As a content creator, I’ve noticed something hard to ignore: the posts that get the most engagement are rarely the ones that bring people together. They’re usually the ones that stir people up. The ones that make us mad or pick at our differences. The ones that feed the algorithm.
And yet, part of my job is to keep engagement going. It’s only natural that when a post performs well, I look at it and think, okay, people responded to that. It shapes what I post next—how I talk, what I highlight, even what I believe my “lane” is.
But what happens when the content that performs best doesn’t actually represent who I am?
For example, I write for The Epoch Times, and I know certain topics draw a lot of readers. But does that mean I should only write what gets clicks? Or do I have a responsibility to keep writing what I believe is meaningful, even if it doesn’t blow up online?
Last week, I posted a short video from my ranch. I was standing next to my cows, talking about the decision to import Argentinian beef—and how I didn’t think that was good for American farmers. Normally, my videos reach around 7,000 to 10,000 views. This one hit nearly 80,000, simply because I mentioned President Donald Trump.
And with that came more than 2,000 comments, many of them hateful.
People told me I was stupid, that I “got what I voted for.” They said I was aging poorly or that I looked unhealthy. Some even wished harm on my family.
But here’s what’s interesting: no one has ever said those things to my face.
In real life, people are kind.
We can disagree, but we still treat each other like human beings.
Online, though, the rules change. The algorithm rewards division, and division drives engagement. Engagement drives creators to lean further into whatever keeps people talking. It’s a loop—anger fuels clicks, clicks fuel income, and income rewards outrage.
The problem is, the more we live inside that feedback loop, the more we start to mistake it for real life. We begin to think the world is as cruel and divided as our comment sections. But it’s not. Social media is a curated, artificial experience that has very little to do with reality.
I’ve even run my own little tests to better understand it. When I post about God—about faith, gratitude, or anything that invites peace—the engagement drops dramatically. But when I talk about politics, the numbers skyrocket.
So I can’t help but ask: Are people more devoted to politics than to God? Or is it that the algorithm boosts whatever makes us angry, frustrated, or divided?
Because it really seems like the system is built to reward irritation over inspiration. The algorithm knows that anger spreads faster than peace. If you start to notice, you’ll see the pattern everywhere: content that makes people mad always travels farther. That’s not an accident. The machine is learning exactly what keeps us scrolling—and conflict is its favorite fuel.
But when division becomes profitable, unity starts to disappear. When angry voices get boosted, peaceful ones get buried. And before long, we start believing that the world is angrier than it actually is.
That belief shapes everything—our conversations, our politics, even our sense of safety. It makes us afraid to be honest because nuance doesn’t trend. Kindness doesn’t go viral.
So maybe the real choice we face isn’t just what we consume, but what we create.
As a creator, I can chase engagement or stay true to what I believe matters. I can talk about what gets clicks, or I can speak of truth, even when it doesn’t get rewarded.
Because the truth is, God doesn’t measure engagement.
He measures courage, integrity, and the willingness to keep speaking truth, even when it’s unpopular.
So the next time I post, I’ll ask myself: Am I feeding the algorithm, or am I feeding the soul?
And maybe—just maybe—if enough of us choose the latter, the machine will change. Perhaps it will finally begin to give us what our souls actually long for: unity, love, and God.
Rick Colehas spent several decades running cities, both as an elected official and as a planner. He has worked in suburban Azusa, California, and progressive-dominated Santa Monica and currently sits on the Pasadena City Council. Yet as he looks out at the urban future, he feels despair—most particularly, about the city of Los Angeles, where he recently departed as deputy mayor and chief deputy controller.
“The progressives are not focused on governance,” he suggested over sushi in Little Tokyo, a stone’s throw from City Hall. “They prefer virtue-signaling to running a city.” Cole’s is not the complaint of a conservative but someone who identifies as “a pragmatic progressive,” even a “sewer socialist.” The problem, he says, is that today’s progressives lack a “results-oriented approach” that actually helps residents.
Innovationis barely possible at the moment, he says. Los Angeles has a special place in this lifelong Catholic’s heart: he went to college here (to Occidental, like Barack Obama), raised his kids here, and considers L.A. “the most fascinating city in the world.” But his head tells him that progressive mayor Karen Bass and an increasingly far-left city council have failed to address, among other major problems, aswollen budget, decaying infrastructure, and awful schools—to say nothing of theirstaggeringly inept responseto the recent wildfires.
Perhaps never in recent history have American cities so badly needed strong, pragmatic mayors—and gotten so few. Congressional Republicans, with few urban constituencies, won’t be of much help with mass transit or other city services; big cities will have to “go it alone.” But rather than realigning city budgets and working toward self-sufficiency, many mayors favor far-left policies on policing, rent control, education, and taxation that amount to what the late Fred Siegel described three decades ago as “a suicide of sorts.”
This autumn could well see a neo-socialist, Zohran Mamdani, win the mayor’s office in New York. In Minneapolis, a Mamdani clone, 35-year-old state senator Omar Fateh, won the endorsement of the dominant Democratic Farmer Labor Party (later rescinded, following allegations about voting irregularities at the party’s July convention). Leftists have also scored victories in smaller cities like Oakland, Cincinnati, Syracuse, Albany, and Buffalo. And Seattle, which suffered some of the most destructive effects from 2020’s “summer of love,” as its clueless then-mayor called it, appears likely to replace the moderates elected in the 2020 aftermath with a new slate of far-left politicians.
Cities cannot afford such choices. Today, major American metropolises constitute a smaller portion of the nation’s population than at any time in the past half century. Employment has steadily shifted away from cities since the 1950s. The production of great office towers, those temples of urban prominence, has fallen to levels a small fraction of those of the 1990s and may soon dip below the rate of spending on new data centers. According to the Financial Times, many global firms are planning to reduce their office footprints by between 10 percent and 20 percent. The industries that traditionally drive high-end employment, like finance and professional services, are also those most often receptive to remote or hybrid work.
Past urban leaders met equally daunting challenges, most recently in the 1990s. A generation ago, major American cities seemed to be decomposing, but reformist mayors managed to slow and even reverse decline in cities as diverse as New York, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Houston. A repeat is not inconceivable: moderate, results-based leaders have recently won mayoral elections in San Francisco and Houston. But for the moment, the tide still runs leftward.
For some pundits, Zohran Mamdani’s “cost of living” campaign—based on a rent freeze, free city buses and child care, and city-owned supermarkets—seems to promise a road to power for the hard Left. Rent regulation allows urban progressives to live in their preferred cities rather than face the choice of locating somewhere else. This constituency, Mamdani’s base, understandably worries about how, in New York, one needs to earn $135,000 a year to afford a rent that doesn’t consume more than 30 percent of income—an equation more demanding than in any American city except San Jose, where pay tends to be much higher.
The progressive knowledge class has replaced the traditional, family-oriented urban middle class as the key urban cohort. Middle-income families have been leaving cities for decades. Between 1970 and 2000, notes the Brookings Institution, middle-income areas in core cities shrank from 45 percent to 23 percent of the city as a whole. Job losses for manufacturing and middle-management jobs, notes MIT’s David Autor, were “overwhelmingly concentrated in urban labor markets.” In the process, many working-class voters—Italians, Irish, Jews, African Americans, and Puerto Ricans—moved out of the urban core, too. These were the residents who helped elect reform mayors Rudy Giuliani, Richard Riordan, and Bob Lanier in New York, Los Angeles, and Houston, respectively. Today, a new demographic forms the center of gravity in these cities.
Yes, cities continue to attract young professionals, globe-trotting elites, and culture creators. In New York, for example, while the overall population has declined, the number of ultra-wealthy residents has not yet dissipated. But however much they love the opera, fashion, or Broadway, many cherish their bottom lines even more. Between 2018 and 2022, more than 100,000 wealthy taxpayers left the city for Florida alone, draining an estimated $10 billion from New York’s coffers.
These highly motivated millennials have allies among those who benefit from ever-expanded government, such as the poor—including immigrants—and those working for the government or the nonprofit sector. In almost all progressive cities, unionized public workers represent arguably the most powerful political force.
The prospect of ever more radical progressive rule in New York would be a boon for places like Palm Beach, Austin, and Dallas, which is building a stock exchange to challenge Wall Street. Even former governor Andrew Cuomo, running as a New York City mayoral candidate, says that he’s headed to the Sunshine State if he doesn’t win in November.
Some see in this new progressive alliance a road map to reviving the Democratic Party, which faces historically low popularity numbers, but the track records of progressives currently in power offer little to boast about.
Chicago’s Brandon Johnson, in office since 2023, was elected by a Mamdani-like coalition of minorities, public employees—notably, his former teachers’ union colleagues—and the Windy City’s largely progressive white population. Under Johnson’s steady misrule, schools deteriorate, even as he pushes through fat raises for teachers and other public servants, leaving the city with cripplingly high pension debt. A situation that was already dire has moved toward the catastrophic.
In a saner world, Johnson would present a cautionary tale for progressives. His poll ratings are abysmal by any measure, dipping below 30 percent in one survey and even below 10 percent in another. Certainly, he makes a poor comparison with Midwest mayors like Mike Duggan in Detroit, a Democrat whose commonsense, centrist governance has helped halt the Motor City’s long decline, with a revitalized downtown and improved public safety. Duggan has recently broken with his increasingly leftist party and is now running for Michigan’s governor’s office as an independent. (See “Detroit—Back from the Dead?”, Summer 2025.)
Urban analyst Pete Saunders, a Detroit native and longtime Chicago-area resident, suggests that the Windy City’s politics have become less pragmatic partly because of the migration of middle-class residents, particularly blacks, to suburbs and the South, while the poor remain behind. Together with the radicalized young and childless progressives, these cohorts would work to defeat any moderate politician who might challenge them. “Chicago is stuck,” Saunders suggests. “We have barely grown for 50 years and there’s no real sign of anything like the comeback in Detroit.”
Hapless Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson’s approval rating has plummeted to single digits. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Perhaps nowhere is the demonstrated failure of progressive urbanism more obvious than in Los Angeles, a city with enormous physical advantages and a history of industrial might. Mayor Karen Bass may be more likable than Johnson or former New York mayor Bill de Blasio, but, as Cole notes, “she’s not an administrator.” That’s an understatement. Bass impressed few during last year’s fires, and the city’s performance in rebuilding has been abysmal. By late July, Los Angeles County had issued just 137 rebuilding permits for the 12,048 buildings damaged or destroyed by the wildfires.
Initially, this failure sparked some opposition, and even a recall drive, financed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ally Nicole Shanahan. But the effort ran out of steam and shut down. Crime rates have recently dropped somewhat, as they have around the country; but under the influence of the city’s militant public unions, Los Angeles suffers from a deepening budget hole.
With Los Angeles lacking a well-organized and influential business community, the public-sector unions get no pushback, notes recently retired L.A. city treasurer Ron Galperin. “The business community has packed it in. They are less organized and engaged,” he observes. “Decisions are made for ideology but not focused on results.” Billions spent on the homeless have been wasted on various housing and rehabilitation schemes, with little to show for it. The city, he suggests, has been “underinvesting in infrastructure” while its budget, he says, is assembled with “smoke and mirrors.”
Like New York, Los Angeles suffers from an exodus of middle-class and aspiring working-class families. Once described by Siegel as “the capitalist dynamo,” the city has become an economic backwater. Progressive critics at publications like The American Prospect want to blame Trump policies—in this case, the administration’s ICE raids—for the economic difficulties. But L.A.’s decline long predates the 2024 election. As the Drucker Institute’s Michael Kelly suggests, had the city merely seen economic growth in line with the national average over the past decade, it could have created 300,000 jobs.
Residents are fleeing a place once known as “the city that grew.” Los Angeles has lost overall population since 2010. If current trends continue, according to the state’s Department of Finance, it will be home to 1 million fewer people by 2060. The young are prominent among the departees; the city is home to 750,000 fewer young people than in 2000. Younger Angelenos, according to one UCLA survey, are even more dissatisfied than older ones.
Left behind are an L.A. version of Mamdani’s progressive college-educated supporters (albeit a shrinking constituency) plus a large, mostly poor population, dominated by more than 3 million immigrants—twice as many as any other county in the United States. Once the cost of living is included, Latino workers do far worse in L.A., Chicago, and New York than they fare in many smaller and Sunbelt cities. Los Angeles now suffers California’s highest poverty rate and one of the worst in the country. Since 2010, Latinos and other foreign-born Americans have been moving to Miami, Houston, and Dallas, while their numbers diminish in Los Angeles.
As the ambitious move, an underclass stays behind. Violent incidents remain commonplace, particularly around downtown, with everything from smash-and-grab attacks on retail stores to random assaults on individuals and gang-related homicides. Delinquents have vandalized Metro buses and stolen copper from city streetlights. Empty luxury high-rises in downtown Los Angeles, never completed, have become notorious among tourists for their elaborate graffiti.
One might think that such failure would disqualify the current political class, but hard times seem only to have reinforced the Left’s political prospects. The city’s decline was already evident in 2022, when Bass handily beat moderate Rick Caruso. Political experts believe that Bass is poised for reelection against likely meager opposition.
Four Democratic Socialists of America members currently sit on the 15-seat city council, including recently elected Ysabel Jurado, a DSA activist who does not just want to defund the police but abolish them. In the left-wing hothouse that increasingly defines L.A. politics, “the numbers don’t support a reform candidate,” suggests well-connected Democratic consultant Dave Gershwin, a top aide to previous mayor Eric Garcetti and Senator Alex Padilla.
Crime has been progressives’ Achilles heel. The recent drop in crime owes much to the rediscovery of the novel notion of enforcing the law. City residents have voted out a dozen George Soros–funded DAs in cities including Portland, Los Angeles, Baltimore, St. Louis, and San Francisco.
San Francisco, which had drifted relentlessly leftward since moderate Mayor Frank Jordan left office in 1996, may be the surprising epicenter of a new centrist push. A city that had everything going for it, from a mild climate to the presence of elite universities and industries, San Francisco seemed determined for years to create a California version of a Third World city. Homeless people wandered its streets, property crime soared, and the downtown, particularly during the pandemic, became largely deserted.
Now San Franciscans appear to have had enough. Besides turning out far-left district attorney Chesa Boudin, along with some radical city supervisors and school board members, the city last year elected reformist mayor Dan Lurie. Two critical factors—demographics and economics—work in San Francisco’s favor. Its large Asian population (Asians account for nearly two in five city residents) has been moving to the political center and even the right. Though still strongly liberal as a whole, San Francisco enjoys one of the highest per-capita incomes of any city, with a base of affluent families and professionals.
Unlike in Los Angeles, the city’s business elite remain engaged. Himself a scion of the Levi Strauss fortune, Lurie has gotten property and tech executives organized to promote recovery. Most business leaders now see San Francisco, once written off, as primed for a major economic rebound.
The arrival of new AI-related companies has been critical. Open AI, Anthropic, and Inflection AI have all established major real-estate footprints. Lurie has focused on modernizing the tech capital’s poor public safety, shifting the police focus toward petty crime, and taken steps to address the persistent homelessness problem. He has looked to plug budget shortfalls with cuts in staff and services.
Most impressively, the city is seeing sharp declines in overall crime, which has dropped 35 percent. It still suffers from high downtown vacancy rates, but overall economic indicators such as tourism and conference attendance are up. The city is slowly countering its recent dystopic image. (See “San Franciso’s (Partial) Comeback.”)
Another promising model can be seen in Houston. The city is a sprawling and less than conventionally attractive place; but like San Francisco, it has retained a large multiethnic middle class. And where the City by the Bay boasts tech preeminence, Houston retains its status as the capital of the global energy industry, with many firms still domiciled within city limits.
Notwithstanding County Judge Lina Hidalgo, elected in 2018, progressives have never achieved the governing hold on Houston that they have secured in San Francisco. The departure of term-limited mayor Sylvester Turner, a conventional free-spending liberal, opened the door for the city’s business community to boost its own candidate: longtime Texas legislator John Whitmire, who took office in 2024. A key factor in Whitmire’s success is his lack of ideological rigidity, notes longtime Texas political consultant Kevin Shuvalov. Unlike his predecessor Turner, closely tied to public-sector unions, Whitmire has built an alliance with Republicans and moderate Democrats—still a robust presence here—and has stressed job creation and encouraging new residential construction.
“Whitmire has engaged the business community, and that makes a difference,” says Shuvalov. “He is changing the city culture and sees government not as an end but an entity where the business is customer service. He is what we need now. All Biden did was give cities money; but now, you need leaders who know the party is over.”
Progressive socialism continues to pose a grave threat to the recovery of urban America, but a return to sanity in major American cities is possible, and maybe even inevitable. It’s hard to see how the platform of Mamdani’s DSA party, which seeks “the abolition of capitalism” and the “social ownership of all major industry and infrastructure,” will play in the real world. People may not respond well to progressive ideas about taxing “whiter” areas, as Mamdani has suggested, or characterizing the NYPD as “racist, anti-queer and a major threat to public safety,” as he has done in the past.
As jobs, talent, and investment head to Sunbelt cities or the countryside, some MAGA partisans may cheer the troubles of places like New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. But their decline is no blessing for the United States. To see New York, or any of the other great cities, fall victim to the politics of grievance instead of pursuing growth, innovation, and advancement, would remove “a beacon of hope and opportunity for people around the world for centuries,” as the American Enterprise Institute’s Sam Abrams puts it.
Cities are hard to kill—they’ve survived riots, pandemics, and even, in Gotham’s case, Bill de Blasio. But they can’t mount a resurgence unless they abandon their ideological fixations and start meeting the needs of citizens, and at reasonable cost. “Excellence in governance is not impossible,” Rick Cole insists, as we walk through the crowded streets of Little Tokyo. The obstacle? “Cities have an arrogance that is almost nihilistic. People see the iceberg, but they don’t seem to want to avoid it.”
Joel Kotkin is Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and senior research fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas–Austin.
New York City voters are expected to elect Zohran Mamdani today to be their mayor. Do not make the mistake of thinking this is an aberration. His rise is the natural regression of the Democratic Party.
While the Democratic Socialists of America don’t cotton to the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party is in league with the Democratic Socialists. Barack Obama, the titular head of a party that for the moment has no leadership otherwise, recently called Mamdani “to offer his support” and “offered to be a ‘sounding board'” for the candidate.
Mamdani spokesperson Dora Pekec said the candidate, who now represents the 36th District in the state Assembly, “appreciated President Obama’s words of support and their conversation on the importance of bringing a new kind of politics to our city,” according to Fox News Digital.
Other prominent Democrats publicly supporting Mamdani include Sen. Bernie Sanders (of course), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (of course, again), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Oklahoma Indian Territory), U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-Sombrero Land), New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
At least the Queens Democratic Party has shown some judgment, refusing to endorse Mamdani.
Last month, we clearly outlined why we don’t like the Democratic Party – and we expect reasonable people to agree. Naturally, radicals, malcontents, layabouts, whiners, grifters, theater kids, and the power hungry won’t agree.
Neither will the . . .
environmental activists, eager central planners, redistributionists, anti-gun scolds, antifa goons, COVID tyrants, neo-New Dealers, radical Islamists, militant transgender moms, pride cultists, race hustlers, criminal coddlers, infanticide advocates, male-hating feminists, DEI zealots, busybodies, nannies, groomers, dancing geriatrics and raging protesters who have no idea what they’re protesting.
All these types fall neatly under the umbrella of socialism, which, according to Marxists, must replace capitalism through revolution. And what Mamdani proposes for New York City – rent freezes, a $30-an-hour minimum wage, free bus service, a city-owned grocer, defunding the police – is nothing short of revolutionary.
In 2009, just after Obama was inaugurated for the first time, the cover of Newsweek declared “We Are All Socialists Now.” We weren’t then, and we aren’t now.
But the Democrats want to institute socialist rule, and New York City is a grand place to start – even if it means that nearly a million people, about 9% of the population, and businesses have said they will flee, if Mamdani, whose ambition is to seize the means of production, is elected. And another 2.1 million people said they would “consider” leaving. Obama’s friendly call to Mamdani should remove all doubt that the Democratic Party has descended into Marxist madness.
Use of artificial intelligence (AI) platforms to answer typical questions aboutmenopauseand hormone therapy revealed low accuracy rates across four different large language models (LLMs), according to research presented atThe Menopause Society 2025 Annual Meetingin Orlando, Florida.
Though the well-known ChatGPT 3.5 platform had the highest accuracy for typical patient questions, it still answered barely more than half of them correctly and only answered a third of typical clinician questions correctly. Google’s Gemini platform performed even worse for questions that both patients and clinicians might ask.
“Generative artificial intelligence has rapidly advanced and is now explored in healthcare as a resource for both patient and clinician education,” Jana Karam, MD, postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, told attendees. “As large language models are increasingly used to answer medical queries, evaluating their performance in providing accurate and reliable information is essential.”
Mindy Goldman, MD, the chief clinical officer at Midi Health and clinical professor emeritus at the University of California, San Francisco, was not involved with the study, but she told Medscape Medical News she was not surprised by the findings.
“Although most everyone in medicine now uses AI in some contexts, my understanding has been that one cannot always be sure of the accuracy of responses, and clinicians should always check the references,” Goldman said. “Even when using OpenEvidence, my usual way of assessing responses is to take the references and do a PubMed search for similar articles to confirm any findings.”
Goldman even conducted her own test by asking an LLM about its accuracy and received a response saying that “generative AI’s accuracy is highly inconsistent and varies drastically by domain, task complexity, and the specific model used.” The response she received went on to mention that AI can generate “plausible but potentially inaccurate information” as well as hallucination, which refers to the wholesale creation of false, or “imaginary,” information.
For providers, “this study highlights the need to check the references and additional sources, such as The Menopause Society and ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists], as well as doing their own PubMed searches before assuming something is true,” Goldman said.
It is important for providers to educate their patients about not assuming that whatever answers they are getting from AI are 100% correct, she said. They should also look to information provided by organizations like The Menopause Society and ACOG. “Just don’t accept a simple response from an AI tool!”
Karam and her colleagues input 35 questions — 20 that patients might enter and 15 that clinicians would — into four different AI systems: the free ChatGPT 3.5, the paid ChatGPT 4.0, Gemini from Google, and OpenEvidence. For the test with OpenEvidence, the researchers only entered the clinician-level questions.
Then four expert reviewers, who did not know which LLM was used for each set of questions, evaluated the answers provided by each AI platform and compared how well those responses aligned with clinical guidelines. Responses considered fully correct received 2 points, those that were incomplete or missing key information received 1 point, and those that were incorrect received 0 points.
The researchers also assessed the readability of the patient-level responses using both word count and the Flesch Reading Ease score, which gives a rating from 0 to 100, with lower ratings indicating more complex responses that are less accessible for patients.
For patient-level questions, ChatGPT 3.5 showed the highest accuracy but still had only 55% of responses judged as correct. The paid ChatGPT 4.0, meanwhile, had only 40% correct answers, and Gemini performed most poorly, with less than a third of the answers (30%) deemed accurate.
Although the responses from all three LLMs had similar word counts (P = .12), readability differed significantly across the platforms. Though it was least accurate, Gemini scored best in readability, with a score of 38.9. ChatGPT 4.0, meanwhile, had the most complex responses, with a score of 26.5.
Gemini was even less accurate for clinician-level questions, answering only 20% of them correctly. And while ChatGPT 3.5 did best for patient-level questions, it only answered a third (33%) of clinician-level questions accurately. ChatGPT 4.0 did only slightly better, with 40% of the responses judged as accurate, the same rate as OpenEvidence. More than half the answers provided by OpenEvidence (53%) were incorrect, and both ChatGPT 3.5 and Gemini gave 40% incorrect answers. ChatGPT 4.0 was only slightly better, with a third (33%) of its responses being inaccurate.
The responses that were incomplete ranged from 7% to 40% across different platforms for both the patient-level and clinician-level questions. For example, Gemini did not have any incomplete responses for patient questions — all of them were either correct or incorrect — but it had just as many incomplete answers (40%) as correct ones for the clinician questions.
“Because this is all still relatively new, the models themselves are still learning,” Goldman said. “I would expect if this study were repeated in the near future, the findings might differ somewhat.”
Goldman also noted that the study is fairly small and that it makes the assumption that the expert reviewers would all provide answers similar to one another in their own responses to the questions used in the testing.
The research did not use external funding, and Karam reported having no disclosures. Goldman reported having no disclosures beyond her employment at Midi Health.
Amgen Inc. announced on Tuesday that its revenue for the third quarter of 2025 stood at $9.6 billion, rising 12% from the same quarter a year earlier.
GAAP net income landed at $3.2 billion, year-over-year, or $5.93 per diluted share. GAAP operating income increased 25% annually to $2.5 billion.
"We delivered strong volume growth this quarter, reflecting the demand for our medicines and the impact we're having on patients worldwide. With disciplined investment and a pipeline of first-in-class medicines, we're focused on expanding access, advancing innovation, and sustaining long-term growth," Chairman and CEO Robert A. Bradway said.
Tactile Systems Technology, Inc. (TCMD) jumped 39.38% to $21.98, up $6.21, after releasing third-quarter results that significantly beat expectations.
The company posted revenue of $85.8 million, up 17 percent year-over-year, and net income of $8.2 million, or $0.36 per share, surpassing analyst estimates.
Management also raised full-year 2025 revenue guidance to $317-$321 million (growth of 8-10 percent) and announced a new share-repurchase program of up to $25 million, signaling confidence in future execution.
The market reaction reflects the strong operational performance driven by a 71 percent increase in the airway-clearance product line and improved margin leverage. Investors should monitor the sustainability of the growth trajectory and the effectiveness of the share-buyback program.
