How to Invest in the New COVID World: Be Unbiased!

How does one invest in a world plagued by COVID and immense division amongst its people? Here is our take based off of a world-renowned Swiss doctor's take on the virus.

How does one invest in a world plagued by COVID and immense division amongst its people? Here is our take based off of a world-renowned Swiss doctor's take on the virus.

Dear Reader,

How do you invest in a COVID world plagued by immense division among the people.

Let me tell you.

But you have to promise that regardless of your views on COVID or politics, to read this to the end.

This Letter isn’t about Covidiots or Left and Right; it’s about seeking the truth.

What you are about to read may appear to be right-leaning or non-COVID believing at first.

But it isn’t because I am against protecting the vulnerable, or I am friends with Donald Trump. It’s because the mainstream media has been feeding you everything possible to make you believe what they say – and what they say are often very left-leaning viewpoints.

Considering the majority of mainstream news outlets are controlled by left-leaning owners and editors, you shouldn’t be surprised.

In other words, you have already heard their side of the story – since, for some reason, if you don’t believe COVID will kill everyone, you’re automatically a Republican.

But here’s the thing…

If you have been following the advice and opinions of these outlets, you would have likely buried yourself in a bunker and wouldn’t have invested in the stock market due to COVID fears.

Which is why I want to share the other side – a side that’s not trying to limit your growth or goals of becoming financially independent.

Now before you go and attack me, let me preface what you’re about to read – since I know there will be some of you who might say, “Why should we listen to you? You’re not a doctor!”

And you’d be right.

I am not a scientist, epidemiologist, or virologist, neither. I am simply an investor.

But I do know the power of seeking the truth. And if you sought the truth as I did back in March, you would likely be in a much better financial position than you were before.

Don’t let your biases prevent you from building wealth – that’s precisely what “they” want.

The Other Side

What you’re about to read is written by a well-known Swiss professor in the field of immunology.

Where many “experts” rely on modeling and “theories,” immunology professors rely on science.

And since I have been called a “conspiracy theorist” for not believing in the severity of COVID, I thought it would be wise to show you a view based on science, and not from those who rely on “theories.”

The below Letter is from Dr. Beda M Stadler, a former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern, a biologist and professor emeritus. Stadler is an important medical figure in Switzerland.

His Letter was originally published on June 10th, 2020, and then translated on Medium a few weeks later. I have added a few grammatical corrections of my own. Pardon any copyright issues.

Why Everyone Was Wrong

June 10, 2020

The coronavirus is slowly retreating. What actually happened in the past few weeks? The experts have missed basic connections. The immune response against the virus is much stronger than we thought.

By Beda M Stadler

This is not an accusation, but a ruthless taking stock [of the current situation]. I could slap myself because I looked at Sars-CoV2- way too long with panic. I am also somewhat annoyed with many of my immunology colleagues who so far have left the discussion about Covid-19 to virologist and epidemiologist. I feel it is time to criticize some of the main and completely wrong public statements about this virus

Firstly, it was wrong to claim that this virus was novel.

Secondly, It was even more wrong to claim that the population would not already have some immunity against this virus.

Thirdly, it was the crowning of stupidity to claim that someone could have Covid-19 without any symptoms at all or even to pass the disease along without showing any symptoms whatsoever.

But let’s look at this one by one.

1. A New Virus?

At the end of 2019, a coronavirus, which was considered novel, was detected in China. When the gene sequence, i.e., the blueprint of this virus, was identified and was given a similar name to the 2002 identified Sars, i.e., Sars-CoV-2, we should have already asked ourselves then how far [this virus] is related to other coronaviruses, which can make human beings sick. But no, instead, we discussed from which animal as part of a Chinese menu the virus might have sprung. In the meantime, however, many more people believe the Chinese were so stupid as to release this virus upon themselves in their own country.

Now that we’re talking about developing a vaccine against the virus, we suddenly see studies that show that this so-called novel virus is very strongly related to Sars-1 as well as other beta-coronaviruses, which make us suffer every year in the form of colds.

Apart from the pure homologies in the sequence between the various coronaviruses, which can make people sick, [scientists] currently work on identifying a number of areas on the virus in the same way as human immune cells identify them. This is no longer about the genetic relationship, but about how our immune system sees this virus, i.e., which parts of other coronaviruses could potentially be used in a vaccine.

So: Sars-Cov-2 isn’t all that new, but merely a seasonal cold virus that mutated and disappears in summer, as all cold viruses do — which is what we’re observing globally right now. Flu viruses mutate significantly more, by the way, and nobody would ever claim that a new flu virus strain was completely novel. Many veterinary doctors were therefore annoyed by this claim of novelty, as they have been vaccinating cats, dogs, pigs, and cows for years against coronaviruses.

2. The Fairy Tale of No Immunity

From the World Health Organisation (WHO) to every Facebook-virologist, everyone claimed this virus was particularly dangerous because there was no immunity against it – because it was a novel virus.

Even Anthony Fauci, the most important advisor to the Trump administration, noted at the beginning at every public appearance that the danger of the virus lay in the fact that there was no immunity against it.

Tony and I often sat next to each other at immunology seminars at the National Institute of Health in Bethesda in the US, because we worked in related fields back then. So for a while, I was pretty uncritical of his statements since he was a respected colleague of mine.

The penny dropped only when I realized that the first commercially available antibody test [for Sars-CoV-2] was put together from an old antibody test that was meant to detect Sars-1. This kind of test evaluates if there are antibodies in someone’s blood and if they came about through an early fight against the virus. [Scientists] even extracted antibodies from a llama that would detect Sars-1, Sars-CoV-2, and even the Mers virus.

It also became known that Sars-CoV-2 had a less significant impact in areas in China where Sars-1 had previously raged. This is clear evidence urgently suggesting that our immune system considers Sars-1 and Sars-Cov-2 at least partially identical and that one virus could probably protect us from the other.

That’s when I realized that the entire world simply claimed that there was no immunity, but in reality, nobody had a test ready to prove such a statement. That wasn’t science, but pure speculation based on a gut feeling that was then parroted by everyone. To this day, there isn’t a single antibody test that can describe all possible immunological situations, such as: if someone is immune, since when, what the neutralizing antibodies are targeting, and how many structures exist on other coronaviruses that can equally lead to immunity.

In mid-April, work was published by the group of Andreas Thiel at the Charité Berlin. A paper with 30 authors, amongst them the virologist Christian Drosten. It showed that 34 % of people in Berlin who had never been in contact with the Sars-CoV-2 virus showed nonetheless T-cell immunity against it (T-cell immunity is a different kind of immune reaction, see below).

This means that our T-cells, i.e., white blood cells, detect common structures appearing on Sars-CoV-2 and regular cold viruses and therefore combat both of them.

A study by John P A Ioannidis of Stanford University — according to the Einstein Foundation in Berlin, is one of the world’s ten most cited scientists — showed that immunity against Sars-Cov-2, measured in the form of antibodies, is much higher than previously thought.

Ioannidis is certainly not a conspiracy theorist who just wants to swim against the stream; nonetheless, he is now being criticized, because the antibody tests used were not extremely precise. With that, his critics admit that they do not have such tests yet. And aside, John P A Ioannidis is such a scientific heavy-weight that all German virologists combined are a light-weight in comparison.

3. The Failure of Modelers

Epidemiologists also fell for the myth that there was no immunity in the population. They also didn’t want to believe that coronaviruses were seasonal cold viruses that would disappear in summer. Otherwise, their curve models would have looked differently. When the initial worst-case scenarios didn’t come true anywhere, some now still cling to models predicting a second wave. Let’s leave them their hopes — I’ve never seen a scientific branch that maneuvered itself so much into the offside. I have also not yet understood why epidemiologists were so much more interested in the number of deaths, rather than in the numbers that could be saved.

4. Immunology of Common Sense

As an immunologist, I trust a biological model, namely that of the human organism, which has built a tried and tested, adaptive immune system.

At the end of February, driving home from the recording of [a Swiss political TV debate show], I mentioned to Daniel Koch [former head of the Swiss federal section “Communicable Diseases” of the Federal Office of Public Health] that I suspected there was a general immunity in the population against Sars-Cov-2.

He argued against my view.

I later defended him anyway, when he said that children were not a driving factor in the spread of the pandemic. He suspected that children didn’t have a receptor for the virus, which is, of course, nonsense.

Still, we had to admit that his observations were correct.

But the fact that every scientist attacked him afterward and asked for studies to prove his point was somewhat ironic. Nobody asked for studies to prove that people in certain at-risk groups were dying.

When the first statistics from China and later worldwide data showed the same trend, that is to say, that almost no children under ten years old got sick, everyone should have made the argument that children clearly have to be immune.

For every other disease that doesn’t afflict a certain group of people, we would come to the conclusion that that group is immune. When people are sadly dying in a retirement home, but in the same place, other pensioners with the same risk factors are left entirely unharmed, we should also conclude that they were presumably immune.

But this common-sense seems to have eluded many, let’s call them “immunity deniers” just for fun.

This new breed of deniers had to observe that the majority of people who tested positive for this virus, i.e., the virus was present in their throats, did not get sick.

The term “silent carriers” was conjured out of a hat, and it was claimed that one could be sick without having symptoms. Wouldn’t that be something! If this principle from now on gets naturalized into the realm of medicine, health insurers would really have a problem, but also teachers whose students could now claim to have whatever disease to skip school, if at the end of the day one didn’t need symptoms anymore to be sick.

The next joke that some virologists shared was the claim that those who were sick without symptoms could still spread the virus to other people.

The “healthy” sick would have so much of the virus in their throats that a normal conversation between two people would be enough for the “healthy one” to infect the other healthy one.

At this point, we have to dissect what is happening here: If a virus is growing anywhere in the body, also in the throat, it means that human cells decease. When [human] cells decease, the immune system is alerted immediately, and an infection is caused. One of five cardinal symptoms of an infection is pain. It is understandable that those afflicted by Covid-19 might not remember that initial scratchy throat and then go on to claim that they didn’t have any symptoms just a few days ago.

But for doctors and virologists to twist this into a story of “healthy” sick people, which stokes panic and was often given as a reason for stricter lockdown measures, just shows how bad the joke really is. At least the WHO didn’t accept the claim of asymptomatic infections and even challenges this claim on its website.

Here a succinct and brief summary, especially for the immunity deniers, of how humans are attacked by germs and how we react to them: If there are pathogenic viruses in our environment, then all humans — whether immune or not — are attacked by this virus. If someone is immune, the battle with the virus begins. First, we try to prevent the virus from binding to our own cells with the help of antibodies. This normally works only partially, not all are blocked, and some viruses will attach to the appropriate cells. That doesn’t need to lead to symptoms, but it’s also not a disease. Because the second guard of the immune system is now called into action.

That’s the above-mentioned T-cells, white blood cells, which can determine from the outside in which other cells the virus is now hiding to multiply. These cells, which are now incubating the virus, are searched throughout the entire body and killed by the T-cells until the last virus is dead.

So if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left.

(In other words), even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected].

That’s exactly what happened: when there was the global news, even shared by the WHO, that 200 Koreans who already went through Covid-19 were infected a second time and that there was therefore probably no immunity against this virus. The explanation of what really happened and an apology came only later when it was clear that the immune Koreans were perfectly healthy and only had a short battle with the virus.

The crux was that the virus debris registered with the overly sensitive test and therefore came back as “positive.” It is likely that a large number of daily reported infection numbers are purely due to viral debris.

The PCR test, with its extreme sensitivity, was initially perfect for finding out where the virus could be. But this test cannot identify whether the virus is still alive, i.e., still infectious.

Unfortunately, this also led some virologists to equate the strength of a test result with viral load, i.e., the amount of virus someone can breathe out. Luckily, our daycare centers stayed open nonetheless. Since German virologist missed that part, because, out of principle, they do not look at what other countries are doing, even if other countries’ case numbers are falling more rapidly.

5. The Problem With Corona Immunity

What does this all mean in real life?

The extremely long incubation time of two to 14 days — and reports of 22 to 27 days — should wake up any immunologist, and the claim that most patients would no longer secrete the virus after five days. Both [claims] in turn actually lead to the conclusion that there is — sort of in the background — a base immunity that contorts the events, compared to an expected cycle [of a viral infection] — i.e., leads to a long incubation period and quick immunity.

This immunity also seems to be the problem for patients with a severe course of the disease.

Our antibody titer, i.e., the accuracy of our defense system, is reduced the older we get. But also people with a bad diet or who are malnourished may have a weakened immune system, which is why this virus does not only reveal the medical problems of a country, but also social issues.

If an infected person does not have enough antibodies, i.e., a weak immune response, the virus slowly spreads out across the entire body. Now that there are not enough antibodies, there is only the second, supporting leg of our immune response left: The T-cells begin to attack the virus-infested cells all over the body. This can lead to an exaggerated immune response, basically to a massive slaughter; this is called a Cytokine Storm.

Very rarely, this can also happen in small children, in that case, called Kawasaki Syndrome. This very rare occurrence in children was also used in our country to stoke panic. It’s interesting, however, that this syndrome is very easily cured. The [affected] children get antibodies from healthy blood donors, i.e., people who went through coronavirus colds. This means that the hushed-up [supposedly non-existent] immunity in the population is, in fact, used therapeutically.

What Now?

The virus is gone for now. It will probably come back in winter, but it won’t be a second wave, but just a cold. Those young and healthy people who currently walk around with a mask on their faces would be better off wearing a helmet instead because the risk of something falling on their head is greater than that of getting a serious case of Covid-19.

If we observe a significant rise in infections in 14 days [after the Swiss relaxed the lockdown], we’d at least know that one of the measures was useful. Other than that, I recommend reading John P A Ioannidis’ latest work in which he describes the global situation based on data on May 1st 2020: People below 65 years old make up only 0.6 to 2.6 % of all fatal COVID cases.

To get on top of the pandemic, we need a strategy merely concentrating on the protection of at-risk people over 65. If that’s the opinion of a top expert, a second lockdown is simply a no-go.

On our way back to normal, it would be good for us citizens if a few scaremongers apologized.

Such as doctors who wanted a triage of over 80-year old COVID patients in order to stop ventilating them. Also, media that kept showing alarmist videos of Italian hospitals to illustrate a situation that as such didn’t exist. All politicians are calling for “testing, testing, testing” without even knowing what the test actually measures. And the federal government for an app they’ll never get to work and will warn me if someone near me is positive, even if they’re not infectious.

In winter, when the flu and other colds make the rounds again, we can then go back to kissing each other a little less, and we should wash our hands even without a virus present. And people who’ll get sick nonetheless can then don their masks to show others what they have learned from this pandemic. And if we still haven’t learned to protect our at-risk groups, we’ll have to wait for a vaccine that will hopefully also be effective in at-risk people.”

– End –

The Danger of Fear

I hope the above gives you a different view of what this virus really is, and how we should be viewing the causality of fear itself.

For example, according to leading epidemiologist Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford University himself:

“Globally, the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives, with the potential resurgence of tuberculosis, childhood diseases like measles where vaccination programs are disrupted, and malaria.”

I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of surgeries that could have been performed over the past few months but have not as a result of the lockdown measures – surgeries that could help prolong the life of many, and prevent death in many cases. These include pre-emptive cancer and cardiac bypass and stent surgeries.

In March, I predicted that the severity of COVID deaths would fall in the summer, but the threat of COVID would come back when it got colder via a second wave – just as Dr. Stadler had suggested may happen.

Recall from March 15th, 2020:

“If the spread of COVID-19 subsides in the coming months, which I suspect it will, and provided that credit markets don’t completely collapse, we’re going to see stocks rebound and strong asset classes such as gold climb.

The summer could be a boon for those willing to take risks by investing in stocks and gold-related assets.

But as the summer fades away and fall comes, the weather will get colder – making it easier for the COVID-19-causing virus to come back for another round.

(In fact, most outbreaks often plateau, subside and come back for another round.)

By that time, we would have learned much about the virus, and a vaccine may even be close.

However, that won’t stop the volatility of the stock market from coming back.


Because Trump will be defending his title. And the Democrats will throw everything, including the kitchen sink and COVID-19, to dethrone him.

In short:

Buy when the weather gets hot. Sell before the weather gets cold.

A few weeks later, stocks rebounded. They are now once again hitting record highs – just as I predicted. This was during a time when most thought the sky was falling.

Gold also soared passed $1800/oz. – again, as predicted back in March.

And if Dr. Stadler is right, I will also be correct in stating that the virus could come back when the weather gets colder.

I will also be correct that a vaccine is close – just take a look at the multiple headlines of big companies saying a vaccine is near.

I stress that I am not repeating myself here to brag that I was right. I am simply trying to show you that if you do unbiased research, you, too, could have made those predictions.

And that means you too could have benefitted from the insane v-shaped recovery of the stock market, as well as the sharp rise in gold prices.

Imagine not having to rely on the government to feed your family during the next crisis!

So, where does that leave us today when it comes to investing?

When it comes to the overall stock market, from a macro perspective, we’re going to see volatility be the norm.

The mainstream media, in all its attempts to dethrone Trump, will push the agenda that COVID cases are setting record numbers. But if you have learned anything from what you just read, aggressive testing will surely raise the number of COVID cases.

When you see these headlines, remember that many of these COVID tests can “come back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left.”

And when that no longer scares people, we will see the deaths slowly rise – but not necessarily as a result of COVID itself.

Just take a look at this headline from CBS on July 18:

“Man who died in motorcycle crash counted as COVID-19 death in Florida: Report”

Here’s what one of the doctors interviewed had to say:

“…(one) could actually argue that it could have been the COVID-19 that caused him to crash.”

How’s that for fudging the numbers?

Remember: Those who are presumed to have died from COVID in the US and in many parts of the world, such as Britain, do not have to test positive for COVID to be calculated as a COVID death.

This isn’t a conspiracy. This is a fact. You can find it directly on the CDC’s website.

Recall my post from April 16, 2020, “The Real Reason Why COVID-19 Death Rates are So High“:

“Via CDC’s, Guidance for Certifying Deaths Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID–19):

“In cases where a definite diagnosis of COVID–19 cannot be made, but it is suspected or likely (e.g., the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID–19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed.” In these instances, certifiers should use their best clinical judgment in determining if a COVID–19 infection was likely. However, please note that testing for COVID–19 should be conducted whenever possible.”

That’s right: A doctor can label anyone who dies with the symptoms of COVID-19 – which are very hard to distinguish from the common cold, flu, or even pneumonia – without actually testing them.

And as we already know, COVID-19 can cause all kinds of symptoms similar to that of many other diseases.

Via the Government of Canada:

“Those who are infected with COVID-19 may have little to no symptoms. You may not know you have symptoms of COVID-19 because they are similar to a cold or flu.

Symptoms have included: cough, fever, difficulty breathing, and pneumonia in both lungs.

In severe cases, infection can lead to death.”

In other words, it’s actually very difficult for doctors to distinguish COVID-19 symptoms from other causes without actually testing for it.

Not only that, but those affected with COVID-19 also might not have even died from the disease itself.

Via National Post:

“…different countries are also reporting cases and deaths in different ways: in Italy, Covid-19 is listed as the cause of death even if a patient was already ill and died from a combination of illnesses.

“Only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus,” said the scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health last week. Spain’s national government simply lists how many people with confirmed cases of coronavirus have died and provides no extra information on any other medical conditions.”

So deaths are not only being diagnosed by doctors as COVID-19 deaths without being tested, but people who supposedly died of COVID-19 might not have died from it at all.”

Will Stocks Hold Up?

I believe the market will remain strong, despite a slight climb in COVID deaths.

What I am not sure of is how certain governments will respond.

If lockdowns come back in full force, surely the economic engine will stall once again, and that will have an effect on the markets.

As such, I am mostly shying away from big bets on the overall stock market; instead, I will continue to trade the ups-and-downs.

From a more granular perspective, one needs to look no further than what Dr. John Ioannidis has been saying.

Back in March, he wrote in a STAT article that:

“One of the bottom lines is that we don’t know how long social distancing measures and lockdowns can be maintained without major consequences to the economy, society, and mental health…Unpredictable evolutions may ensue, including financial crisis, unrest, civil strife, war, and a meltdown of the social fabric.”

And he has been right thus far: civil unrest has never been higher in our modern era, and the very meltdown of the social fabric is happening before our eyes.

Where am I going with this?

In a recent interview with the Greek Reporter on June 27th, Dr. Ioannidis emphasized again:

“I feel extremely sad that my predictions were verified. “Major consequences on the economy, society and mental health” have already occurred. I hope they are reversible, and this depends to a large extent on whether we can avoid prolonging the draconian lockdowns and manage to deal with COVID-19 in a smart, precision-risk targeted approach, rather than blindly shutting down everything. Similarly, we have already started to see the consequences of “financial crisis, unrest, and civil strife.” I hope it is not followed by “war and meltdown of the social fabric.”

Note that the common theme here isn’t COVID, but rather, mental health.

So, it should come as no surprise that we’re seeing mental health stocks soar, including many of those involved in psychedelics.

In a few months, I hope to introduce you to investments directly related to mental health -because it will be many years before we can recover from what COVID has done to the very social fabric of society.

Seek the truth,

Ivan Lo

The Equedia Letter and Equedia Network Corporation are not registered as investment advisers, broker-dealers or other securities professionals with any financial or securities regulatory authority. We are also not doctors or experts when it comes to viruses. Remember, past performance is not indicative of future performance. This article also contains forward-looking statements that are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements made in this article. It’s your money to invest and we don’t share in your profits or your losses, so please take responsibility for doing your own due diligence and consult your own professional advisers before investing in gold or trading in gold securities.

The Equedia Letter is Canada’s fastest growing and largest investment newsletter dedicated to revealing the truths about the stock market.