Another day, another anti-@elonmusk post from the left that is clearly artificially amplified right out of the gate.
If you’ve spent more than 5 minutes on X you will notice that something is off about this post right away. Look for yourself.
11.7k likes on 169k views. Thats almost 7 out of every 100 people who saw it liked it (normal tweets barely crack 2 percent)
Only 78 replies with 11k+ likes. Real viral stuff always gets way more comments if this many people actually cared
665 reposts but just 5 quotes on a snarky gotcha tweet where you’d expect tons of people adding their own thoughts
Huge outlier for him as his other recent tweets have way more normal ratios like 1.2k likes on 42k views
So who exactly is paying for these targeted left-wing bot campaigns against Elon and many others?
There’s a clear pattern and addressing it would go a long way toward cleaning up the platform for everyone. This is not a one off thing, as I’m sure many have noticed.
🚨DEVELOPING:
American men “Nicky Numbers” and “Jersey Jerry” (described by a witness as “child-sized”) seen distancing themselves from a crash-site involving @tBushGaming.
It is being reported that around 15 minutes after the crash Nicky Numbers was seen whispering something to Jerry. Seconds later, Jerry remarkably fell to the ground holding his neck in severe pain, despite not seeming injured at first.
Witnesses do say he was able to sit up momentarily to hit his vape.
Allegedly, Jerry is in contact with the top UK law firm to pursue compensation from Barstool Sports’ insurance plan for his miraculous injuries.
Citing two people doesn't make an argument correct, it just means two people said it.
It took one Google search to find that "Dr." Shelby has a plant science PhD, not a medical degree, and sits on the board of a company whose entire investor pitch is that animal data can't be trusted. (the exact foundation BPC-157's evidence rests on).
The ChatGPT thing is funny because you didn't address a single point. Just deflections and a guinea pig joke from someone whose original post opened with "imagine people getting cancer" while citing someone with a direct financial incentive to make that claim.
The irony is that legitimate critiques of BPC-157 exist, but that's not what this was. Connect the dots yourself.
Not to mention you’re completely ignoring what the compound actually does. BPC-157 has shown consistent results accelerating tendon and ligament repair, protecting the gut lining, and supporting neurological function, all being tissue types that conventional medicine genuinely struggles to treat. People are using this because they’re getting results where nothing else worked.
Dismissing all of that because it shares a basic biological mechanism with cancer is like saying you shouldn’t eat protein because mTOR activation promotes cell growth. You can make anything sound scary if you strip it of context. Your just fear-mongering.
First, forming new blood vessels isn’t “core to cancer metastasis”. That’s a different biological process entirely. Metastasis is when cancer invades and spreads to other sites, which involves a whole separate cascade beyond just blood vessel formation. Getting that wrong while positioning yourself as the authority here is a problem.
And even if we take your point at face value, exercise, fasting, and basic wound healing all promote new blood vessel formation too. By your logic you’d have to warn people off the gym. The real critique of BPC-157 is that long-term human trial data is limited, which is fair. But this argument isn’t that. This is just mechanism-shaming dressed up as science.
Pricing stayed the same. $5/$25 per million input/output tokens.
Better model, same cost. That almost never happens.
Its Available now on https://t.co/QjquwCmhDL, the API, and all major cloud platforms.
Which of these capabilities are you most excited to test?
Claude Opus 4.6 just dropped and the benchmarks are wild.
Beats GPT-5.2 by 144 Elo points on real-world knowledge work. Beats its own predecessor by 190.
Here's what actually matters:
🧵
The real shift though? Agent teams.
Instead of one AI grinding through tasks sequentially, Opus 4.6 splits work across multiple agents coordinating in parallel.
NBIM tested this with 40 cybersecurity investigations. Opus 4.6 won 38 of 40 in blind ranking against 4.5 models. Each run used 9 subagents and 100+ tool calls.
Read more here:
https://t.co/d4C7x2TCzT