本文为 MEPA 导入的中英对照学习资料，原文归原作者及原站所有；中文译文尚未逐篇校对。页面日期为本站收录日期，原资料生成时间不代表原文发布日期。
原文链接: https://www.brookstradingcourse.com/ask-al/remdesivir-antiviral-drug-news/ 生成时间: 2026-09-03 22:57
Video duration: 12min 22sec
视频时长：12分22秒
Trading room breaking news
交易室突发新闻
What’s the news? I don’t know, and I don’t care, but it’s certainly a good bar for the bears. You’ve got a Head and Shoulders Top – left shoulder, head, right shoulder. I did nothing here, and I was too slow to sell that. That happened too quickly, so right now I’m trapped out. Obviously some news event. Then we got down to the six low. Remember, we got a spike pullback channel, so the beginning of the channel is always a magnet. The market usually tries to get down there, and when it does, more often than not the market enters a Trading Range. The bears are hoping that this is a spike down and the start of a bear trend, but we’ll see.
什么新闻？我不知道，也不在乎，但这对空头来说绝对是个好K线。你看到了一个头肩顶形态——左肩、头部、右肩。我在这里什么都没做，卖得太慢了。这发生得太快了，所以现在我被套住了。显然是某个新闻事件。然后我们跌到了第六个低点。记住，我们有一个回撤尖顶通道，所以通道的开始总是具有吸引力。市场通常会试图跌到那里，而当它这样做时，市场往往会进入一个交易区间。空头希望这是一个下跌尖顶，是空头趋势的开始，但我们拭目以待。
As you know, I think the market’s going down below 2600. I did not buy puts yesterday, but I did go short, so I am currently short. There are different ways to go short. Many, many ways to go short. You can sell individual stocks, you can short futures, you can buy puts, and you can buy inverse ETFs like the SDS and the QID. I went short via ETFs yesterday. Here’s the SDS. I did buy the SDS yesterday, which is basically an inverse SPDR with two times the leverage, so I’m looking for a bounce maybe up to this gap, so to around 30. Also bought the QID just in case there’s a surprise move in tech. Maybe we’ll get to 20, 21, somewhere up in there.
正如你所知，我认为市场会跌破2600点。我昨天没有买入看跌期权，但我做了空头头寸，所以我目前是空头。做空有不同的方式。做空的方式有很多很多。你可以卖出个股，可以做空期货，可以买入看跌期权，还可以买入反向ETF，比如SDS和QID。我昨天通过ETF做了空头头寸。这是SDS。我昨天确实买了SDS，它基本上是反向SPDR，杠杆比例为两倍，所以我预计可能会反弹到这个缺口附近，也就是30点左右。我还买了QID，以防科技股出现意外走势。也许我们会涨到20、21点，或者更高一些。
We’re falling far below the six low, so there’s obviously some news event. Difficult to sell when the bars are this big because your stop is up here, so you’re risking 40 points. That’s $2,000 a contract in the Emini. In a situation like that, a lot of traders do not want to sell at the low because you can easily bounce 10 or 15, 20 points, and then enter a Trading Range and never get back down here. But some traders will sell a 50% pullback. That’s 50% right at yesterday’s high. That’s no coincidence. The low is exactly where it is, for whatever reason, at the midpoint at the sixth low and yesterday’s close.
我们跌幅远低于第六个低点，显然是某个新闻事件的影响。当K线这么大时，很难卖出，因为你的止损位在这里，所以你面临40点的风险。在迷你标普中，这相当于每份合约2000美元。在这种情况下，许多交易者不愿意在低点卖出，因为价格很容易反弹10、15或20点，然后进入交易区间，再也回不到这里。但有些交易者会在50%回撤时卖出。这50%的回撤恰好在昨日高点。这不是巧合。低点的位置恰好在第六个低点和昨日收盘价的中点，无论原因如何。
Better to be patient here. Market’s moving too fast for you to make appropriate decisions. Sometimes you miss great moves, and that’s okay. You’re human, and you have to deal with the limitations. You can only think so fast. You can only click buttons so fast. I never worry about missing trades. I miss trades every day, lots and lots of trades. All I care about is, when I take a trade, was it reasonable, and am I managing the trade correctly? That’s all I care about. I have a strong belief that if you do those two things, that is the best way to make a living as a trader.
这里最好保持耐心。市场走势太快，你很难做出适当的决定。有时你会错过很好的行情，这没关系。你是人，你必须面对这些限制。你只能思考得这么快，你只能点击按钮这么快。我从不担心错过交易。我每天都会错过很多交易，很多很多交易。我只关心的是，当我进行交易时，它是否合理，我是否正确地管理了交易？这就是我所关心的。我坚信，如果你做好这两件事，那就是作为交易者谋生的最佳方式。
Remdesivir news — failed test in China
瑞德西韦新闻——中国试验失败
Richard just sent me a note saying that the Remdesivir antiviral drug failed in a test in China. It failed to improve symptoms. Part of the rally over the past couple of weeks or over the past week has been because of that study from the University of Chicago last week saying that Remdesivir helped severe cases of coronavirus.
理查德刚刚给我发来消息，说瑞德西韦抗病毒药物在中国的一项测试中失败了。它未能改善症状。过去几周或上周的反弹部分原因是由于芝加哥大学上周的一项研究，该研究称瑞德西韦对严重的新冠病例有帮助。
Afterwards, if you were in the room last week, you heard me say that doctors lie. We already know lawyers and politicians lie, and pretty much everybody lies in business. I worked at the University of Chicago for 7 years, I taught at UCLA, I taught at Emory University, and I’ve had a lot of – plus I’ve talked nationally for years as a medical scientist, so I have a lot of personal experience with medical science.
之后，如果你上周在房间里，你应该听过我说医生说谎。我们已经知道律师和政客说谎，而且几乎所有商界人士都说谎。我在芝加哥大学工作了7年，在UCLA和埃默里大学任教，而且我还作为医学科学家在全国范围内演讲了多年，所以我在医学科学方面有丰富的个人经验。
Medical science — too many dishonest doctors
医学科学——太多不诚实的医生
One of the reasons why I’m a day trader is because I was shocked that so many doctors would, to put it politely, spin, and some of them just outrightly – they just lied. They just openly, repeatedly lied at national conferences. I felt dirty being in that kind of an environment. I didn’t want to be around dishonest people. So I was disillusioned, and that is part of the reason why I left medicine, and certainly the main reason why I left medical science. I felt like there were too many dishonest people in it.
我成为日内交易员的原因之一是，我对如此多的医生（委婉地说）进行“修饰”，甚至有些人直接说谎感到震惊。他们在全国会议上公开、反复地说谎。我觉得在这样的环境中很不舒服。我不想和不诚实的人在一起。所以我感到失望，这也是我离开医学的原因之一，当然也是我离开医学科学的主要原因。我觉得里面有太多不诚实的人。
So last week, I said that even though my alma mater, University of Chicago, came out with results that made Remdesivir sound like it was going to be successful, I said that in medicine, very often you’ll get a study like that, an initial study like that, and the school, the hospital, and the doctors all become famous, and they’re hoping that – it’s more hope than reality.
所以上周我说，尽管我的母校芝加哥大学公布的结果让瑞德西韦听起来似乎会成功，但我说在医学中，你经常会看到这样的研究，这样的一项初步研究，学校、医院和医生都会因此而出名，他们希望——这更多是希望而非现实。
So in part you can call it lying, you can call it spinning, but it’s not a controlled study. There are human biases, and they can give the drug to certain patients and not other patients, patients that they subconsciously think will have a better chance of surviving, with or without the drug, and then do not give the drug to patients who have no hope. So it’s really easy to unintentionally skew the result. It’s also possible to exaggerate the result.
所以在某种程度上，你可以称之为说谎，也可以称之为修饰，但这不是一个受控的研究。存在人类偏见，他们可以将药物给予某些患者，而不是其他患者，这些患者他们下意识地认为在有或没有药物的情况下都有更好的生存机会，然后不将药物给予没有希望的患者。所以，无意中歪曲结果是非常容易的。夸大结果也是可能的。
As I’ve said, I’ve seen doctors outright lie – doctors I am working with, and I’m part of the study, and then when they go out and talk, they’re lying. They’re just outright lying. Because of that, I said that just because the study looked promising from the University of Chicago, does not mean it’s true. It could be – like I said, it could be a fluke, a statistical fluke; 1 chance out of 20, something that’s statistically significant is not significant. It’s just a random error. It could be doctors interpreting the results wrong, it could be doctors spinning the results, and it could be doctors lying. All of those things make an initial report suspicious.
正如我所说，我见过医生直接说谎——我正在和这些医生合作，我是研究的一部分，但当他们出去说话时，他们在说谎。他们就是直接在说谎。正因为如此，我说，仅仅因为芝加哥大学的研究看起来很有希望，并不意味着它是真实的。它可能是——正如我所说，它可能是一个偶然事件，一个统计上的偶然事件；20次机会中的一次，统计上显著的东西并不重要。这只是一个随机错误。可能是医生对结果的解释错误，可能是医生在歪曲结果，也可能是医生在说谎。所有这些都让最初的报告显得可疑。
What happens is a lot of other people are doing similar projects. If they do not duplicate the results, they’re going to be quick to announce that “my results don’t match yours.” In other words, they’re saying “you’re a liar,” and because they know their results do not match yours and they know you’re lying, they’re very confident that a third or a fourth group is going to validate what they’re saying and agree that yes, you are a liar.
问题是，很多其他人也在做类似的项目。如果他们不能复制这些结果，他们会很快宣布“我的结果与你的不符”。换句话说，他们是在说“你是个骗子”，因为他们知道他们的结果与你的不符，他们知道你在说谎，所以他们非常有信心，第三或第四个小组会验证他们所说的话，并同意你确实是个骗子。
So it’s not like you get one liar and then a second and third institution will also lie. That doesn’t happen. You get the first liar, and then everybody else is eager to prove the guy is a liar so that they can be the hero. So that’s why you wait for three or four studies coming up with the same conclusion.
所以这不像你遇到一个骗子，然后第二个和第三个机构也会说谎。这种情况不会发生。你遇到第一个骗子，然后每个人都急于证明这个家伙是个骗子，这样他们就能成为英雄。所以这就是为什么你要等待三四项研究得出相同的结论。
Hydroxychloroquine
羟氯喹
The same thing happened with hydroxychloroquine, you know? You get one guy doing it, and my assumption always is when the first report comes out one way and the other reports come out the other way, my first assumption from personal experience is the guy is a liar. Although, as I said, 1 chance in 20 it’s just purely statistical that – you throw a deck of cards up in the air and all 52 land face up. That doesn’t mean you have some special ability; it just means that if you do it enough, it’s going to happen. When you’re doing a scientific test, sometimes you’re going to get results that are purely statistical aberrations way out by the bell curve and not significant.
羟氯喹也发生了同样的情况，你知道吗？有一个人这样做了，我的假设总是，当第一份报告以一种方式出现，而其他报告以另一种方式出现时，我的第一个假设基于个人经验是，那个人是个骗子。尽管，正如我所说，20次机会中有一次，这纯粹是统计上的——你把一副牌扔到空中，所有52张牌都正面朝上。这并不意味着你有什么特殊能力；这只是意味着如果你做得足够多，它就会发生。当你进行科学测试时，有时你会得到纯粹是统计异常的结果，这些结果远远偏离了钟形曲线，并不重要。
So you cannot assume that one result is significant. But if you throw the cards up in the air 20 times in a row and they all turn up face up, I’m going to believe you have some trick or some special skill, right? But if you do it once, I’m going to believe that it’s a fluke.
所以你不能假设一个结果是显著的。但如果你连续20次把牌扔到空中，它们都正面朝上，我会相信你有什么技巧或特殊技能，对吧？但如果你只做一次，我会认为这是一个偶然事件。
So that’s why you want to see three or four studies and you want to see more elaborate studies, controlled studies, control groups, blind studies, where the patient doesn’t know if he has a placebo or the real drug, the doctor does not know if the patient has the placebo or the real drug. There’s some researcher in a lab attaching code numbers to bottles and giving them to the doctor. Half of the bottles have the drug, half of the bottles have placebo, and the patient and the doctor do not know which is which, and then the doctor comes up with his results, analyzing, did the drug help or hurt?
所以，这就是为什么你需要看到三到四项研究，并且希望看到更详细的研究、受控研究、对照组研究、盲法研究，在这些研究中，患者不知道自己服用的是安慰剂还是真药，医生也不知道患者服用的是安慰剂还是真药。实验室里有个研究人员给瓶子贴上代码标签，然后把它们交给医生。一半的瓶子里装有药物，另一半装有安慰剂，患者和医生都不知道哪个是哪个，然后医生得出结果，分析药物是帮助了还是伤害了患者。
Double-blind studies
双盲研究
That’s called a double-blind study. The doctor is blind, the patient is blind. Only some nerd in a room with a computer and a printer, printing out labels and attaching them to the bottles, knows. But that guy doesn’t know which patient is getting the drugs either. But when the results come in, the doctor will say, “Jar #47, good. Jar #93, bad.” And then the researcher in the room looks at the list and does the math. Did the drug clearly help, or was it no different from the group of placebo jars?
这就是所谓的“双盲研究”。医生是盲的，患者也是盲的。只有某个呆在房间里、用电脑和打印机打印标签并把它们贴在瓶子上的书呆子知道。但那个人也不知道哪个患者在服用药物。当结果出来时，医生会说：“47号罐子，好；93号罐子，坏。”然后房间里的研究员查看列表并进行计算。药物是否明显有帮助，还是与安慰剂罐组没有区别？
So that’s why, when you see idiots go on TV and say, “Take hydroxychloroquine” or “Take Remdesivir,” they’re idiots. They’re doing it for personal benefit, not because they care about patients. If you care about patients, you rely on science, and science requires multiple preliminary tests like this China test and the University of Chicago test, and then, ultimately, a double-blind study. You need one or more double-blind studies, or a double-blind study conducted at many institutions with many different doctors. That is a very reliable indicator of whether or not a drug is helpful, and we do not have that yet with anything to do with COVID-19, the coronavirus pandemic .
所以，当你看到一些白痴在电视上说“服用羟氯喹”或“服用瑞德西韦”时，他们就是白痴。他们这样做是为了个人利益，而不是因为关心患者。如果你关心患者，你就应该依赖科学，而科学需要多次初步测试，比如中国的测试和芝加哥大学的测试，最后还要进行双盲研究。你需要一项或多项双盲研究，或者由许多不同医生在许多机构进行的一项双盲研究。这是一个非常可靠的指标，可以判断一种药物是否有帮助，但我们目前还没有针对COVID-19（冠状病毒大流行）的任何相关研究。
So that is my lecture on medical results and the importance of science in deciding whether you should use a certain drug or a certain disease.
以上是我关于医学结果以及科学在决定是否应该使用某种药物或治疗某种疾病中的重要性的讲座。
Closing chart commentary
收盘图表评论
So, we’ve got a Micro Double Bottom, 40, 41. We’ve got a failed breakout of the 18 bar low. But just breaking below the 18 bar low automatically makes it only a 20% chance we get back above the high. But this is a mess. Huge down, huge up, big confusion, so really hard to do anything.
所以，我们有一个微型双底，40号K线和41号K线。我们看到18号K线的低点突破失败。但只要跌破18号K线的低点，我们就只有20%的概率能重新回到高点上方。但这是一团糟。大幅下跌，大幅上涨，一片混乱，所以很难采取任何行动。
60-minute Moving Average, we’re testing the 60-minute Moving Average support. You can see on the 60-minute chart, we poked below the 60-minute Moving Average. Bulls are trying to hold. They’re trying to go up, and bears obviously would like it to fail and form a head and shoulders top. Right shoulder, head, and left shoulder. After a Wedge, you often get that. I still think it’s more likely than not that we’re going up for one more new high, and there’s only one reason I say that. It is this right here. Weekly chart. We’re very close to the 20-week Moving Average. Did not get there. We probably have to get there. So this week probably will remain an inside bar, a High 1 bull flag, and what the bulls hope is a bull trend. We break above the 20-week Moving Average next week and reverse down with a big tail on top, and then we begin a 2 to 3 week correction down below 2600, and maybe 2500.
60分钟均线，我们正在测试60分钟均线的支撑位。你可以在60分钟图表上看到，我们跌破了60分钟均线。多头试图守住，他们试图上涨，而空头显然希望它失败并形成头肩顶形态。右肩、头部和左肩。楔形形态之后，你经常会看到这种情况。我仍然认为，我们很可能再创一个新高，我这么说只有一个原因。就是这里，周线图。我们离20周均线非常近，但还没有到达。我们可能必须到达那里。所以本周可能仍将是一个内包线，一个高点1的多头旗形，多头希望这是一个多头趋势。我们下周突破20周均线后，再反转向下，顶部出现一个大阴线，然后我们开始2到3周的修正，跌破2600，甚至可能跌至2500。