni Erst (R-IA) laying out the grueling reality of what happened during the coronavirus as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) used aborted babies for research. 
“Researchers also used aborted baby body parts in mice research, and taxpayers paid for them to do that. 
NIH-funded coronavirus researcher Dr. 
Ralph Baric and his colleagues at UNC put parts of livers, thymuses, and chunks of human fetal lung that they got from aborted, almost five-month-old human babies. 
They put those parts in their research mice,” Ernst said during Fauci’s hearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs last week. 
“They disgustingly named them BLTL mice and wrote they had created a quote sandwich of aborted body parts in the mice. 
Get it, folks? 
BLT. 
A BLT sandwich. 
Your RML lab employees in Montana also ordered and used aborted baby body parts in their taxpayer-funded research, and emails show how they plan to use those mice for post-COVID work,” she continued. 
“NIH funded putting aborted babies' fingers and scalps off the heads of aborted babies and putting them into the backs of research mice. 
The scalps later grew fine baby hair in the mice. 
They even included those disgusting photos in their research paper that you funded. 
Not all of those were research on coronaviruses, but some were. 
Thankfully, the current NIH director has said no more of this,” she said. 
“Trump banned aborted medical research using aborted babies. 
Dr. 
Fauci, yes or no? 
Do you think that human aborted parts should be put into mice for coronavirus research?” 
Ernst asked, as Fauci refused to answer. 
“It is so much wrong,” Carney said, noting that President Trump banned the use of aborted babies in medical research earlier this year. 
“So the HHS did that. 
 I was at their press conference, and not only did they cite how immoral it is, obviously, but they also cited that it’s not even needed with the medical advancement that that we have today. 
So Trump, you know, banned this sort of behind the scenes, but it was definitely going on, you know, in this context. 
And God bless Joni for you know holding Fauci’s feet to the fire,” he said, observing that the left is absolutely incapable of embracing the reality of what they support. 
“This is the problem with the left. 
Why doesn’t he just say, ‘Look, abortion kills a baby, and yeah, we use the the body parts for research, for the common good. 
You know, why don’t think just own it?’ 
he asked. 
‘The left will never just own abortion, and you know they clearly didn’t in this case, and it’s hard to watch.’ 
When asked for the justification for this barbaric practice, Carney said they cite “vaccine use.” 
“…which is where we got the flu shot from an aborted baby in the late 1930s,” he said. 
“It’s that it has cells that only we have, and they can be used and harvested to advance either a vaccine or some kind of medication. 
But back then, it was  the baby was already aborted. 
It wasn’t aborted for this purpose. 
That’s sort of like an end of the weeds, you know, argument. 
But yeah, that’s what it was used for. 
And now we don’t need those, you know, sort of human cells in certain vaccines.” 
“I remember this,” host Mike Slater remarked. 
“There was there was a baby who was already aborted, and then they used  there was like a stem cell line or something. 
That’s not the right term. 
Yeah, there was like a line of cells that they continued to use for many decades, right? 
From the same aborted baby.” 
Carney responded, “Correct, and that was the term aborted baby stem cells, and they sort of obviously got rid of that term over time because it had a stigma, but that’s exactly what it was. 
It was stem cells from the aborted baby.” 
Further, Carney noted that the research Ernst was referring to involved a recently aborted five-month old baby. 
“It was a late-term abortion with a five-month-old baby, and of course, it’s hard to hear her describe it, but it’s the reality where they’re using the scalps and they’re using you know different parts of the baby and sort of bragging about it and nicknaming it a BLT. 
That was the case during COVID, and so it’s totally different than than, you know, the vaccine you know 80 years ago,” he added. 
LISTEN: 
Breitbart · Shawn Carney  August 3, 2026 
Breitbart News Daily airs weekdays on SiriusXM Patriot 125 from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. 
Eastern. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.4%Hannah Knudsen: 6.1%Breitbart: 4.3%Confirmation Bias25.4%This article: 3.1%Hannah Knudsen: 0.3%Breitbart: 0.6%Anchoring Bias3.1%This article: 9.2%Hannah Knudsen: 2.2%Breitbart: 3.5%Availability Heuristic9.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.6%Breitbart: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.2%Breitbart: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.5%Breitbart: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Hannah Knudsen: 13.9%Breitbart: 10.6%Framing Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.1%Breitbart: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.8%Hannah Knudsen: 0.3%Breitbart: 0.6%Status Quo Bias1.8%This article: 2.6%Hannah Knudsen: 0.3%Breitbart: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.8%Breitbart: 3.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Hannah Knudsen: 0.7%Breitbart: 1.6%Pessimism Bias6.7%This article: 36.4%Hannah Knudsen: 16.6%Breitbart: 9.0%Negativity Bias36.4%This article: 2.7%Hannah Knudsen: 1.2%Breitbart: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 2.0%Breitbart: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.2%Breitbart: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Hannah Knudsen: 5.1%Breitbart: 3.8%In-Group Bias8.6%This article: 11.1%Hannah Knudsen: 1.1%Breitbart: 1.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias11.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.7%Breitbart: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 1.4%Breitbart: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.2%Breitbart: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Hannah Knudsen: 1.8%Breitbart: 1.6%Recency Bias2.6%This article: 0.9%Hannah Knudsen: 0.8%Breitbart: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.9%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Hannah Knudsen: 4.5%Breitbart: 2.5%Ad Hominem9.4%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 3.9%Breitbart: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.2%Hannah Knudsen: 1.9%Breitbart: 3.6%Appeal to Authority5.2%This article: 5.5%Hannah Knudsen: 2.8%Breitbart: 2.3%False Dilemma5.5%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 3.1%Breitbart: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.4%Breitbart: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.5%Hannah Knudsen: 8.9%Breitbart: 7.3%Hasty Generalization19.5%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 1.7%Breitbart: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 1.6%Breitbart: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 30.0%Hannah Knudsen: 10.8%Breitbart: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion30.0%This article: 1.9%Hannah Knudsen: 2.5%Breitbart: 1.5%Begging the Question1.9%This article: 3.1%Hannah Knudsen: 2.0%Breitbart: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.1%Breitbart: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.4%Hannah Knudsen: 0.7%Breitbart: 0.9%Burden of Proof2.4%This article: 3.1%Hannah Knudsen: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.2%Appeal to Nature3.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 18.6%Hannah Knudsen: 1.5%Breitbart: 2.2%Anecdotal18.6%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.1%Hannah Knudsen: 1.5%Breitbart: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.1%Breitbart: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.0%Breitbart: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.2%Breitbart: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.1%Breitbart: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.4%Hannah Knudsen: 1.9%Breitbart: 2.4%Unattributed Quote13.4%This article: 10.1%Hannah Knudsen: 2.1%Breitbart: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection10.1%This article: 22.1%Hannah Knudsen: 10.9%Breitbart: 6.6%Biased Writer Voice22.1%This article: 18.5%Hannah Knudsen: 2.3%Breitbart: 1.6%Indoctrination18.5%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.4%Breitbart: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.6%Hannah Knudsen: 11.1%Breitbart: 6.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knudsen: 0.1%Breitbart: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

850 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers89%attributed speech91writer words
Selected voice

Shawn Carney

96%flagged-word coverage
450 attributed words59% of attributed speech42% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.9 ptsWriter: 30.8%Shawn Carney: 26.9%26.9%Politically Right Leaning +22.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Shawn Carney: 22.9%22.9%Indoctrination+20.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Shawn Carney: 20.9%20.9%Unattributed Quote+7.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Shawn Carney: 7.8%7.8%

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.