D
10.3K posts


🏈 NFL Main Slate Play #1 (10/26):
D’Andre Swift o51.5 Rush Yards (-115 MGM) #DaBears
🤝 Collab with @FrannysPlays
Lamar Jackson gets ruled out… and somehow this line doesn’t move? That’s wild.
Without Lamar, this game script completely flips, we should see Chicago controlling the tempo and leaning heavier on the run game, giving Swift more carries than usual.
He’s been absolutely rolling lately with 108 rushing yards vs the Commanders and 124 vs the Saints, and now he gets a Ravens defense that’s quietly allowing the 7th most rushing yards this season.
Nick Chubb (61), Jahmyr Gibbs (67), David Montgomery (151), and Quinshon Judkins (61) have all cleared this number vs Baltimore and with the way Swift has looked lately, I love him to do the same.
Shoutout Franny for the writeup 🔥
📊 @OutlierDotBet
#NFL #GamblingX #BetMGM

English

@pikkitsports It’s clear as day he is short with his knee down. Absolutely the right call
English

. @fliff @FliffSupport you guys should do the right thing and refund all Ekeler plays
English
D retweetledi

When you see highly educated scientists and physicians (people with master’s degrees in public health and PhDs in their fields) completely disagreeing on a health topic (whether it’s diet, cholesterol, or vaccines), it should raise a red flag.
Why? Because when experts who are supposedly looking at the same body of evidence land on opposite conclusions, it usually means one or more of the following is happening:
• Someone is cherry-picking data.
• Someone is overly biased or dogmatic.
• Someone is ignoring inconvenient evidence.
• Someone has financial or professional incentives to defend their position.
Bad intentions are rarely the root cause. Most experts genuinely believe their viewpoint. But we can’t ignore the reality that careers, reputations, and salaries often depend on defending certain narratives. As Upton Sinclair put it: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Example 1: Nutrition
Some PhDs will swear red meat is dangerous because of saturated fat, while others will argue it’s one of the most nutrient-dense, health-promoting foods. Both cite “the science.” The difference usually lies in what evidence they prioritize: weak food-frequency questionnaires vs. rigorous clinical outcomes, or epidemiology vs. biochemistry.
Example 2: Cholesterol and Statins
Decades of dogma have framed LDL cholesterol as the “cause” of heart disease, leading to the widespread prescription of statins. Yet, other equally credentialed experts argue the story is far more nuanced: LDL may be a marker rather than the cause, and metabolic health (insulin resistance, inflammation) drives cardiovascular risk far more than cholesterol alone. Patients are put on lifelong statins, despite the fact that for many groups (especially primary prevention in low-risk individuals), the absolute benefit is tiny, while side effects are real. Both camps have MDs, PhDs, and clinical trials to back them. So which one is “science,” and which one is “misinformation”?
Example 3: Vaccines
Some public health experts say every single vaccine on the schedule is safe and necessary, while others raise legitimate concerns about certain ingredients or the aggressive dosing schedule. Again, same credentials but opposite conclusions because interpretation and bias are involved.
Here’s the broader lesson: when smart people with the same level of training land on opposite sides of the fence, it doesn’t mean both sides are equally valid. It means you, as a critical thinker, need to look closer at the assumptions, incentives, and blind spots driving their conclusions. Science isn’t about consensus—it’s about evidence that can withstand scrutiny. Consensus is often just a snapshot of what the majority believes, not necessarily what’s true.
And history proves this over and over again. What was once “settled science” is often overturned later:
• Galileo was condemned for rejecting the Earth-centered consensus.
• Semmelweis was ridiculed for handwashing. Germ theory was once “quackery.”
• For years, smoking was considered safe, and even endorsed by doctors.
Each time, there was consensus. Each time, the consensus was wrong.
So the presence of disagreement among equally credentialed experts should not be dismissed as “misinformation.” It should be seen as an invitation to think more critically, to examine incentives, and to remember that truth doesn’t depend on a vote.
English

@cosmosKING_ $Erdou
8t7Z4PDz3CZGVQakx4DqcQpJ9j6Rz8CKMfZL2kGHbonk
$Kori 1.7M followers
$Erdou 40M followers
Erdou is a cat based in China that’s viral on Douyin which is Chinas version of TikTok. The value gap is insane
Launched on @bonkfun check it out
English

Told you $Erdou would grab attention and 250k is nothing. @SolportTom stated he is donating 140k+ to $Kori for CEX (badass btw)
$Kori 1.7M followers
$Erdou 40M followers
$Erdou has the biggest global presence especially in China also launched on @bonkfun I think this kitty will reach the heavens
D@spacedoctor307
I’m bullish on $Erdou 500+ holders with 3 80% retracements, floor is around 50k You guys saw what $Momo or $shiyo just did. $Erdou is one of the most famous cats in China on Douyin (Chinese TikTok) as you know Hold for me - plus 50k is a steal compared to its potential
English

@itspyrored x.com/i/grok/share/H…
$Erdou is an animal by itself. More viral than $Kori $Andrea $Lola combined. Chart is clean
Only one coin. Only launched on @bonkfun
8t7Z4PDz3CZGVQakx4DqcQpJ9j6Rz8CKMfZL2kGHbonk
English

Comparison with @grok between $Kori $Andrea $Erdou
“ $Erdou dominance is clear “
$Kori 42M
$Andrea 1.3M
$Erdou 44K
x.com/i/grok/share/1…
English

$Erdou is about 9 times more viral than $Andrea
Only a matter of time and thank you
@grok
x.com/i/grok/share/M…
English

@theunipcs You guys realize $Erdou is far more viral than $kori on @bonkfun
The value gap is massive. Douyin with 800M active users
Thanks bonk guy

English

very valid points!
however i do believe the next wave of growth in the trenches will happen on BonkFun
the fresh wave of TikTokers will be launching on BonkFun
there are already signs of this happening
several high-profile TikTok accounts are already openly launching tokens on BonkFun and actively shilling both their tokens and the platform in their bios and TikTok videos
one of them is a viral TikTok animal followed and engaged by some of the world’s biggest brands and celebs
possibly the most viral animal on the planet
it has multiple TikTok videos with record-breaking reach — including one that ranks in the top 5 most-viewed of all time, with over 1 billion views
and its BonkFun CA is blatantly featured in the bio of its TikTok page + it does routine videos featuring BonkFun and its token
it’s an easy $100m+ narrative disguised as a low cap right now
possibly $WIF-level potential even
no one’s talking about it yet, but i’m confident many will be soon
they chose to launch on BonkFun, not anywhere else, and they’ve been aggressively pushing both their token and the BonkFun platform on TikTok
i know more viral narratives like this will spin up on BonkFun very soon
not just in the West, but also across cultures e.g. China, Korea, CIS, etc
BonkFun has grown rapidly
but the true network effects haven’t even begun
and they will begin soon
GOD WILLING
Adam@Adam_Tehc
The timeline is euphoric, but in reality the trenches aren't getting bigger, users are just migrating. • There's 30,000 tokens created daily by 10,000 "devs". • 200-300 migrations. • $150M volume generating $1.5M fees a day. Except 75% is now happening on Bonk in a market which has been dominated by Pump for 1.5 years. The real fun begins when there’s another wave of fresh TikTokers.
English

@mr_pschmitt Mr. Patrick check out $woof
6SXvJzpAhc69g6u6g9BsgFM1nyk54WD7md1T13mTbonk
History is nutty, plus all dogs $woof and $woof even louder on @bonkfun
After you gave us all $momo I need to give back
English















