The peptide boom: how the US got hooked on unregulated ‘miracle’ drugs | On the Ground ⁠78%

By Adam Gabbatt⁠0% Tom Silverstone⁠0% Katie Arnold⁠0%

6/16/2026, 9:16:37 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 104 hits. Analysis detected 700 faulty-reasoning hits from 104 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (4,828 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.90% of the article peer group.

Across the US, thousands of people are injecting themselves with unregulated peptides in pursuit of weight loss, muscle growth and younger-looking skin. 
Despite being labelled 'not for human consumption', the substances are readily available online and have surged in popularity among people disillusioned by traditional healthcare. 
To find out why so many Americans are willing to risk unknown side-effects for the promise of a quick fix, Adam Gabbatt meets the users and influencers driving the peptide boom, and investigates what's really inside some of these so-called 'miracle' drugs 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 2.7%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 1.1%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.2%Adam Gabbatt: 4.7%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic21.2%This article: 21.2%Adam Gabbatt: 1.5%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic21.2%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.5%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 3.8%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 78.8%Adam Gabbatt: 10.4%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect78.8%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 1.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 23.1%Adam Gabbatt: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias23.1%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 1.5%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 40.4%Adam Gabbatt: 5.9%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias40.4%This article: 100.0%Adam Gabbatt: 25.1%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias100.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.5%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 2.4%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 1.3%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 2.5%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.2%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 1.4%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 3.9%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 23.1%Adam Gabbatt: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma23.1%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.4%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 61.5%Adam Gabbatt: 12.9%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization61.5%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 40.4%Adam Gabbatt: 6.5%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion40.4%This article: 40.4%Adam Gabbatt: 2.0%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question40.4%This article: 23.1%Adam Gabbatt: 4.0%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.1%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.9%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 21.2%Adam Gabbatt: 4.8%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal21.2%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.4%Adam Gabbatt: 2.3%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.4%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 23.1%Adam Gabbatt: 2.8%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote23.1%This article: 40.4%Adam Gabbatt: 3.1%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection40.4%This article: 100.0%Adam Gabbatt: 21.1%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice100.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 2.3%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 7.1%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 0.9%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

104 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker40%attributed speech62writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Gabbatt • 42 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Adam Gabbatt

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Adam Gabbatt: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+0.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Adam Gabbatt: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-38.7 ptsWriter: 38.7%Adam Gabbatt: 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.