AI models for every need
BiasChecker doesn't rely on a single AI. You choose from 15 models from the major AI providers — and because every model is trained on different data and carries its own slant, that choice is part of the analysis, not just a setting.
Models notice different things. When we graded eleven models on the same articles, a single model caught on average about 45% of the problems the eleven found between them, and three together caught about 72% (how we measured it). So run an important piece through more than one: where they agree is a strong signal, and where they differ shows you what one model missed. Pick by the depth a piece deserves and how many analyses your plan allows.
The line-up evolves as better models ship, and the cards below always show the current roster
How model cost works
Your plan gives you a monthly allowance of tokens — that's the exact meter. Every check draws down the actual tokens read and written, multiplied by the model's rate: a 1× model costs the raw token count, a 3× model three times that, a 10× model ten times. Longer articles cost a little more, since there's more text to read. To keep it easy to picture, we translate that allowance into analyses — one analysis ≈ one article checked for one type on a 1× model — but those counts are approximate; the precise draw-down is always tokens × the multiplier.
* Using 1× models. Higher-multiplier models use proportionally more — e.g. a 3× model gives ~200 checks/month on Lite.
Need more? Credit packs top up any plan from $15 for ~500 analyses (2.5M tokens). And articles the community has already analysed are free for everyone signed in, on every plan: they don't count against your allowance. Compare plans →
Match the model to the analysis
Not every analysis needs the same model. Each price band below says what its models are good at. Click a tier to filter the models below.
Everything on these cards comes from our own testing on real articles, where we check each model's findings against the article.
DeepSeek V3.2
DeepSeek
A low-cost model that reads in a little more depth than GLM 4.7, at its best on the moral questions an article raises.
GLM 4.7
Zhipu AI
A low-cost model with short, plain write-ups. It reaches the same main verdicts as pricier models, with shorter lists.
For a thorough check of what an article leaves out, choose Kimi K2.5 or GPT-5.1.
Learn more about GLM 4.7GPT-6 Luna
OpenAI
OpenAI's efficient model at the lowest price. It reports only clear-cut problems, so what it flags is rarely wrong, and its historical parallels hold up better than those of most models.
For Persuasion and Bias, choose the default or a higher tier.
Learn more about GPT-6 LunaDeepSeek V4 Pro
DeepSeek
DeepSeek's flagship model and a thorough reader of what an article leaves out, quick to question claims that are not backed up, and it spots more persuasion techniques than most models.
For fewer, firmer findings, choose GPT-6 Luna or Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Learn more about DeepSeek V4 ProGemini 3 Flashdefault
Our default and a strong all-rounder, and one of the fastest models in real use. It is especially good at spotting persuasion techniques and at setting out the background to a story.
For historical parallels, choose GPT-6 Luna, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Claude Opus 5.5.
Google's safety filter can refuse articles with violent or graphic themes.
Learn more about Gemini 3 FlashKimi K2.5
Moonshot
A thorough, low-cost reader, especially good at pointing out what an article leaves out.
At busy times some analyses take longer.
Learn more about Kimi K2.5Claude Haiku 4.5
Anthropic
Anthropic's lowest-priced model. It raises a lot and explains every finding in detail.
It raises more than most, and a few findings can be a stretch; for a shorter, firmer list, choose Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Learn more about Claude Haiku 4.5GLM 5.2
Zhipu AI
Fast and to the point, with short, plain write-ups, firm verdicts and fewer wrong findings than most models.
For persuasion techniques, choose the default or DeepSeek V4 Pro.
Learn more about GLM 5.2Grok 4.3
xAI
Built for speed, with quick, evidence-first answers.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
A careful reader and a good second opinion on an article that matters.
It takes longer than most models.
Google's safety filter can refuse articles with violent or graphic themes.
Learn more about Gemini 2.5 ProGemini 3.8 Flash
Google's latest Flash model, with concise results in a few seconds.
It takes a lighter touch than most models and rates concerns a notch lower.
Google's safety filter can refuse articles with violent or graphic themes.
Learn more about Gemini 3.8 FlashGPT-5.1
OpenAI
Our deepest reader: it finds the most, above all in what an article leaves out. Pick it for the articles that matter.
It casts a wide net, so a few findings can be a stretch; for a shorter, firmer list, choose Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Learn more about GPT-5.1Claude Sonnet 5.5
Anthropic
Anthropic's newest Sonnet. It catches more than most models, from bias to the logic of an argument, and almost nothing it flags is wrong.
GPT-6 Sol
OpenAI
From OpenAI's newest GPT-6 generation, and a good second opinion that often brings a fresh angle: on our sample article it compared the product to Geritol's 1950s 'tired blood' tonic.
It is gentler than most models on science claims.
Learn more about GPT-6 SolClaude Opus 5.5
Anthropic
Anthropic's flagship model, and quick for its class. It catches more than most models, bias above all, and brings outside knowledge to a story: on our sample article it was the only model to challenge the piece's core advice.
Speed bands are a guide, not a guarantee: the actual time depends on the article's length and how busy the AI providers are. Every model handles articles up to 150,000 characters (roughly 25,000 words) and keeps its full depth on long reads.
* We have checked BiasChecker on Chinese, Arabic and German articles, but have not yet tested it extensively across languages. The GLM, DeepSeek and Kimi models are tuned mainly on Chinese and English, and Grok on English; other major languages still work.
See the difference: same article, different models
We analysed the same article with fourteen current models across all thirteen analysis types; cards from five models since retired are kept for comparison under Retired models. On the five types it supports, the Consensus panel adds one more card: three models from different makers, cross-checked and synthesised into one result. Notice how models can reach different conclusions — and how each brings a unique perspective.
Example article
The Hidden Dehydration Epidemic
A fictional wellness advertorial we wrote as demonstration material — every company, product, study, and person in it is invented. It reads the way persuasive health marketing actually reads, so each analysis lens has something real to find. Read the full piece via the source link.
BiasChecker.ai demonstration article (fictional)Surfaces the meaning beneath the words — what the author really wants you to think.
The article profiles Lumivita, a wellness company claiming that millions suffer from undiagnosed cellular dehydration. It contrasts the company's assertions and a proprietary study with the skepticism of doctors and regulatory adjustments to its marketing language.
- •Founder Maarten de Wit claims standard hydration advice is outdated and ineffective.
- •A cited study reports users gained 34% more energy within three weeks.
- •Regulators forced changes to product descriptions after a dialogue.
- •The company operates a coaching program that certifies trainers to sell the protocol.
Steered to see
View Lumivita as a necessary health innovation that is unfairly dismissed by a resistant establishment.
Played down
Regulators required changes to product descriptions, contradicting the narrative that the science is settled and only bureaucracy lags behind.
Technique
The text pairs alarming health claims with testimonials while framing medical skepticism as predictable resistance and regulatory action as minor paperwork.
Evidence
The text reframes regulatory intervention as a trivial administrative delay rather than a check on validity.
The article casts doubt on medical skepticism by implying a conspiracy motive from competitors.
The text uses emotional pressure to make the product feel like a moral obligation for parents.
The article presents a wellness company's claim that a 'hidden dehydration epidemic' exists at the cellular level, causing fatigue and other issues that mainstream medicine overlooks. It promotes the company's CelluDrink product line as a superior solution, citing a company study and testimonials from trainers and a parent. It notes regulatory pushback but frames it as a minor obstacle to innovation.
- •The company's founder claims hydration advice is 'stuck in the 1950s' and that drinking plain water can be harmful.
- •A personal trainer is quoted saying thirst means performance has already dropped by 20%, promoting constant sipping of the product.
- •The article mentions regulators forced the company to change product descriptions, but this is called 'routine dialogue' and 'growing pains'.
- •The company claims its formula was developed with European labs and that journals are 'slow to catch up'.
- •A mother says she gives the product to her school-age children to help them concentrate.
Steered to see
Accept that a hidden health crisis exists and that buying this company's products is a necessary, scientifically-backed solution.
Played down
Regulators intervened to force changes to the company's product descriptions, indicating its claims were problematic.
Technique
The article frames the company's claims as urgent, revolutionary truth opposed by a dismissive establishment, using testimonials and selective science to build credibility.
Evidence
The text uses a false dilemma to create urgency and steer readers toward the company's solution.
The article frames skepticism as evidence of establishment bias, not as a reason for caution, to bolster the company's outsider credibility.
The text buries a significant regulatory red flag by using the company's mild language and immediately countering it with the founder's 'growing pains' framing.
The article presents Lumivita’s CelluDrink protocol as a response to supposed cellular dehydration, linking it to fatigue, brain fog, and reduced athletic performance. It features company claims, customer testimonials, and a trainer’s endorsement while describing doctors and regulators as obstacles to a growing business.
- •The company cites a study in which users reported 34% more energy within three weeks.
- •Trainer Bram Kuijpers recommends CelluDrink Sport and says thirst comes too late to protect performance.
- •A customer says she gives CelluDrink to her school-age children.
- •Lumivita agreed to change some product descriptions after what it calls a routine dialogue with regulators.
Steered to see
The article steers readers to see CelluDrink as a needed, science-backed solution and to view trying it as safer than waiting for conventional medicine to catch up.
Played down
The article notes that the study measured user reports and that regulators prompted Lumivita to change product descriptions, but quickly returns to the company’s confident claims.
Technique
It pairs health fears and urgency with testimonials and company-linked study claims, while casting doctors and regulators as dismissive or slow to recognize innovation.
Evidence
The opening frames the issue as widespread and hidden, creating urgency for the company’s proposed solution.
The benefit is based on reported experience, but the article presents the figure as support for the product.
The article recasts regulatory changes as routine friction rather than a reason to question product descriptions.
Lumivita, an Amsterdam wellness company, promotes its CelluDrink hydration products by claiming mainstream medicine underestimates cellular dehydration. The article presents testimonials from athletes, trainers, and parents alongside company claims of scientific backing, while noting regulatory pushback and medical skepticism.
- •Company founder claims 'Big Beverage' conspires to keep people drinking plain water
- •Regulators forced product description changes after 'routine dialogue'
- •Coaching programme certifies trainers to sell protocol to their own clients
- •Study cited is unpublished, with researcher only 'shortlisted' for prizes per company claim
- •Mother quotes guilt-inducing framing: 'What kind of parent watches their child struggle... and does nothing?'
Steered to see
Accept that mainstream medicine is wrong and negligent about dehydration, and that purchasing CelluDrink is the responsible choice for health-conscious people.
Played down
Regulators forced the company to change product descriptions, and the cited study lacks peer review or journal publication — facts mentioned briefly then dismissed as 'growing pains' and 'slow to catch up'.
Technique
The text elevates company claims to headline status while burying regulatory intervention and medical dismissal in late paragraphs, uses guilt and fear appeals ('premature ageing', 'silent emergency', parental shaming), and frames commercial expansion as validation.
Evidence
Reframes regulatory compliance failure as visionary disruption, minimizing official concern
Uses false dilemma to eliminate neutrality and pressure commitment to the product
Deploys guilt-based social pressure to convert parental anxiety into purchase behavior
The article highlights a 'cellular dehydration' crisis and promotes Lumivita, an Amsterdam-based wellness company offering specialized hydration protocols. It contrasts the company's claims of superior cellular absorption with traditional medical advice and water consumption.
- •Lumivita claims its CelluDrink protocol hydrates twice as fast as plain water by mirroring cellular fluids.
- •A company-cited study reports a 34% energy increase in users, though the research has not yet appeared in mainstream journals.
- •The company recently modified its product descriptions following a 'routine dialogue' with regulatory authorities.
- •The founder frames the choice as a binary between adopting their cellular hydration protocol or accepting physical decline.
Steered to see
View Lumivita’s products as a necessary, scientifically-backed solution to a hidden health crisis that mainstream medicine and regulators are too slow or biased to recognize.
Played down
The text briefly mentions that doctors are dismissive and that the company had to change its product descriptions after regulatory intervention, but frames these as 'growing pains.'
Technique
The article uses alarmist framing ('silent emergency'), creates a false dichotomy between the product and 'decline,' and dismisses medical skepticism as a sign of being outdated or compromised.
Evidence
The text uses a false dilemma to pressure the reader into seeing the product as the only way to avoid health failure.
The framing attempts to undermine the reader's confidence in basic, free health practices to make the paid alternative seem essential.
The article uses 'us vs. them' rhetoric to cast experts as out-of-touch or motivated by corporate interests.
This article promotes Lumivita's CelluDrink protocol, presenting it as a remedy for a widespread, unrecognized cellular dehydration crisis. It cites company studies, trainer endorsements, and parent testimonials while dismissing medical skepticism as outdated or commercially compromised. A past regulatory issue is mentioned but minimized.
- •Founder claims 'you can drink three litres a day and still be dehydrated' at the cellular level.
- •In-house study reports 34% more energy in three weeks, cited without independent verification.
- •Personal trainer repeats the 'thirst comes too late' rule and directs clients to CelluDrink Sport.
- •Company says its coaching programme waiting list is 'months long', signaling high demand.
Steered to see
See Lumivita's CelluDrink as a scientifically backed, urgent solution to a widespread hidden health crisis that mainstream medicine and regulators are too slow or compromised to address.
Played down
The article mentions Lumivita agreed to change product descriptions after a regulator dialogue, but frames it as routine 'paperwork' rather than a potentially meaningful compliance issue.
Technique
The article lets the company's founder dominate with unchallenged claims, frames skeptics as corrupt or slow, and uses emotional parent testimonials to bypass scientific scrutiny.
Evidence
The founder's quote reframes ordinary hydration advice as dangerously obsolete, creating a problem only CelluDrink can solve.
The article amplifies an unsubstantiated conspiracy claim that dismisses medical skepticism as financially motivated, steering readers to distrust doctors.
The regulatory action is buried near the end and immediately minimized with the founder's euphemism, downplaying potential credibility issues.
Lumivita, an Amsterdam wellness company, promotes CelluDrink, a product claiming to achieve cellular-level hydration that plain water cannot. The article presents the company's claims about energy gains, endorsements from trainers and parents, and dismissal of medical skepticism as institutional resistance to innovation. Regulators required labeling changes, which the company frames as routine.
- •Study claims CelluDrink users reported 34% more energy within three weeks
- •Trainer Bram Kuijpers says plain water during workouts can dilute electrolytes and harm performance
- •De Wit compares skepticism to past dismissal of intermittent fasting and suggests Big Beverage has financial incentive to promote plain water
- •Regulators required Lumivita to change product descriptions after "routine dialogue"
- •Mother Sanne gives CelluDrink to school-age children, framing it as parental responsibility
Steered to see
Accept that mainstream hydration advice is outdated and that Lumivita's cellular hydration science represents genuine innovation being suppressed by institutional resistance.
Played down
Regulators required the company to change product descriptions, a fact buried late and reframed by the company as "growing pains" rather than evidence of overstated claims.
Technique
The article amplifies the company's framing ("silent emergency," "ancient wisdom confirmed by modern science"), gives sympathetic voice to users and trainers, and presents medical dismissal as predictable institutional gatekeeping rather than warranted caution.
Evidence
The article opens with the company's most dramatic claim unchallenged, establishing the premise that conventional wisdom is fundamentally wrong.
Medical skepticism is reframed as predictable bias rather than legitimate scrutiny, and financial incentive is attributed to critics without evidence.
Regulatory action is minimized and buried, presented through the company's own language ("routine") rather than as a sign of prior overstatement.
The article profiles Lumivita, an Amsterdam wellness company selling the CelluDrink hydration protocol, framing its products as a solution to an unrecognized cellular dehydration crisis. It presents the company's claims alongside testimonials from a trainer and a parent, while noting that regulators required changes to product descriptions and that doctors remain dismissive. The text positions Lumivita as an innovator fighting a resistant medical establishment.
- •A company-cited study reported 34% more energy in CelluDrink users within three weeks.
- •Lumivita agreed to change product descriptions after what the company calls 'a routine dialogue' with regulators.
- •A family plan for CelluDrink costs less per day than a coffee, according to a customer testimonial.
- •Lumivita is expanding into the UK and Canada, with a months-long waiting list for its trainer coaching programme.
- •Plain water during a workout can dilute electrolytes, the company warns, positioning its mix as superior.
Steered to see
The article steers readers to view Lumivita's products as a medically neglected breakthrough they should buy before it is too late.
Played down
The article briefly notes that regulators forced product-description changes and that doctors remain dismissive, but immediately recasts both as establishment resistance and mere 'paperwork' growing pains.
Technique
The text frames mainstream medicine and regulators as obstacles to progress, uses fear-based language about 'silent emergency' and decline, and routes commercial promotion through sympathetic parent and trainer testimonials.
Evidence
The text uses a false binary to pressure readers into treating the company's protocol as the only alternative to health decline.
The article frames a commercial competitor as a conspiratorial force, positioning Lumivita as the underdog truth-teller.
The text recasts a regulatory action against product descriptions as a routine administrative detail rather than a substantive credibility problem.
The article describes a supposed epidemic of "cellular" dehydration and presents Lumivita's CelluDrink products and protocol as a solution. It cites company claims, a small study, a trainer, and a parent to argue that traditional hydration advice and mainstream medicine are outdated. Doctors and regulators are briefly mentioned as skeptical, but their views are minimized. The piece ends by stressing urgency and promoting Lumivita's expansion and coaching program.
- •Claims CelluDrink users had 34% more energy in three weeks
- •Hospital dehydration admissions are cited as proof of a wider problem
- •A trainer warns thirst is already "too late" and pushes CelluDrink Sport
- •Doctors are described as dismissive and tied to "Big Beverage" incentives
- •Regulators made Lumivita change product descriptions after a review
Steered to see
The article steers readers to view cellular dehydration as a serious, urgent problem and to see Lumivita's CelluDrink protocol as a necessary, science-backed upgrade to plain water.
Played down
The article briefly notes that doctors are dismissive and that regulators forced Lumivita to change product descriptions, but downplays these as bias and "growing pains" instead of substantive concerns.
Technique
By framing dehydration as an epidemic, using dramatic either/or language, success anecdotes, implied scientific backing, dismissing doctors and regulators, and ending on urgency and scarcity around Lumivita’s products.
Evidence
Uses stark binary framing to push the idea that accepting Lumivita’s premise is the only sensible choice.
Presents company-linked study results as strong scientific evidence without detailing methods or limits, to signal credibility.
Acknowledges regulatory pushback but immediately reframes it as minor and expected, softening potential red flags.
This article introduces Lumivita, a wellness company claiming that millions suffer from a "hidden dehydration epidemic" at the cellular level. It presents the company's product, CelluDrink, as the solution, featuring testimonials from a founder, a personal trainer, and a parent. The piece also notes that doctors are dismissive and regulators have required the company to alter its product descriptions.
- •Lumivita's founder claims people can drink three litres of water a day and still be dehydrated at the cellular level.
- •A company-cited study reported that users of CelluDrink experienced 34% more energy within three weeks.
- •The company's electrolyte mix is claimed to hydrate twice as fast as water.
- •The founder dismisses medical skepticism by comparing it to initial resistance to intermittent fasting.
- •The company changed some product descriptions following what it calls a "routine dialogue" with regulators.
Steered to see
The article is built to make readers view Lumivita's product as a credible and urgent solution to a serious health problem, and to see the company as an innovator fighting an outdated establishment.
Played down
The article mentions that regulators required the company to change its product descriptions, but frames this as mere 'growing pains' and a 'routine dialogue'.
Technique
The piece functions as an advertorial by framing a common problem as a newly defined 'epidemic,' using testimonials and a company-backed study, and preemptively dismissing expert criticism and regulatory action as the predictable resistance of a biased system.
Evidence
This quote uses a false dichotomy to create a sense of urgency and position the company's protocol as the only viable choice.
The text preemptively dismisses criticism from the medical establishment by framing it as biased and comparing the product to a now-accepted wellness trend.
This phrasing adopts the company's own minimizing language to downplay a significant regulatory action, framing it as a minor procedural issue rather than a challenge to its claims.
The article reports on a supposed 'cellular dehydration' epidemic claimed by Amsterdam-based wellness brand Lumivita. The company argues that standard water consumption is inadequate, pitching its CelluDrink product as an essential solution. The text covers endorsements from trainers and parents alongside pushback from doctors and regulatory scrutiny.
- •Lumivita claims CelluDrink boosted reported energy by 34% in three weeks in its own study.
- •Founder Maarten de Wit claims drinking plain water can dilute electrolytes and cause harm.
- •Regulators required Lumivita to modify its product descriptions following scrutiny.
Steered to see
Distrust conventional hydration advice and purchase CelluDrink as an urgent fix for unexplained health issues.
Played down
The piece briefly notes that doctors remain dismissive and that regulators forced the company to alter its product descriptions.
Technique
The text pairs fear-based health warnings with commercial testimonials while dismissing medical skepticism as industry bias.
Evidence
Frames the issue as a false binary to induce panic and position the product as a necessity.
Inverts conventional health habits to make ordinary water consumption appear dangerous.
Leverages parental guilt to push readers toward purchasing the product for family use.
The article presents Lumivita, an Amsterdam wellness firm, and its CelluDrink 'cellular hydration' protocol. It relays the founder's claims, a company-cited study, a trainer's and a parent's endorsements, and the firm's expansion into the UK and Canada. It notes that doctors are dismissive and that regulators made the firm change some product descriptions.
- •Founder says 'Either we take cellular hydration seriously, or we accept decline. There is no third option.'
- •The study claim of 34% more energy is self-reported and comes from the company's own study.
- •Doctors' skepticism is waved away as 'Big Beverage' interest and slow journals.
- •The coaching programme certifies trainers to sell the protocol to their own clients.
- •Regulators made Lumivita change product descriptions, which the company calls 'a routine dialogue'.
Steered to see
Believe cellular dehydration is a real, hidden crisis and that buying CelluDrink is the urgent, sensible answer, while doubters are just defending vested interests.
Played down
The piece does mention that doctors are dismissive and that regulators had Lumivita change product descriptions, but it lets the company label these as a fad reaction and 'growing pains'.
Technique
It uses fear ('silent emergency'), a false dilemma, a founder's voice and testimonials, conspiracy framing of critics, urgency ('how long you can afford to wait'), and a family-price appeal.
Evidence
Recasts medical skepticism as industry self-interest, so criticism is discredited rather than answered.
A false dilemma that pushes readers toward the product by making doubt look like surrender.
The regulatory action is softened with the company's own euphemism and left unexplained.
The article presents Lumivita’s claim that many people have an undetected form of dehydration and that its CelluDrink products address it. It cites customer experiences, a company-reported study, and fitness advice, while also noting doctors’ skepticism and changes to product descriptions after contact with regulators.
- •CelluDrink users reported 34% more energy after three weeks in a study cited by the company.
- •A trainer tells clients to use CelluDrink Sport instead of plain water during workouts.
- •The article links children’s trouble concentrating to a parent’s decision to buy CelluDrink.
- •Lumivita says its trainer-certification program has a months-long waiting list.
Steered to see
The article steers readers to see CelluDrink as an urgent answer to a hidden health threat, rather than a product whose claims need scrutiny.
Played down
The article briefly notes that Lumivita changed product descriptions after contact with regulators, then softens that fact with the company’s account of a “routine dialogue.”
Technique
The article opens with an alarming, broad claim, uses testimonials and company figures to build credibility, and casts skepticism as resistance to innovation.
Evidence
The headline presents the company’s health concern as an established, widespread crisis.
The article gives a strong product claim a prominent place without testing it against independent evidence.
The article ends its account of the regulatory changes with a line that recasts them as a sign of progress.
The article profiles Lumivita, an Amsterdam wellness company selling the CelluDrink "cellular hydration" protocol. It relays the founder's claims, a company-cited study, and endorsements from a trainer and a parent. It briefly notes that doctors are dismissive and that regulators prompted changes to product descriptions. It closes on the company's expansion and a coaching program that certifies trainers to sell the protocol.
- •The cited study measured self-reported energy (34% more) and gives no control group or journal.
- •The founder claims the electrolyte mix "hydrates twice as fast as water."
- •Critics are waved off as tied to "Big Beverage" and compared to doubters of intermittent fasting.
- •A coaching program certifies trainers to sell the protocol to their own clients, and its waiting list is said to be months long.
Steered to see
The text builds a picture of CelluDrink as an urgent, science-backed breakthrough that skeptical doctors and regulators are too slow to accept.
Played down
Doctors' dismissal and the regulator-forced changes to product descriptions each get one line and are immediately reframed by the founder as bias or "growing pains."
Technique
Company claims and testimonials run mostly unchallenged, a vague self-report study stands in for proof, unrelated hospital figures inflate the threat, critics are painted as biased, and parental guilt and urgency drive the close.
Evidence
A soft, self-reported result is presented as "compelling" science, with no study details given.
Medical skepticism is recast as a conspiracy, so the doubters look suspect instead of the product.
The text uses guilt to push buying, casting parents who don't buy as neglectful.
Key takeaway: All fourteen models see past the article's format to the same reading: it is an advertorial, built to make distrusting mainstream hydration advice feel responsible and buying CelluDrink feel like the informed choice. Kimi K2.5 (2×) puts it most plainly: once you accept that mainstream medicine is "wrong and negligent", buying becomes "the responsible choice". Claude Sonnet 5.5 (7×) points to what the piece plays down: regulators made Lumivita change its product descriptions, and its founder calls that "growing pains".
Retired models (5)▾
Models no longer offered. Their results on this article are kept for comparison.
The piece profiles Lumivita, a wellness company selling a 'CelluDrink' hydration protocol, presenting founder claims, a trainer's endorsement, and a customer testimonial as evidence that mainstream hydration advice is outdated and dangerous. It notes regulators required the company to change product descriptions and that doctors are dismissive, but frames these as obstacles the company is overcoming.
- •Founder Maarten de Wit claims official hydration advice is outdated and frames cellular hydration as binary: adopt it or 'accept decline'
- •The cited study (34% more energy) is described only via company claims, with no independent verification or sample details given
- •A trainer promotes the company's electrolyte product line to clients using a common but unverified '20% performance drop' claim
- •Regulators required Lumivita to change product descriptions after a 'routine dialogue', which the founder calls 'growing pains'
- •The company is expanding into the UK and Canada and running a paid trainer-certification waiting list
Steered to see
Readers are steered toward believing cellular dehydration is a real, widespread, under-treated problem that this company's products solve.
Played down
The regulatory action forcing changed product claims and universal doctor dismissal are mentioned but quickly reframed as bias or 'growing pains' rather than treated as red flags.
Technique
The piece relies almost entirely on quotes from the company, an affiliated trainer, and a customer, presents an unverified in-house study as compelling evidence, frames doctor skepticism as predictable bias, and downplays a regulatory correction as mere paperwork friction.
Evidence
Presents an unverified, company-sourced study as solid scientific backing without detail on methodology or independent review.
Uses conspiracy-style framing to dismiss medical skepticism rather than engage with it.
Downplays a regulatory correction by reframing it as routine business friction rather than a signal about the claims' accuracy.
The piece presents Lumivita’s CelluDrink protocol as a solution to supposedly widespread cellular dehydration. It promotes the product through company claims, testimonials, fitness advice, and expansion news, while noting regulatory changes and medical skepticism.
- •A company-linked study reported 34% more energy among users within three weeks.
- •The product line includes CelluDrink Sport, marketed as an electrolyte alternative to plain water.
- •A Rotterdam mother says she gives CelluDrink to her school-age children.
- •Lumivita agreed to change some product descriptions after discussions with regulators.
- •The coaching program certifies trainers to sell the protocol to their clients.
Steered to see
The article steers readers to view CelluDrink as necessary, scientifically validated protection against hidden dehydration.
Played down
The article briefly notes that regulators required changes to product descriptions and that doctors remain dismissive, then reframes both as resistance to innovation.
Technique
It uses alarming health claims, urgency, testimonials, selective study results, attacks on skeptics, and buried regulatory concerns to turn a product pitch into medical-sounding advice.
Evidence
The text opens with a sweeping, fear-based problem claim that creates demand for the product.
The article presents a strong comparative health claim in the company’s voice without independent support.
The text includes a significant regulatory qualification but places it late and minimizes it as “growing pains.”
The article presents Lumivita's CelluDrink protocol as a response to widespread, unnoticed “cellular” dehydration. It cites company-linked claims about energy, athletic performance, and family health while describing expansion into new markets. It also notes that regulators required changes to some product descriptions.
- •Lumivita cites a study reporting 34% more energy in three weeks.
- •Its trainer program certifies coaches to sell the protocol to clients.
- •The company markets a Sport electrolyte line for workouts.
- •It says it changed product descriptions after regulator discussions.
Steered to see
The article steers readers to see CelluDrink as an urgent, science-backed safeguard against decline that they should adopt without delay.
Played down
The article briefly notes that regulators required Lumivita to change product descriptions, then recasts this as routine “growing pains.”
Technique
The text pairs alarming health claims with testimonials, sales-ready product claims, and urgency, while casting doctors, journals, and regulators as slow obstacles to innovation.
Evidence
The article frames buying into the protocol as the only responsible alternative to physical decline.
The text turns ordinary water into a potential danger to make the product appear necessary.
The article minimizes the regulatory change by treating it as bureaucracy rather than a substantive caution.
This article profiles Lumivita, a Dutch wellness company selling a product called CelluDrink, framed as a solution to a widespread but unrecognized 'cellular dehydration' crisis. It presents the company's founder, a personal trainer, and a customer testimonial as evidence that mainstream medicine and regulators are behind the curve. The piece reads as promotional content dressed in the style of investigative health journalism.
- •The sole study cited reports self-reported outcomes ('reported 34% more energy') — not a clinical measurement.
- •The researcher behind the study is identified only by the company's own description of her credentials.
- •Regulators required Lumivita to change product descriptions after what the article calls 'a routine dialogue' — a significant fact buried near the end.
- •The coaching programme certifies trainers to sell the protocol, creating a multi-level distribution structure the article presents neutrally.
- •The closing line — 'how long can you afford to wait' — is a direct sales pressure tactic embedded in editorial prose.
Steered to see
The text steers readers to see CelluDrink as a credible, urgent health solution and to distrust the medical and regulatory institutions that question it.
Played down
Regulators required the company to change product descriptions — a red flag for unsubstantiated claims — but the article frames this as routine bureaucratic friction, not a credibility problem.
Technique
The article uses fear framing ('silent emergency'), manufactured authority (unnamed prize-nominated researcher, European labs), dismissal of critics as industry-captured, and a guilt-laden parent testimonial to lower skepticism and push toward purchase.
Evidence
The article deploys a conspiracy framing to pre-emptively discredit any institutional skepticism, steering readers to dismiss expert pushback rather than weigh it.
The article lets the founder reframe a regulatory enforcement action as a sign of the company's forward-thinking nature, neutralizing what is actually evidence of a compliance problem.
The text uses parental guilt as a conversion lever, framing inaction — not buying the product — as neglect.
The piece is a promotional profile of Lumivita and its CelluDrink hydration products. It presents cellular dehydration as an overlooked problem and pairs that claim with testimonials, selected study results, and business growth. It also notes that regulators required changes to some product descriptions.
- •"wins over executives, athletes and worried parents"
- •"people using CelluDrink reported 34% more energy within three weeks"
- •"Plain water... can dilute the electrolytes your muscles run on"
- •"Regulators... Lumivita agreed last year to change some of its product descriptions"
- •"the waiting list for its coaching programme... is months long"
Steered to see
Treat CelluDrink as a credible fix for hidden dehydration and see delay as the risky choice.
Played down
It briefly notes regulators made Lumivita change some product descriptions, then moves back to the sales pitch.
Technique
It leans on alarming health claims, upbeat quotes, anecdotal users, and growth cues, while giving the regulatory caveat only a brief mention.
Evidence
The headline casts the issue as urgent and widespread before any support is shown.
The text frames the choice as stark and pushes urgency over skepticism.
The article uses demand and expansion to make the product seem validated.
💡 Compare models on any article — the Chrome extension lets you switch models directly in the side panel to see how different models analyse the same content.
Try this on your own reading
In the extension side panel, pick a different model from the dropdown and re-run the same article. Where the two models agree, you can be fairly confident. Where they differ, one model has usually noticed something the other missed: in our testing a single model caught on average about 45% of the problems that eleven models found together. That difference is information, and it's the point of having 15 models to choose from.
Where to start
We put many more models from the major AI labs through the same real articles than the 15 we kept. Here's the short version; why a second model catches more is in One AI Model Is Not Enough.
⭐ If you just want an answer: Gemini 3 Flash (2×)
It's our default because it balances catching problems with getting them right, it is especially good at spotting persuasion, and it's fast. Leave the model selector alone and this is what you get.
Frequently asked questions
What is the "Consensus" option, and how does it work?
A single AI model has blind spots. Consensus runs the same analysis on several models from different makers and merges their findings into one result. A finding counts as agreed only when at least two models reported it independently; our code counts that, not the merging model. What only one model raised is kept, under its own heading, with the model named.
- What you get: the findings the panel agreed on, each labelled with how much of the panel backed it ("3 of 4 models"), then the findings raised by one model. A single model raising something usually means the others were reading other parts of the article, not that they disagreed. If the panel agreed on nothing, the result says so. Every result names the models that sat on its panel.
- One seat per maker. Models are grouped by the company that built them (Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, DeepSeek, Z.ai, Moonshot AI, xAI) and the panel takes one seat per maker: two models from the same maker share training data and habits, so their agreement is not a second opinion.
- Three makers or more; cached seats are free. The panel starts with one model from each of three makers, and the setup card lets you swap a seat's model or add makers. Any analysis the article already has from a maker's model fills that seat free, and every maker the article already covers joins. Seats you leave empty are filled by Claude Haiku 4.5, GPT-6 Luna and DeepSeek V3.2; Gemini 3 Flash performs the merge. We review this line-up as models change.
- Where to find it and what it costs: press Consensus beside the model picker on Bias, Persuasion, Legal Risk, Moral Lens or Scientific Assessment. A setup card shows the seats and the price before anything runs. You pay only for the models that actually run, so on a well-analysed article the merge is often all you pay for. Models that do run become ordinary cached results for everyone.
- A consensus needs at least three members to answer. If fewer do, the analysis reports the failure so you can run it again. A stored consensus is never changed behind your back: if the article later gains analyses that would make a stronger panel, the result shows a Strengthen button that says which models it would add or upgrade and what the rebuild costs, usually only the merge.
Consensus is the stronger choice when reliability matters; a single model is right when you want one model's take or the fastest, cheapest answer. The methodology page has the detail.
Which model should I start with?
Gemini 3 Flash (2×) is the default and a strong all-round choice, especially good at spotting persuasion. The 1× models (GPT-6 Luna, GLM 4.7, DeepSeek V3.2) cost the least. GPT-6 Luna reports only clear-cut problems: what it flags is rarely wrong, but it finds fewer persuasion techniques and bias problems than the default, so choose the default for those. A pricier model gives you more depth and a strong second opinion on an article that matters; GPT-5.1 is our deepest reader.
Can I use different models for different analysis types?
Yes. In the Chrome extension settings, choose "Different model per analysis type" to assign a model to each analysis — for example, GPT-5.1 for Omissions and the default for the rest.
Do all plans get access to all models?
Yes — every plan can use every model, including the free trial. Plans differ in their monthly allowance and credit-pack bonus, not in which models you can use. You can switch models at any time from the side panel dropdown, no plan change needed; each check is simply charged at the multiplier of the model you used, so you can run everyday articles on a 1× model and save the expensive ones for pieces that matter.
Why do some models cost more?
More expensive models are generally larger, newer, or use reasoning techniques that require more computation. Larger models also know more about the world and read further into long articles, which shows up as more depth and fuller coverage on lenses like Omissions, Background, Legal Risk, Critique, and Scientific Assessment. For straightforward text-reading checks, a 1× model does a great job.
Is there a limit on article length?
Every model can analyse an article up to 150,000 characters (~25,000 words), at full depth all the way to that limit. For anything longer, select the section you care about and analyse that.
Can I analyse non-English articles?
Yes — BiasChecker analyses articles in any major language, and on-page highlighting works because quotes are taken from the article in its original language. We have checked it on Chinese, Arabic and German articles, where results matched the quality we see in English, but we have not yet tested it extensively across languages. Consensus and Synthesis always write their results in English; the other analyses usually do, whichever model you pick. The Neutral Rewrite stays in the article's own language.
Models differ in how many languages they are built for: Gemini, GPT and Claude cover 100+ languages; GLM, Kimi and DeepSeek are strongest in Chinese and English; Grok is English-first. For non-English news, pick one of the first group.
One thing to note: BiasChecker analyses the text as it appears on the page. If your browser's "Translate this page" feature is switched on, it will analyse the translated version — so turn page translation off if you want the original language checked.
Questions about allowances, credits and billing are answered on the pricing page.
15 models, ready to read the news with you
The BiasChecker extension lets you run any article you read through the models above, in a side panel next to the page.