‘There’s a Little Maggot’: Viral Video Shows What’s Really Hiding in Wild-Picked Cherries 45%

By Sayantan47%

7/8/2026, 11:51:57 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Appeal to Emotion, and Overconfidence Bias, with Burden of Proof as the most egregious example at 37.3% saturation with 172 hits. Analysis detected 1,591 faulty-reasoning hits from 461 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.8% and a BS Rank of 45% (12,034 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.00% of the article peer group.

A video shared to X by the account @WallStreetApes showed an unidentified woman demonstrating how wild-picked cherries can contain maggots. 
"Did you know that cherries, if you pick them wild, have maggots in them?" 
she said, directing attention to a bowl of cherries soaking in water mixed with bicarbonate of soda. 
She pointed out small white filaments emerging from the fruit as she spoke. 
"Can you see all these little white sort of threads coming out of these cherries? 
You just pull them out and then there's a little maggot," she said. 
She added that the cherries remained safe to eat despite the presence of the larvae, and credited the method to another creator, thanking them for sharing it. 
"They're still absolutely fine to eat, but my goodness. 
I saw this from Louise's Kitchen Garden," she said, thanking the creator for sharing the method. 
The X user @WallStreetApes, who shared the clip, followed with an explanation of why the maggots appear in unsprayed fruit. 
"The reason why cherries have these maggots in them is because of the cherry fruit fly," the account said, adding that wild and organic cherries "will not be sprayed with a ton of pesticides," allowing the larvae to survive. 
They recommended a similar removal method using a saltwater or vinegar soak. 
"If you soak the cherries or any of these berries in like a cold water with some salt or with some vinegar, it will make the maggots come out," the account said, adding that eating the fruit without soaking it poses no danger, though many people find the presence of larvae unappealing. 
Reactions to the video leaned largely toward humor rather than concern. 
One commenter wrote, "Oh no, u might eat a bug, meanwhile Gates is making bugs for protein lol." 
A different commenter agreed with the overall sentiment, writing, "All produce that has not been scientifically farmed with timely pesticide applications is infested with one type of larvae or another." 
The account also showed a separate container of blueberries affected in the same way. 
"This is not just restricted to cherries. 
As you can see, these same things happen with blueberries," the account said. 
One other commenter compared the case to seafood, writing, "If you could see the worms in your fish, you'd never eat it again. 
Fortunately, they are harmless. 
And delicious." 
Another user offered a lighthearted take, "Extra protein for the growing boys who didn't realize it. 
Lol. 
Great advice, though lady." 
The Daily Dot was unable to independently verify the claims made in this video. 
The details above reflect the account as shared on X by @WallStreetApes. 
The identity of the woman in the video could not be confirmed. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.4%Sayantan: 6.9%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias20.4%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 1.4%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%Sayantan: 6.4%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic15.2%This article: 14.3%Sayantan: 1.2%dailydot.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic14.3%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 24.1%Sayantan: 3.2%dailydot.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias24.1%This article: 9.1%Sayantan: 3.6%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect9.1%This article: 3.0%Sayantan: 0.9%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.1%Sayantan: 0.8%dailydot.com: 1.2%Optimism Bias12.1%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 1.9%dailydot.com: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.1%Sayantan: 11.8%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias19.1%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 1.3%dailydot.com: 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 2.9%dailydot.com: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 1.5%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect0.9%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Sayantan: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect3.5%This article: 2.6%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 1.6%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.8%Sayantan: 3.4%dailydot.com: 1.9%Appeal to Authority17.8%This article: 11.3%Sayantan: 2.2%dailydot.com: 2.2%False Dilemma11.3%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 30.8%Sayantan: 16.4%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization30.8%This article: 5.0%Sayantan: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring5.0%This article: 3.9%Sayantan: 1.1%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon3.9%This article: 24.7%Sayantan: 4.7%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion24.7%This article: 2.8%Sayantan: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 8.5%Sayantan: 2.1%dailydot.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.5%This article: 3.9%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque3.9%This article: 37.3%Sayantan: 5.1%dailydot.com: 1.9%Burden of Proof37.3%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 23.9%Sayantan: 14.3%dailydot.com: 7.4%Anecdotal23.9%This article: 6.5%Sayantan: 0.7%dailydot.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman6.5%This article: 9.1%Sayantan: 2.4%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.1%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.6%Sayantan: 7.9%dailydot.com: 5.1%Unattributed Quote5.6%This article: 13.0%Sayantan: 4.0%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection13.0%This article: 2.8%Sayantan: 2.1%dailydot.com: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice2.8%This article: 11.3%Sayantan: 0.4%dailydot.com: 1.6%Indoctrination11.3%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Sayantan: 0.6%dailydot.com: 1.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.6%

461 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker34%attributed speech304writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage@WallStreetApes • 20 words • 0.0% coverage@WallStreetApes • 39 words • 0.0% coverage@WallStreetApes • 12 words • 100.0% coverage@WallStreetApes • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverage@WallStreetApes • 14 words • 0.0% coverage@WallStreetApes • 7 words • 0.0% coverage@WallStreetApes • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

@WallStreetApes

100%flagged-word coverage
157 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Indoctrination+33.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%@WallStreetApes: 33.1%33.1%Quote-first Misdirection-7.2 ptsWriter: 15.5%@WallStreetApes: 8.3%8.3%Unattributed Quote-8.6 ptsWriter: 8.6%@WallStreetApes: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +7.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%@WallStreetApes: 7.6%7.6%Biased Writer Voice-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%@WallStreetApes: 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.