Der USA Bären-Thread
The White House has good reason to question the official story as expert virologist Dr. James Lyons-Weiler of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge, showed and explained how the coronavirus' genetic sequence - which has been publicly released by China - contains a unique "middle fragment" encoding a SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) spike protein that appears, according to his genomic analysis, to have been inserted into the 2019-nCoV virus using "pShuttle" technology. This technique can only be done in a lab, as it has never occurred naturally in nature.
https://apnews.com/PR Newswire/ff548c99a03afb0d69bb7871f7cd4fc0
...“This isn’t a ‘conspiracy theory,’ it is a scientific, medical theory,” says Del Bigtree, the Emmy-winning producer and founder of non-profit Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN). “Its foundation is based on sound science, logic, and research, and the mainstream media needs to be asked whether it is going to pursue this link to SARS instead of trying to censor anyone who is trying to pursue truth via scientific fact.”
Dr. Lyons-Weiler has put all of the scientific evidence backing his theory on the web for other scientists and interested parties to research on their own. He says that new sequences related to the study come in every day, and that he will publish a definitive final study that challenges the contention that 2019 n-CoV has no history of recombination. He told Highwire that if there have been covert vaccination studies using this virus in China, the human subjects in such trials may have become super-sensitized to secondary challenge from natural infection, which is what animal studies to date have found for every experimental vaccines that uses recombinant SARS proteins.
Am lautstärksten bestreitet Shi Zhengli, Direktor am Wuhan Institute of
Virology, dass das neue Corona-Virus künstlich hergestellt worden sei.
Er leitet einen regelrechten Kreuzzug Chinas gegen "unbewiesene
Verschwörungstheorien" in sozialen Medien. Wäre ja auch wirklich
peinlich.
Fakt allerdings bleibt, dass Zhengli höchstselbst im November im
Wuhan-Institut "SARS-Infektionen an Fledermäusen" erforscht hat. Speziell
untersuchte Zhengli - als Co-Autor einer am 9. November 2019 im
Fachmagazin "Natural Medicine" veröffentlichen Studie - das Virus
SHC014-CoV, das sich vom jetzt kursierenden Corona-Virus 2019-nCoV
unterscheidet und natürlich in "Hufeisennasen"-Fledermäusen vorkommt. Bei der Experimenten sollen auch chimärische Viren hergestellt worden sein, die das menschliche Atemsystem angreifen können.
https://www.zerohedge.com/health/...ther-2019-ncov-was-bio-engineered
...One additional, major reason we suspect this line of logical
reasoning could be correct - as conspiratorial as it may seem - is that
Chinese authorities have launched a full-scale crusade to disprove the
fact that this deadly virus was man-made.
"Conspiracy theorists don't believe in science. I hope that the national
professional department will investigate and give us an innocence," Shi
Zhengli, a director at the Wuhan Institute of Virology - the only P4
level biosafety laboratory in China - responded to Caixin on February 4.
As a reminder, it was discovered that Shi Zhengli had participated in a
study published in Natural Medicine on November 9, 2015, about a disease that can be caused by a SARS-like coronavirus (SHC014-CoV) found in
Chinese horseshoe bats.
The researchers used the SARS reverse genetics system to generate and identify a chimeric virus. In simple terms, this chimeric virus
consists of the surface protein of SHC014 and the backbone of the SARS
virus. The chimeric virus can infect human respiratory cells,
demonstrating that the surface protein of SHC014 has the necessary
structure to bind to key receptors on cells and infect cells. Chimeras
can cause disease in mice, but they are not lethal. Studies have shown
that viruses currently circulating in bat populations could potentially
trigger the potential risk of SARS-CoV (SARS virus) outbreaks.
ich hoffe, das gibt nicht ne böse überraschung.
Optionen
| Boardmail an "walter.eucken" |
Wertpapier: S&P 500 |
https://www.ariva.de/forum/...ngsfrage-472111?page=4180#jumppos104508
(und in den folgenden Posts)
--------------------------------
In den Bärenthread passen allerdings Abschätzungen zu den ökonomischen Auswirkungen:
CNN
https://edition.cnn.com/asia/live-news/...2-09-20-intl-hnk/index.html
Since the outbreak of SARS in 2002, the world economy has become increasingly interlinked and more reliant on China, which has become the world's factory.
It churns out products such as Apple's iPhone and drives demand for commodities such as oil and copper, as well as boasting hundreds of millions of keen consumers.
Economists say the current level of disruption is manageable. If the number of new coronavirus cases begins to slow, and China's factories reopen soon, the result will be a fleeting hit to the Chinese economy in the first quarter and a dent in global growth.
But if the virus continues to spread, the economic damage will increase rapidly.
-----------------------------
Chart zum letzten Satz (Trendumkehr nicht in Sicht):
Angehängte Grafik:
total_cases_and_deaths_2.png (verkleinert auf 58%)
total_cases_and_deaths_2.png (verkleinert auf 58%)
Für eine genaue Beurteilung müssen wir - leider - das Monatsende abwarten.
Angehängte Grafik:
nasdaq_monatlich_2020-02-10a.png (verkleinert auf 40%)
nasdaq_monatlich_2020-02-10a.png (verkleinert auf 40%)
...In retrospect it turns out that China indeed "took steps" to demonstrate to the world that it was winning the war against the coronavirus. And since it wasn't doing so in the real world, it decided to do so by engaging in the oldest trick in the Chinese book: by moving the goal posts and changing the definition of what an "infection" means.
As reported by local media this morning, the Chinese National Health Commission quietly changed its definition of Coronavirus "confirmed case" in the latest guideline dated 7/2. As a result, going forward patients who tested positive for the virus but have no symptoms will no longer be regarded as confirmed. As Alex Lam observes, "this inevitably will lower the numbers."
...As Apple Daily reports, in the latest, fourth edition of the NHC protocol, "mild" is classified as "confirmed cases" but "asymptomatic infected persons" is defined as "persons with no clinical symptoms, respiratory tract specimens, etc. who are positive for new coronavirus pathogenic tests." As a result, "asymptomatic infection" no longer counts as confirmed cases....
Conveniently, the new rule has triggered provinces "to find cases that can be deducted from the total number of confirmed cases." For example, Heilongjiang has axed 13 cases from their tally stating the new definition. Hubei has deducted 87 cases today, but authorities did not explain why."
Angehängte Grafik:
bfme7e9.jpg (verkleinert auf 52%)
bfme7e9.jpg (verkleinert auf 52%)
Es sei eine typische Bullen-Spinstory, deren Wahrheitsgehalt auch nicht dadurch zunähme, dass fast alle Gazetten und Börsenbriefschreiber sie unisono nachbeten.
-------------------------
Exkurs A.L.:
Die Mär von der "endlosen Zentralbank-Rally" ist ähnlich unglaubwürdig wie die Guru-Sprüche aus dem Frühjahr/Sommer 2008: "Der US-Dollar wird wertlos, deshalb muss man sein Geld retten, indem man in Rohstoffe investiert". Mit dieser Inflationierung-Spinstory haben die Big Boys damals Öl bis 150 Dollar hochgetrieben und den Dollar bis EUR/USD =1,60 gedrückt. Nur Wenige hatten damals diese "überzeugende" Spinstory bezweifelt: https://www.ariva.de/forum/lemmings-anti-rohstoff-thread-340852
Heute, 12 Jahre später, steht der Dollar wieder bei 1,09 - und US-Öl ist gerade unter die 50-Dollar-Marke gefallen. Der Wahrheitsgehalt und Prognosewert dieser 2008-Spinstory liegt damit nachweislich bei null.
Das heutige Äquivalent zu den 2008-Sprüchen lautet: "Alle Währungen werden wertlos, weil die Zentralbanken sie durch Gelddrucken entwerten. Deshalb sind Sachwerte wie Aktien (und Immobilien) alternativlos."
Die große Parallele zwischen 2008 und heute ist, dass in beiden Fällen aggressiv Inflationsängste geschürt werden, um Anleger - wie von Wall Street gewünscht - in Aktien und andere Anlagen zu treiben.
Exkurs Ende
-------------------------
Roberts orientiert sich stattdessen an bewährten Bewertungs-Parametern wie den enormen Abweichungen von den Mittelwerten. Bei derartigen Übertreibungen wie jetzt folgten historisch fast immer starke Korrekturen.
Roberts würde sich nicht mal wundern, wenn der SP-500 bis zur langfristigen charttechnischen Unterstützung bei 1500 abstürzt - unten Roberts Charts mit möglichen Korrekturzielen.
https://realinvestmentadvice.com/...ing-corrections-into-perspective/
Feb. 10, 2020
Shawn Langlois recently penned an interesting article: “Despite a few notable hiccups along the way, the bull market continues to prove insanely resilient.”
What was most interesting, however, was the following quote:
“Current hyper-valued extremes are likely to be followed by market losses on the order of two-thirds of the value of the S&P 500.”
The immediate response by most individuals is a 60%+ decline is an outlandish and impossible event given ongoing Central Bank interventions.
But is it really?
The risk of a larger mean reverting event is a possibility even though such is entirely dismissed by the mainstream media under the guise of “this time is different.” With the market trading more than 3-standard deviations above the 50-week moving average, historical reversions have tended to be more brutal.
The chart below uses key support levels as potential reversion levels. The lows of 2018. The highs and lows of 2015-2016, and the 2007 highs....
Angehängte Grafik:
sp500-bollingerbands-50-week-ma-011320.png (verkleinert auf 56%)
sp500-bollingerbands-50-week-ma-011320.png (verkleinert auf 56%)
https://www.lynxbroker.de/analysen/boerse-aktuell/...-wirklich-halten
Die Ölpreise, hier im Chart die Sorte Brent, fielen einfach weiter. Und zwar mit genau dem Argument, das am Aktienmarkt angeblich nicht mehr gelten soll: Das Argument einer markanten Wirkung der Corona-Ausbreitung auf die Weltwirtschaft und damit auf die Ölnachfrage. Irgendjemand liegt hier also falsch.
Angehängte Grafik:
20200210-boerse-aktuell-vergleich-entwicklung-....jpg (verkleinert auf 53%)
20200210-boerse-aktuell-vergleich-entwicklung-....jpg (verkleinert auf 53%)
https://www.ariva.de/forum/...rohstoff-thread-340852?page=0#jumppos15
Passt gut zu dem, was ich heute in # 419 geschrieben habe - insbesondere der auch damals in Zweifel gezogene Satz "Diesmal ist alles anders".
(Schön, dass man mit Ariva zugleich auch eine Art Archiv hat....)
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/...ocks-yet-goldman-says-2020-02-10
It isn’t 1999 - the party’s not over for tech stocks yet, Goldman says
The frenzied run for stocks in recent months, and the even loftier heights for tech names in particular, has some market observers uneasily remembering the dot-com bubble that burst in 2000.
But that’s a faulty comparison, according to a recent analysis from Goldman Sachs, which maintains an overweight rating on the sector, implying that investors should continue to buy assets associated within the buzzy tech group.
Information technology stocks have rallied 47.8% in the past 12 months, according to FactSet data. But that “still pales in comparison to the Tech Bubble.” Over the past five years, the sector has returned 149%; between 1995 and 1999, the sector returned nearly 700%. Meanwhile, the tech group’s forward price/earnings ratio trades at a 22% premium to the S&P 500 now, on a relative basis, the analysts wrote, below the long-term average of 31%....
Goldman also debunks a popular notion: that the recent tech rally has been concentrated in just a few companies. The top five information tech stocks account for 12% of the trailing 3-month return, a ratio that’s lower than at earlier periods of extremes, including not just 2001, but 2012, 1996, and 1991.
-------------------------------------
A.L. Auch das Gegenargument im letzten Absatz ist Bullshit. Es geht um die Marktkapitalisierung der fünf Top-Aktien im SP-500, nicht um deren relativen Beitrag zum Index-Kurszuwachs. Diese fünf Aktien (Liste unten) machten bereits Mitte Januar 18 % der MK des SP-500 aus - eine (laut Morgan Stanley) noch nie so dagewesene Konzentration.
Grund ist mMn: Viele Hedgefonds, die die bereits ziemlich ausgelutschte (und damit störanfällige) Zentralbankenblase reiten, investieren lieber in hochliquide Aktien, da sie aus denen auch schneller wieder herauskommen.
--------------------------
Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon and Facebook make up 18% of the total market cap of the S&P 500, an unprecedented level of dominance, according to Morgan Stanley.
Quelle: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/13/...market-at-unprecedented-level.html
---------------------------
Und jetzt wird es richtig lustig:
For those reasons, Goldman is advising its clients to increase its tech holdings, which may run against conventional wisdom, given the seemingly unrelenting rally in the sector. ....
Hedgefonds, die große Positionen in Aktien halten, benötigen je nach Positiongsgröße bis zu mehrere Wochen, um die Papiere kursschonend an "Greater Fools" weiterzureichen, z. B. an Kleinanleger und GS-Muppets. Der Exit kann jedoch wesentlich schneller vollzogen werden, wenn Wall Street und deren Sprachrohre (GS) die grassierende Trendfolgegier bzw. FOMO-Angst dazu ausnutzen, Unbedarfte mit krausen Argumenten (GS spricht oben zu recht von "kontraintuitiven" Käufen) zum Späteinstieg zu locken. Und exakt diese Agenda bzw. "Propaganda" lesen wir in # 424.