I Made RFK Jr.’s Salmon Cakes. They Were Bad. ⁠48%

By River Page⁠74%

8/6/2026, 6:38:28 PM

Topics: Health, Cooking, Food
Keywords: Health, Cooking, Food

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Negativity Bias, and Anecdotal, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 28.8% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 436 faulty-reasoning hits from 219 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠48% (16,733 of 32,076 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.20% of the article peer group.

Wednesday, 3 p.m. 
I was wandering aimlessly around a dingy South Bronx grocery store, desperately trying to find “nutritional yeast,” whatever that is. 
I looked down at the YouTube video that had been playing on my phone since I got here. 
“And there had been a war on saturated fats for almost 70 years,” Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary Robert F. 
Kennedy Jr. croaked through my AirPods. 
“The government had been lying to us and telling us that protein caused heart attacks.” 
Emblazoned onto Kennedy’s apron—and the apron of the man awkwardly standing beside him, celebrity chef Andrew Gruel—was the title of our government’s new cooking series, <em>The Real Food Show</em>. 
This was the inaugural episode, which came out last week. 
The aim of <em>The Real Food Show</em>, according to the HHS website, is “to make healthy eating practical, approachable, and affordable.” 
Every recipe is based on the new <em>Dietary Guidelines for Americans</em>, which were released last year, turning the food pyramid upside down. 
HHS says these recipes are meant to be “easy,” and “budget friendly” at less than $5 per serving “whenever possible.” 
The debut recipe? 
Crispy salmon cakes with an apple, white bean, and greens salad. 
All that for less than $5 a serving? 
In this economy? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.8%River Page: 3.6%The FP: 4.8%Confirmation Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%River Page: 1.8%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 5.0%River Page: 3.1%The FP: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.7%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%River Page: 9.7%The FP: 8.5%Framing Effect9.6%This article: 9.1%River Page: 1.2%The FP: 0.4%Loss Aversion9.1%This article: 1.4%River Page: 0.2%The FP: 0.4%Status Quo Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.7%The FP: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%River Page: 0.9%The FP: 1.6%Pessimism Bias5.0%This article: 16.0%River Page: 11.1%The FP: 9.2%Negativity Bias16.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 2.5%The FP: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 1.5%The FP: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 2.3%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%River Page: 2.0%The FP: 1.8%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 10.0%River Page: 3.6%The FP: 0.9%Primacy Effect10.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.2%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 28.8%River Page: 7.5%The FP: 3.1%Appeal to Authority28.8%This article: 1.4%River Page: 0.5%The FP: 2.3%False Dilemma1.4%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.7%River Page: 16.1%The FP: 8.0%Hasty Generalization3.7%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.6%River Page: 5.6%The FP: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion9.6%This article: 6.8%River Page: 0.9%The FP: 1.1%Begging the Question6.8%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 10.5%River Page: 6.9%The FP: 3.3%Anecdotal10.5%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.0%River Page: 1.3%The FP: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.2%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.6%River Page: 4.4%The FP: 2.2%Unattributed Quote9.6%This article: 9.6%River Page: 3.8%The FP: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection9.6%This article: 5.5%River Page: 20.9%The FP: 13.8%Biased Writer Voice5.5%This article: 6.8%River Page: 0.9%The FP: 2.3%Indoctrination6.8%This article: 0.0%River Page: 0.0%The FP: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%River Page: 10.7%The FP: 2.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 18.7%River Page: 2.4%The FP: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…18.7%

219 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker19%attributed speech178writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words100% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Health and Human Services (HHS): 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-11.8 ptsWriter: 11.8%Health and Human Services (HHS): 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-11.8 ptsWriter: 11.8%Health and Human Services (HHS): 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%Health and Human Services (HHS): 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.7 ptsWriter: 6.7%Health and Human Services (HHS): 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.