Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kirk © who wrote (15411)	2/22/2023 8:23:04 AM
From: robert b furman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26588

Pre market move by Intel to slash dividend by 66% to 12.5 cents per quarter ( from 36.5 cents per Q). A dividend slash by KMI years ago took KMI from 45-ish to 11.20 in eight months. Time to buy a put at the open? Bob

To: Kirk © who wrote (15411)	2/28/2023 5:20:42 PM
From: jpdunwell	1 Recommendation Recommended By Kirk © Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26588

I had been planning to circle back and look at this study more closely, but unfortunately, I discovered today that I'm unable to access that paper without a paid subscription. So, it's hard to comment too much on the study itself. I prefer to see the papers themselves before drawing too many conclusions, as authors often add their own spin when interpreting these studies. I did see from the article that the study was performed by Mt. Sinai in New York. I also noted that their biggest donors over the last 10 years or so was the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. I think we all know Gates was one of the biggest proponents of the vaccines. I won't draw conclusions beyond that since I can't see the study. Interestingly enough, I just came across this peer-reviewed study today from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (big hospital system in LA). nature.com This study doesn't exactly address vaccinated vs. unvaccinated as the study you cited did, which would have been very interesting to me to see. Instead, this study compares new health diagnoses (of various sorts) in the 3 months prior and post-vaccination. It found a 21% increase in new diagnoses for the 3 months post-vaccination vs pre-vaccination. Here's where it relates to the study you cited- among those new diagnoses, Myocarditis was the most prevalent elevated risk, coming in at 2.6 times higher than the 3 months prior to vaccination. This is particularly interesting since Myocarditis, even according to the CDC, is one of the main acknowledged side effects of the vaccines. It would have been interesting if the study would have taken a similar look at an unvaccinated sample, perhaps choosing some midpoint in time from the vaccinated group as a representative pre- and post- timeline for the unvaccinated. The study did take a similar look pre- and post 90 days of Covid infection. It excluded anyone who received a vaccination within that window of time, but does not seem to delineate whether they were ever vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. Being the patients were in CA, I'd say it's a pretty safe assumption that the majority were vaccinated. The new diagnoses prevalence rate for this cohort was ~40% higher in the post 90 days period, vs the ~20% higher for the vaccinated with no Covid infection group. What I find particularly interesting with respect to your post is that while the Covid-infected cohort's overall risk elevation level was nearly double that of the vaccinated cohort's, the Myocarditis risk elevation level was nearly half of that for the vaccinated (1.2x for Covid-infected vs. 2.6x for the vaccinated). This fits with at least one other peer-reviewed study I recall that showed the likelihood of Pericarditis/Myocarditis was greater for the vaccines than for Covid itself. I will note that these studies don't necessarily have to be in contradiction. From the article you referenced (not the paper itself, since I could not access it): "The study, led by researchers at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, drew on medical records from over 1.9 million patients who were infected with COVID-19 between March 2020 and February 2022. Of those 1.9 million patients, a "major adverse cardiac event," namely a heart attack, stroke, or another cardiac event, was identified in 13,948 patients, and 3,175 died following the event." So, the study you referenced appears to have automatically excluded any cardiac events that occurred in those vaccinated as a result of the vaccine (which in many cases probably happen close to vaccination), prior to them contracting Covid. Again, I don't have reference to the details, so it's hard to say exactly what all the confounding factors are, but I would say that study is certainly an incomplete risk-reward analysis on the benefits of vaccination vs. cardiac instances, as it omits the risk factor of the vaccines themselves causing the cardiac instance.