Healthy pregnancies and newborns are possible after CAR T cell therapy 30%

By Aimee Cunningham26%

7/29/2026, 2:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 30.4% saturation with 117 hits. Analysis detected 723 faulty-reasoning hits from 385 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.9% and a BS Rank of 30% (21,413 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.00% of the article peer group.

Women who had an experimental therapy to treat their autoimmune disease had successful pregnancies, a small study finds. 
After CAR T cell therapy, seven women had healthy newborns and five more were experiencing regular pregnancies as of late May, researchers report July 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine. 
The study is the largest snapshot to date of pregnancy after using CAR T cell therapy for autoimmune diseases, in which the immune system fires at the body’s own tissue. 
Untreated, these diseases pose risks to pregnancies, including miscarriage, preterm birth and low birth weight. 
CAR T cell therapy was pioneered as a treatment for cancer, but there are very few reports of pregnancy in those circumstances. 
Often, those patients are no longer in their reproductive years or are taking other toxic drugs. 
More recently, the therapy has shown effectiveness against autoimmune diseases. 
Immunologist Georg Schett, of Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg in Germany, and his team reported in 2022 on five patients who received the therapy for lupus and went into remission. 
The treatment involves engineering certain immune cells, called T cells, into destroyers of other immune cells, called B cells, which are attacking the body. 
The bone marrow eventually replenishes the B cells with a new generation missing the self-sabotage capability. 
But the treatment regimen puts a patient at risk of infection and other potentially serious side effects. 
For the new study, Schett and colleagues included women from Germany, Belgium, China, Switzerland, France and the United States who gave birth in 2025 and 2026. 
All had undergone CAR T cell therapy for autoimmune diseases, largely for lupus, and all were in remission. 
The women became pregnant naturally as soon as one month and as long as three and a half years after treatment. 
The study investigated whether the women might relapse while pregnant or if aftereffects of CAR T cell therapy might cause problems for the fetus. 
None of the women in the study had reactivations of their autoimmune disease. 
The seven women who gave birth had newborns with normal weights. 
The babies did not have infections at birth and their immune protein levels matched that seen in healthy newborns. 
In further testing of five of the newborns, the researchers found the expected immune cell allotments. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.1%Aimee Cunningham: 1.6%Science News: 2.5%Confirmation Bias8.1%This article: 5.5%Aimee Cunningham: 2.6%Science News: 1.0%Anchoring Bias5.5%This article: 13.2%Aimee Cunningham: 1.8%Science News: 2.0%Availability Heuristic13.2%This article: 6.8%Aimee Cunningham: 1.4%Science News: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic6.8%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Aimee Cunningham: 0.9%Science News: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias7.5%This article: 2.6%Aimee Cunningham: 2.1%Science News: 3.2%Framing Effect2.6%This article: 4.4%Aimee Cunningham: 0.5%Science News: 0.2%Loss Aversion4.4%This article: 5.7%Aimee Cunningham: 1.0%Science News: 0.3%Status Quo Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Aimee Cunningham: 3.9%Science News: 3.2%Optimism Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.3%Science News: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Aimee Cunningham: 2.8%Science News: 3.1%Negativity Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Aimee Cunningham: 0.7%Science News: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.2%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Aimee Cunningham: 0.6%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Aimee Cunningham: 0.3%Science News: 0.9%Halo Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 16.1%Aimee Cunningham: 1.9%Science News: 0.8%Recency Bias16.1%This article: 6.8%Aimee Cunningham: 0.8%Science News: 0.2%Primacy Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.1%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.5%Aimee Cunningham: 3.7%Science News: 3.4%Appeal to Authority14.5%This article: 6.2%Aimee Cunningham: 1.0%Science News: 1.0%False Dilemma6.2%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.3%Science News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 30.4%Aimee Cunningham: 5.6%Science News: 3.6%Hasty Generalization30.4%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.1%Science News: 1.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 6.2%Aimee Cunningham: 1.1%Science News: 0.4%Begging the Question6.2%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 2.6%Aimee Cunningham: 0.3%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature2.6%This article: 4.2%Aimee Cunningham: 0.5%Science News: 0.2%Composition/Division4.2%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.5%Aimee Cunningham: 3.2%Science News: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.5%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.9%Aimee Cunningham: 1.1%Science News: 2.0%Biased Writer Voice2.9%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Aimee Cunningham: 0.9%Science News: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.7%

385 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.8%attributed speech359writer words
Selected voice

Georg Schett

100%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words100% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%Georg Schett: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Georg Schett: 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.