Brandi Glanville sent to urgent care after taking medical advice from TikTok following 'life saving' boob job ⁠54%

By J. Peterson⁠0%

4/13/2026, 4:44:26 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Confirmation Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 25.9% saturation with 158 hits. Analysis detected 1,290 faulty-reasoning hits from 610 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (10,134 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.70% of the article peer group.

Brandi Glanville recently landed in the hospital after suffering yet another serious health setback. 
The former Real Housewives of Beverly Hills star, 53, revealed on her podcast that she turned to an unorthodox method to try and cure a cold that she caught off her son Jake, 18. 
While perusing TikTok, Glanville decided to stick a clove of garlic inside of her ear after seeing a video claiming that it can help to clear up your sinuses. 
'It really went down further and I had to go to urgent care the next day and get it taken out,' she confessed on Brandi Glanville Unfiltered. 
'I was just trying to clear my sinuses. 
It’s online. 
Don’t listen to people online or TikTok or Instagram or Twitter or Facebook,' she added. 
Sticking a clove of garlic inside your nose is a viral home remedy that's said to help clear up the sinuses. 
Glanville said that she originally put the clove in her nostril, but then had to move it to her ear after it started burning her skin. 
'It was burning too much so I moved it to my ear. 
It was like burning my skin because I’d just lasered it,' she said. 
Doctors do not recommend putting garlic inside of your ears, nose, or anywhere else other than one's mouth. 
Despite the setback, Glanville appears to be doing better these days after undergoing a 'life-saving' surgery to remove her ruptured breast implants. 
Earlier this year, the mother-of-two went under the knife with Dr. 
Ariel Ourian to replace her leaky, ruptured implants – which she'd had for around 18 years. 
Glanville previously claimed that her face had been deformed by 'parasites' that she caught in Morocco in 2023 while filming The Real Housewives Ultimate Girls Trip: Ex-Wives Club 2. 
The infection led to an extreme facial disfigurement, which Glanville spent around $200,000 trying to fix. 
Last year she was informed that her ruptured breast implants had been blocking her lymph nodes, which was preventing her face from healing from the infection. 
Speaking to TMZ about the ordeal, Glanville explained that she 'definitely had a parasite,' but that her implants were also 'completely ruptured' which had left her with silicone all over her lymph nodes. 
She also spoke to In Touch Weekly, and said that a technician informed her that, 'whatever's going on in your face, it can't drain because your lymph nodes are clogged with silicone'. 
Glanville added, 'It's something that I could die from if I hadn't figured it out.' 
The reality star underwent the surgery in early February with Dr. 
Ourian, who gave her new implants after removing the old ones. 
Although Glanville already feels much better since the surgery, she still insists that a parasite is the main cause of her many health issues. 
'I'm paying out of pocket to see specialists, infectious disease doctors, you know, rheumatologists, like every doctor you can think of, I saw,' she shared on the I Do Part 2 podcast. 
'I went to 21 doctors and I'm telling you, $200,000 ... the people at my insurance … let's just say sucks.' 
Glanville says that her ongoing health battle has destroyed her personal and professional life. 
'I haven't had sex in three years. 
The whole time I've been sick because I've lost my confidence,' she explained. 
'And I felt like I lost everything at once in a weird way. 
Like I lost my job, I lost my reputation, I lost my looks.' 
Glanville was last seen on TV in season one of Peacock's The Traitors in 2023. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.9%J. Peterson: 3.6%Daily Mail: 3.7%Confirmation Bias13.9%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.8%Daily Mail: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%J. Peterson: 2.8%Daily Mail: 3.5%Availability Heuristic10.7%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 1.7%Daily Mail: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.6%J. Peterson: 0.8%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.5%Daily Mail: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%J. Peterson: 8.3%Daily Mail: 9.1%Framing Effect11.1%This article: 3.4%J. Peterson: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.3%Loss Aversion3.4%This article: 2.5%J. Peterson: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.4%Status Quo Bias2.5%This article: 7.9%J. Peterson: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect7.9%This article: 3.6%J. Peterson: 1.7%Daily Mail: 2.3%Optimism Bias3.6%This article: 4.6%J. Peterson: 1.3%Daily Mail: 1.2%Pessimism Bias4.6%This article: 22.8%J. Peterson: 17.5%Daily Mail: 12.8%Negativity Bias22.8%This article: 6.7%J. Peterson: 1.9%Daily Mail: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias6.7%This article: 6.4%J. Peterson: 1.3%Daily Mail: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error6.4%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.1%Daily Mail: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 1.4%Daily Mail: 4.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%J. Peterson: 1.2%Daily Mail: 1.6%Recency Bias2.3%This article: 1.8%J. Peterson: 0.5%Daily Mail: 0.5%Primacy Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 1.2%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 2.5%J. Peterson: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man2.5%This article: 12.5%J. Peterson: 4.5%Daily Mail: 4.0%Appeal to Authority12.5%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 1.1%Daily Mail: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.4%J. Peterson: 3.9%Daily Mail: 4.3%Hasty Generalization7.4%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 1.2%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 22.6%J. Peterson: 5.6%Daily Mail: 7.6%Appeal to Emotion22.6%This article: 5.2%J. Peterson: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.6%Begging the Question5.2%This article: 25.9%J. Peterson: 3.1%Daily Mail: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)25.9%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.8%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.0%J. Peterson: 4.7%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal8.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.4%J. Peterson: 1.3%Daily Mail: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.4%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.8%J. Peterson: 3.7%Daily Mail: 3.8%Unattributed Quote4.8%This article: 4.4%J. Peterson: 2.7%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection4.4%This article: 12.0%J. Peterson: 10.2%Daily Mail: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice12.0%This article: 2.5%J. Peterson: 1.8%Daily Mail: 0.8%Indoctrination2.5%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%J. Peterson: 0.6%Daily Mail: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

610 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker42%attributed speech356writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 27 words • 100.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 12 words • 0.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 33 words • 0.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 32 words • 0.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 32 words • 0.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 7 words • 0.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 13 words • 0.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 13 words • 0.0% coverageBrandi Glanville • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Brandi Glanville

95%flagged-word coverage
254 attributed words100% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.5 ptsWriter: 20.5%Brandi Glanville: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+10.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brandi Glanville: 10.6%10.6%Unattributed Quote-8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Brandi Glanville: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+5.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brandi Glanville: 5.9%5.9%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.