STAT51%

Predicting biotech clinical trials and a new Alzheimer’s drug controversy 73%

By Elaine Chen13% Adam Feuerstein46% Allison DeAngelis27%

7/16/2026, 8:06:43 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 30.7% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 230 faulty-reasoning hits from 166 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.1% and a BS Rank of 73% (4,568 of 16,793 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.80% of the article peer group.

On this week’s episode of “The Readout LOUD”: The Kalshi prediction markets are coming for biotech, plus the controversy over an experimental Alzheimer’s disease treatment from Biogen. 
Kalshi, the maker of prediction markets, announced this week that it is expanding into biotech. 
Soon, you’ll be able to make bets on the outcomes of clinical trials and FDA drug reviews. 
Is that a good thing? 
We’ll discuss the issues with Jonathan Kimmelman, a bioethicist at McGill University who has researched prediction in clinical trials. 
We also chat about Biogen and its tau-lowering drug for Alzheimer’s. 
A mid-stage clinical trial presented this week showed the drug reduced levels of the tau protein and slowed the rate of cognitive decline in patients. 
But the data also raised a lot of questions that left experts and investors debating the drug’s future. 
Be sure to sign up for “The Readout LOUD” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
15.1%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
16.3%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
10.2%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
27.1%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
10.8%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
11.4%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
10.8%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
3%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
3%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
30.7%

166 words analyzed.

Analysis

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