FBI Working With Pasadena Police on Huntington Hospital Bomb Threat Hoax ⁠8%

By Gab Apo⁠12%

8/7/2026, 11:35:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Halo Effect, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 14.1% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 496 faulty-reasoning hits from 659 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 17.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠8% (28,190 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 92.20% of the article peer group.

The FBI is working with Pasadena police to identify whoever called in a Friday morning bomb threat hoax at Huntington Hospital. 
The caller, who claimed to be a member of an online group known as 764, threatened Huntington Hospital with explosives and an armed attack, triggering a large police response that located no bombs and ended without any immediate arrests, Pasadena police Lieutenant Sam De Sylva said. 
The caller claimed that multiple explosive devices had been placed throughout the hospital and said two additional suspects were headed to the hospital in a stolen vehicle and intended to shoot people with automatic rifles, De Sylva said. 
The hoax pulled police officers, firefighters and explosives-detection K-9 teams onto the hospital campus for hours, diverted incoming rescue ambulances to other hospitals and placed Huntington Hospital on a lengthening national list of medical centers targeted by false emergency reports — three days after the FBI warned that hospitals had become a focus of such calls. 
The threat came in at approximately 5:49 a.m. and was received from an internet address, according to city of Pasadena chief communications officer Lisa Derderian. 
Police secured the hospital campus while officers, including K-9 units, searched buildings for suspicious packages or devices. 
Pasadena Fire Department units were on scene as well, as a measure taken out of an “abundance of caution.” 
The all clear came shortly after 9 a.m. 
No injuries were reported. 
Patients and staff were not evacuated during the incident. 
The hospital closed to visitors early Friday but stayed open to patients, including emergency department patients, under screening protocols. 
Incoming emergency room traffic was diverted to other hospitals during the search, Derderian said. 
“Our hospital is open to staff and patients, with screening protocols in place,” Huntington Public Relations & Media Director Dorey Huston said in a statement issued at 8:22 a.m. 
The hospital did not cancel scheduled care. 
“We aren’t canceling elective procedures or appointments,” Huston said. 
By 9:47 a.m., Huston said normal operations were resuming. 
“The safety and well-being of our patients, staff, and community remain our highest priority,” the hospital said in its statement. 
The city has since classified the call as swatting — a hoax report of a bomb, shooting or hostage situation made to draw a large emergency response. 
“It takes numerous resources every time something like this happens,” Derderian told the Los Angeles Times. 
U.S. 
Rep. 
Judy Chu (CA-28), whose district includes Pasadena, said in a statement released through her congressional office Friday afternoon that her staff is in contact with hospital leadership and investigators. 
“I am aware of the bomb threat at Huntington Hospital in Pasadena this morning. 
The Pasadena Police Department responded immediately, and I am grateful they were able to quickly secure the safety of all patients and employees,” Chu said. 
“My office is in contact with hospital leadership and authorities as they conduct an investigation to identify those responsible so they can be swiftly held accountable.” 
The threat came three days after the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center issued a public service announcement on August 4, describing a shift in swatting activity toward schools, government buildings, houses of worship, transit centers and hospitals. 
The bureau said such calls waste government resources and pull emergency personnel away from legitimate emergencies, and it described recent incidents as part of a coordinated effort aimed at multiple victims and locations across the country. 
Hospital swatting calls have reached Southern California before. 
In April, a bomb threat at Southern California Hospital in the Culver City area drew an explosives-detection K-9 response and was determined to be a swatting call. 
No evidence of a device was found. 
Anyone with information about the call may submit a tip to the FBI at tips.fbi.gov or by calling 1-800-CALL-FBI. 
No arrests have been made. 
Pasadena police and their “law enforcement partners” are continuing to investigate in an effort to identify the caller, Derderian said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 1.6%Pasadena Now: 1.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.7%Pasadena Now: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Gab Apo: 1.7%Pasadena Now: 2.1%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.4%Pasadena Now: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.2%Pasadena Now: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.3%Pasadena Now: 0.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 2.7%Pasadena Now: 3.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Gab Apo: 0.7%Pasadena Now: 1.2%Loss Aversion2.9%This article: 4.4%Gab Apo: 0.5%Pasadena Now: 0.8%Status Quo Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Gab Apo: 2.6%Pasadena Now: 2.7%Optimism Bias5.0%This article: 2.1%Gab Apo: 0.5%Pasadena Now: 0.8%Pessimism Bias2.1%This article: 14.0%Gab Apo: 1.9%Pasadena Now: 2.1%Negativity Bias14.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 1.1%Pasadena Now: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.4%Pasadena Now: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Gab Apo: 1.7%Pasadena Now: 2.3%Halo Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.2%Gab Apo: 0.3%Pasadena Now: 0.3%Recency Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.1%Pasadena Now: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 2.2%Pasadena Now: 2.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.2%Pasadena Now: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.4%Pasadena Now: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.2%Pasadena Now: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 1.0%Pasadena Now: 1.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.1%Pasadena Now: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.9%Gab Apo: 2.3%Pasadena Now: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion3.9%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.3%Pasadena Now: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.1%Gab Apo: 0.6%Pasadena Now: 0.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.1%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.1%Pasadena Now: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.2%Gab Apo: 0.7%Pasadena Now: 1.3%Anecdotal1.2%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.3%Gab Apo: 0.5%Pasadena Now: 0.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.3%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.8%Pasadena Now: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.0%Pasadena Now: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.8%Pasadena Now: 1.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 5.5%Gab Apo: 1.7%Pasadena Now: 1.4%Indoctrination5.5%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.5%Pasadena Now: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gab Apo: 0.1%Pasadena Now: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Gab Apo: 1.2%Pasadena Now: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.9%

659 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers62%attributed speech250writer words
Selected voice

FBI

100%flagged-word coverage
55 attributed words13% of attributed speech52% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Indoctrination+65.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%FBI: 65.5%65.5%Attempt to Sell a Product +34.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%FBI: 34.5%34.5%

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.