STAT60%

Michigan Supreme Court ruling allows probe into Lilly insulin pricing 45%

By Ed Silverman75%

8/2/2026, 11:14:14 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 40.3% saturation with 56 hits. Analysis detected 279 faulty-reasoning hits from 139 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.4% and a BS Rank of 45% (15,058 of 27,320 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.10% of the article peer group.

A divided Michigan Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the state’s attorney general may investigate Eli Lilly over its pricing practices for insulin. 
In its 4-to-3 decision, the court rejected a lower court decision that prevented Michigan Attorney General Dana Nesel from proceeding with a probe that began four years ago. 
At the time, Nessel cited state consumer protection laws, alleging the drug maker had artificially increased the price of its insulin medication. 
Lilly was accused of charging “grossly” excessive prices for three different insulin products  Lispro, Humalog and Basaglar  that forced some patients to ration or forego insulin, restrict their diets or buy less-effective alternatives. 
These practices led to “serious disability and even death in some patients,” the state wrote in court documents at the time. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.1%Ed Silverman: 5.1%STAT: 3.0%Confirmation Bias20.1%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.0%STAT: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 3.5%STAT: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.7%STAT: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.2%STAT: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Ed Silverman: 18.2%STAT: 6.7%Framing Effect7.2%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.4%STAT: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.9%STAT: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 5.5%STAT: 2.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.2%STAT: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 40.3%Ed Silverman: 10.6%STAT: 7.3%Negativity Bias40.3%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.7%STAT: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.8%STAT: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.2%STAT: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.8%STAT: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.5%STAT: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.6%STAT: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.3%STAT: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.2%STAT: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.5%Ed Silverman: 6.2%STAT: 3.7%Appeal to Authority16.5%This article: 20.1%Ed Silverman: 0.6%STAT: 1.3%False Dilemma20.1%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 4.5%STAT: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.4%STAT: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 40.3%Ed Silverman: 5.8%STAT: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion40.3%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.0%STAT: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.9%STAT: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 15.1%Ed Silverman: 0.3%STAT: 0.5%Burden of Proof15.1%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 25.2%Ed Silverman: 2.4%STAT: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)25.2%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.8%STAT: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 3.6%STAT: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 2.4%STAT: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.8%Ed Silverman: 12.6%STAT: 5.2%Biased Writer Voice15.8%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 2.8%STAT: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.6%STAT: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ed Silverman: 1.4%STAT: 2.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

139 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker16%attributed speech117writer words
Selected voice

Dana Nesel

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dana Nesel: 100.0%100.0%

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.