Reports: RFK Jr. ordered measles deaths deletion; CDC still secretly counts them

Open the full analysis → Read the original article at Ars Technica →

⚠️ Ars Technica has updated this article since we analyzed it. The findings below describe the version we saw on 2026-09-04 — some quoted phrases may no longer appear in the current article.

Flags are about wording, sourcing and context, not whether it’s true or which side is right. How we check

Wording

17%of the article’s sentences use a rhetorical technique

Tap a technique to see where it’s used.

What these techniques mean

Loaded Language Emotionally charged words that push a reaction instead of giving information.Show the first one ↓

Conspiracy Appeal Implying hidden, coordinated wrongdoing without showing it.Show the first one ↓

Name Calling A label used to mock or discredit instead of an argument.Show the first one ↓

Fabricated Claim Show the first one ↓

ClaimsCheck the factual claims in this article →

What the model flagged

underlined: technique found; pick one to highlight its words tap a technique for why

“secretly counts them”

↓

Loaded Language · “secretly counts them”Why ›

The word 'secretly' is emotionally charged and implies hidden wrongdoing, designed to trigger suspicion rather than neutrally convey that data is being tracked internally.

“ordered measles deaths deletion” … “CDC still secretly counts them”

↓

Conspiracy Appeal · “ordered measles deaths deletion”, “CDC still secretly counts them”Why ›

The framing implies a hidden government cover-up — an official ordering deletion of data while another agency covertly maintains it — suggesting shadowy coordination to suppress information.

“anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.”

↓

Name Calling · “anti-vaccine Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.”Why ›

Labeling Kennedy as 'anti-vaccine' in an official descriptor functions as a derogatory label attached to his title, framing him as an extremist rather than describing his stated positions neutrally.

↑

Fabricated ClaimWhy ›

Unsupported or factually wrong assertion presented as established truth.

Read the original ↗ · Open the full analysis →

↑ Back to the results

Analyzed 2026-09-04 04:05 UTC. Articles are sometimes updated after publication — if a quote here isn't in the current version, the piece has changed since.

Analyzed automatically with Semblen's fine-tuned model. These are rhetorical techniques, not political tilt — and finding one is not a claim that the article is false. Findings include language the outlet is quoting rather than asserting: we flag techniques wherever they appear, so check each quote against the original. The model has known false positives on strong-but-legitimate language, so treat each finding as a prompt to read closely, not a verdict. How articles are chosen →