The Blaze⁠86%

EXPOSED: Bill Maher calls out Fauci for trying to rewrite COVID history ⁠55%

By BlazeTV Staff⁠95%

8/5/2026, 4:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 51.1% saturation with 181 hits. Analysis detected 1,164 faulty-reasoning hits from 354 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠55% (13,368 of 29,143 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.10% of the article peer group.

Fauci thought we would forget; now he’s desperately trying to rewrite history. 
The infectious disease “expert” has shifted his story on gain-of-function research and the lab leak theory — but longtime Democrat Bill Maher isn’t letting him off the hook. 
“He was caught in actual lies,” Maher said. 
“He was telling people — and the big issue to me is the origin of this, which is very important. 
How did it start? 
And he was telling people up front when it first began, ‘It was from the wet markets. 
That’s a conspiracy theory if you say it escaped from the lab.’” 
Maher pointed out that the release of Fauci’s diary by Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has proven that he “knew better,” and he blames not only Fauci but the extremely partisan split on how to handle the pandemic. 
“If we weren’t so partisan, we could just say gain-of-function research,” he said. 
“Obama told him not to do it. 
I would always have said don’t do it. 
But it’s a viable debate. 
It’s a reasonable debate. 
Should we soup up something that’s bad, this bacteria, to study it?” 
“We could have had that debate in a rational way,” he continued. 
“We didn’t want to do that because why? 
Because we make everything about race.” 
Maher recalled that during the pandemic, no one was allowed to say it “escaped from the lab because that was the racist point of view” and would mean “the entire Asian continent would have been somehow complicit in this because it escaped.” 
“It was ridiculous, but that is where they went,” he added. 
“Welcome to reality. 
Seriously, welcome to some common sense,” BlazeTV host Pat Gray comments on “Pat Gray Unleashed.” 
“He’s starting to see the Democrat Party for what it is,” he adds. 
Want more from Pat Gray? 
To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.1%BlazeTV Staff: 7.4%Blaze Media: 5.1%Confirmation Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 4.8%Blaze Media: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.6%Blaze Media: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 10.5%BlazeTV Staff: 1.2%Blaze Media: 0.6%Hindsight Bias10.5%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 3.0%Blaze Media: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.7%BlazeTV Staff: 9.7%Blaze Media: 8.5%Framing Effect16.7%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.8%BlazeTV Staff: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.4%Optimism Bias13.8%This article: 3.4%BlazeTV Staff: 2.6%Blaze Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias3.4%This article: 51.1%BlazeTV Staff: 9.3%Blaze Media: 9.1%Negativity Bias51.1%This article: 2.3%BlazeTV Staff: 1.2%Blaze Media: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias2.3%This article: 1.7%BlazeTV Staff: 1.2%Blaze Media: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error1.7%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%BlazeTV Staff: 4.4%Blaze Media: 2.4%In-Group Bias15.5%This article: 11.9%BlazeTV Staff: 3.9%Blaze Media: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 5.4%Blaze Media: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.8%Blaze Media: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.7%Blaze Media: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%BlazeTV Staff: 0.8%Blaze Media: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%BlazeTV Staff: 1.9%Blaze Media: 2.4%Ad Hominem7.9%This article: 15.3%BlazeTV Staff: 3.3%Blaze Media: 1.2%Straw Man15.3%This article: 2.0%BlazeTV Staff: 3.5%Blaze Media: 3.1%Appeal to Authority2.0%This article: 7.1%BlazeTV Staff: 3.8%Blaze Media: 2.3%False Dilemma7.1%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.5%Blaze Media: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.6%BlazeTV Staff: 13.4%Blaze Media: 7.7%Hasty Generalization20.6%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.7%BlazeTV Staff: 1.5%Blaze Media: 0.8%Bandwagon3.7%This article: 22.0%BlazeTV Staff: 11.6%Blaze Media: 7.7%Appeal to Emotion22.0%This article: 5.6%BlazeTV Staff: 1.6%Blaze Media: 1.3%Begging the Question5.6%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 2.4%Blaze Media: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.5%BlazeTV Staff: 1.2%Blaze Media: 0.9%Burden of Proof10.5%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 1.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.8%BlazeTV Staff: 6.8%Blaze Media: 2.5%Anecdotal4.8%This article: 4.2%BlazeTV Staff: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.2%No True Scotsman4.2%This article: 2.3%BlazeTV Staff: 2.1%Blaze Media: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.3%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.4%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Middle Ground1.4%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.6%Blaze Media: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.6%BlazeTV Staff: 2.7%Blaze Media: 2.5%Unattributed Quote18.6%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 2.7%Blaze Media: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 25.1%BlazeTV Staff: 10.2%Blaze Media: 9.0%Biased Writer Voice25.1%This article: 15.5%BlazeTV Staff: 7.1%Blaze Media: 3.9%Indoctrination15.5%This article: 0.0%BlazeTV Staff: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%BlazeTV Staff: 11.5%Blaze Media: 6.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.7%This article: 11.3%BlazeTV Staff: 6.1%Blaze Media: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.3%

354 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers56%attributed speech154writer words
Selected voice

Pat Gray

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words7.5% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+74.0 ptsWriter: 26.0%Pat Gray: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-57.8 ptsWriter: 57.8%Pat Gray: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -26.0 ptsWriter: 26.0%Pat Gray: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%Pat Gray: 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.