STAT⁠60%

‘Cochlear implant for blindness’ debuts in Europe, could launch in U.S. in 2027 ⁠57%

By O. Rose Broderick⁠46%

7/22/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Confirmation Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 59.3% saturation with 54 hits. Analysis detected 422 faulty-reasoning hits from 91 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47% and a BS Rank of ⁠57% (12,473 of 28,846 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.80% of the article peer group.

Europeans can now receive a device that can partially restore their vision loss. 
Americans may not have to wait long to get it, either. 
Science Corporation announced Wednesday that European regulators had approved the commercial sale of the startup’s retinal implant that improves eyesight for patients with age-related macular degeneration in their central vision, enough to read books and road signs more clearly. 
“We have a cochlear implant for vision now,” said Science founder and CEO Max Hodak. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 42.9%O. Rose Broderick: 0.8%STAT: 2.9%Confirmation Bias42.9%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.4%STAT: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.3%O. Rose Broderick: 3.5%STAT: 3.1%Availability Heuristic14.3%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.7%STAT: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.3%STAT: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 28.6%O. Rose Broderick: 7.0%STAT: 6.9%Framing Effect28.6%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.2%STAT: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 1.1%STAT: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 40.7%O. Rose Broderick: 3.2%STAT: 2.7%Optimism Bias40.7%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 1.3%STAT: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 7.2%STAT: 7.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%O. Rose Broderick: 0.2%STAT: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias16.5%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.2%STAT: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.5%STAT: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.2%STAT: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%O. Rose Broderick: 2.2%STAT: 1.0%Halo Effect16.5%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 1.1%STAT: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.2%STAT: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.2%STAT: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 1.4%STAT: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.3%STAT: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 59.3%O. Rose Broderick: 4.6%STAT: 3.7%Appeal to Authority59.3%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.7%STAT: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 1.0%STAT: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.1%STAT: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.1%O. Rose Broderick: 3.2%STAT: 3.7%Hasty Generalization12.1%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.1%STAT: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.4%STAT: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.3%O. Rose Broderick: 3.0%STAT: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion14.3%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.5%STAT: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.5%STAT: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.2%STAT: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 42.9%O. Rose Broderick: 0.4%STAT: 0.5%Burden of Proof42.9%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.3%STAT: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 2.2%STAT: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 59.3%O. Rose Broderick: 1.0%STAT: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)59.3%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 42.9%O. Rose Broderick: 1.4%STAT: 1.4%Unattributed Quote42.9%This article: 16.5%O. Rose Broderick: 0.5%STAT: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection16.5%This article: 14.3%O. Rose Broderick: 8.6%STAT: 5.2%Biased Writer Voice14.3%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.5%STAT: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 3.7%STAT: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%O. Rose Broderick: 0.2%STAT: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 42.9%O. Rose Broderick: 3.4%STAT: 2.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…42.9%

91 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers59%attributed speech37writer words
Selected voice

Science Corporation

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words72% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Science Corporation: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Science Corporation: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.1 ptsWriter: 35.1%Science Corporation: 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.