Elon Musk posts drug test results after alleged addiction ruined his gig at Trump's White House
Elon Musk has reportedly tested negative for fentanyl, ketamine and a cocktail of other drugs amid rumors of his crippling habit severing his ties to the White House.
Musk shared a photo of results on X early this morning with the caption 'lol,' most likely referencing accusations surrounding his drug use.
The image shows he tested negative for 22 substances, including benzodiazepines, amphetamines, ecstasy, cocaine, ketamine, opioids, cannabis and fentanyl.
He also previously claimed to have been prescribed the powerful anesthetic ketamine for depression.
According to the image, the urine test was performed June 11 at Fastest Labs of South Austin in Texas.
The results come weeks after a bombshell New York Times report claiming Musk was taking so much ketamine that is had begun affecting his bladder, which could include pain and control issues.
He also took ecstasy, psychedelic mushrooms and travelled with a daily pill box that contained about 20 different drugs, including Adderall, sources allege.
While the results are negative, urine drug tests can only detect substances for anywhere from one to seven days. Other measures like hair follicle tests can detect substance abuse dating back six months.
This means it's possible Musk only stopped taking drugs for a few days, and it's still possible he has a history of drug abuse.
Prior to posting the results, the Tesla CEO had shared a post from an X user that read: 'If Elon is on any drugs, I want what he's having.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
FDA to offer faster drug reviews to companies promoting 'national priorities'
U.S. regulators will begin offering faster reviews to new medicines that administration officials deem as promoting 'the health interests of Americans,' under a new initiative announced Tuesday. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary said the agency will aim to review select drugs in one to two months. FDA 's long-standing accelerated approval program generally issues decisions in six months for drugs that treat life-threatening diseases. Regular drug reviews take about 10 months. Since arriving at the FDA in April, Makary has repeatedly told FDA staff they need to 'challenge assumptions' and rethink procedures. In a medical journal commentary published last week, Makary suggested the agency could conduct 'rapid or instant reviews," pointing to the truncated process used to authorize the first COVID-19 vaccines under Operation Warp Speed. For the new program, the FDA will issue a limited number of 'national priority vouchers' to companies 'aligned with U.S. national priorities,' the agency said in a statement. The special designation will give the selected companies access to extra FDA communications, streamlined staff reviews and the ability to submit much of their product information in advance. Speeding up drug approvals has long been a priority of the pharmaceutical industry, which has successfully lobbied Congress to create a variety of special programs and pathways for faster reviews. Many aspects of the plan announced Tuesday overlap with older programs. But the broad criteria for receiving a voucher will give FDA officials unprecedented discretion in deciding which companies can benefit from the fastest reviews. "The ultimate goal is to bring more cures and meaningful treatments to the American public,' Makary said in a statement. Makary previously said the FDA should be willing to ease its scientific requirements for certain drugs, for instance, by not always requiring randomized studies in which patients are tracked over time to track safety and effectiveness. Such trials are generally considered the gold standard of medical research, though the FDA has increasingly been willing to accept smaller, less-definitive studies for rare or life-threatening diseases. In several recent cases, the FDA has faced criticism for approving drugs based on preliminary data that didn't ultimately show benefits for patients. The push to rapidly accelerated drug approvals is the opposite approach that Makary and his boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have taken on vaccines. Promising a 'return to gold-standard science,' Kennedy previously announced that all new vaccines would have to be compared to placebo, or a dummy shot, to win approval. Kennedy and Makary also have announced a stricter policy on seasonal updates to COVID-19 shots, saying they will have to undergo new testing before they can be approved for use in healthy children and most adults. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
NAACP threatens to sue Elon Musk's xAI over Memphis air pollution
June 17 (Reuters) - The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) on Tuesday sent a notice to billionaire Elon Musk's xAI, signaling its intention to sue the company over air pollution from the AI startup's data center in Memphis. The letter, sent by Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) on NAACP's behalf, alleges xAI has violated federal law by using methane gas turbines at its South Memphis data center without acquiring permits or "best available" pollution controls. Data centers that provide computing power for AI are highly power-intensive and require round-the-clock electricity. Given the slow pace of clean-energy deployments, the surging demand is being met by fossil fuels including natural gas and coal. Methane emissions from human activities such as oil and gas production, electricity generation and agriculture are short-lived in the atmosphere, but are often more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Emissions from xAI's data center further exacerbate the already poor air quality in Memphis, SELC said. "These turbines have pumped out pollution that threatens the health of Memphis families. This notice paves the way for a lawsuit that can hold xAI accountable for its unlawful refusal to get permits for its gas turbines," SELC Senior Attorney Patrick Anderson said. "We take our commitment to the community and environment seriously. The temporary power generation units are operating in compliance with all applicable laws," an xAI spokesman told Reuters. The AI company has installed 35 turbines, nearly all of which were running without the required permits as of April, SELC said. The SELC added that while xAI had removed some smaller turbines, the company recently installed three larger turbines. The environmental legal advocacy organization said in August that xAI had installed 20 gas turbines at the site. Representatives of Elon Musk did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for comment.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
How AI pales in the face of human intelligence and ingenuity
Gary Marcus is right to point out – as many of us have for years – that just scaling up compute size is not going to solve the problems of generative artificial intelligence (When billion-dollar AIs break down over puzzles a child can do, it's time to rethink the hype, 10 June). But he doesn't address the real reason why a child of seven can solve the Tower of Hanoi puzzle that broke the computers: we're embodied animals and we live in the world. All living things are born to explore, and we do so with all our senses, from birth. That gives us a model of the world and everything in it. We can infer general truths from a few instances, which no computer can do. A simple example: to teach a large language model 'cat', you have to show it tens of thousands of individual images of cats – being the way they are, they may be up a tree, in a box, or hiding in a roll of carpet. And even then, if it comes upon a cat playing with a bath plug, it may fail to recognise it as a cat. A human child can be shown two or three cats, and from interacting with them, it will recognise any cat as a cat, for life. Apart from anything else, this embodied, evolved intelligence makes us incredibly energy-efficient compared with a computer. The computers that drive an autonomous car use anything upwards of a kilowatt of energy, while a human driver runs on twentysomething watts of renewable power – and we don't need an extra bacon sandwich to remember a new route. At a time of climate emergency, the vast energy demands of this industry might perhaps lead us to recognise, and value, the extraordinary economy, versatility, plasticity, ingenuity and creativity of human intelligence – qualities that we all have simply by virtue of being HaymanAdvisory board member, Minderoo Centre for Technology & Democracy, Cambridge University It comes as no surprise to me that Apple researchers have found 'fundamental limitations' in cutting-edge artificial intelligence models (Advanced AI suffers 'complete accuracy collapse' in face of complex problems, study finds, 9 June). AI in the form of large reasoning models or large language models (LLMs) are far from being able to 'reason'. This can be simply tested by asking ChatGPT or similar: 'If 9 plus 10 is 18 what is 18 less 10?' The response today was 8. Other times, I've found that it provided no definitive answer. This highlights that AI does not reason – currently, it is a combination of brute force and logic routines to essentially reduce the brute force approach. A term that should be given more publicity is ANI – artificial narrow intelligence, which describes systems like ChatGPT that are excellent at summarising pertinent information and rewording sentences, but are far from being able to reason. But note, the more times that LLMs are asked similar questions, the more likely it will provide a more reasonable response. Again, though, this is not reasoning, it is model TaylorMona Vale, New South Wales, Australia Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
