It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Wednesday, December 03, 2025
During times of market volatility, investors should track insider trades
PULLMAN, Wash. — In times of economic upheaval, investors can get a clearer picture of the stock market’s future performance if they tune into how corporate insiders are trading stocks in their own companies.
That’s a key finding from a new study of investor behavior during the Covid-19 pandemic from Washington State University researchers. The study, which was published in Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, examined the trading choices of insiders during the unprecedented market shocks of the Covid-19 pandemic — finding they often zigged when the market zagged.
When most investors were selling stocks during the early days of the pandemic, many corporate insiders were buying more. And when most of the market began to recover, a lot of insiders sold. And their trades turned out to provide excellent forecasts of how the market behaved over the following year.
“The insider trades actually correlated with the subsequent stock performance – when they bought, the stock performed better, and when they sold, the stock performed poorly, in a one-year period beyond the Covid period,” said lead study author George Jiang, professor and Gary P. Brinson Investment Management Chair in the Department of Finance and Management Science in the Carson College of Business.
Because legal trades by company insiders must be reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and are publicly available on searchable databases at the SEC website and other sources such as Barchart — watching their choices during moments of market shock can help investors separate the signal from the noise, Jiang said. While insiders are prohibited from trading based on private information, they are permitted to make other trades—and their knowledge of their firms’ fundamentals and the overall market conditions give them a definite advantage.
“Markets will be volatile once in a while, so uncertainty will come,” he said. “The results from this study will present some interesting lessons for the future – for investors and for regulators.”
Jiang’s co-authors were PhD student Xiaoli Ma and former PhD student Yun Ma.
The pandemic presented a “natural laboratory” for studying insider behavior and the effects of their information advantage, the authors said. In early 2020, as the global pandemic took hold, financial markets saw their most turbulent period in decades. The market crisis was uniquely uncertain, as countries responded to the pandemic in varying ways and supply chains were disrupted, and so it gave researchers a chance to examine how the advantages of insiders played out in unpredictable times.
“As we looked into the data, we realized there was actually way more insider trading than usual, which was surprising to us,” Jiang said.
The team found a significant increase in insider purchases occurred from late February to early April 2020, as the market sank. Over the rest of the year, there was a fourfold increase in insider sales. Regression analysis showed that insiders’ contrarian trading resulted in them buying undervalued stocks and selling overvalued ones, actions that predicted future market activity—highlighting the fact that insider trading became more informative during the pandemic and reinforcing concerns about information asymmetry between insiders and other investors.
“When there is volatility, this is the time when investors need more from insiders,” Jiang said. “For insiders, this is a case where investors pay more attention to whatever you do, so if you send signals to the market, it’s probably a good thing to improve market efficiency. For investors, paying attention to what insiders do can help them during times of unprecedented uncertainty.”
The percentage of the public that would be likely to accept the recommendations on vaccine safety of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Medical Association (AMA), including breakdowns by political party identification and age. Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center, from the SSRS Omnibus Survey Nov. 21-24, 2025.
PHILADELPHIA – For decades, health-related statements by major professional health associations such as the American Medical Association (AMA) agreed with those of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) because both relied on the same body of scientific knowledge, much of it funded by the federal health sector. However, the public can no longer assume that the CDC and major public health organizations are on the same page.
In late November 2025, for example, when the CDC website legitimized the discredited link between vaccination and autism, mainstream professional health organizations condemned the changes. Fueling the outcry were two additions to the CDC website, under the leadership of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The first declared that “the claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.” The second alleged that “studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.” These claims now appear as the first two key points in a box at the beginning of the CDC’s Autism and Vaccines page.
“Despite recent changes to the CDC website, an abundance of evidence from decades of scientific studies shows no link between vaccines and autism,” declared an AMA statement. Casting the changes as “reckless and harmful,” the Infectious Diseases Society of America argued that “this change is not driven by science but by politics and will only serve to increase mistrust in science and medicine.” The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics called on the CDC to remove the false information and “stop wasting government resources to amplify false claims …”
To determine what the public is making of the controversy, the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania engaged SSRS to survey a nationally representative sample of 1,006 adults online from November 21-24, 2025. The survey has a margin of error of ±3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The survey, created by APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute (AHRCI), asks about the public’s confidence that the CDC is providing trustworthy information about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, how people react to conflicting cues about vaccine safety from the AMA and the CDC, and public views about whether vaccines and autism are linked.
The Annenberg survey finds that:
By a 2-1 margin, the public would be more likely to accept the AMA’s recommendation on vaccine safety (35%) than the CDC’s (16%) if the two bodies issue conflicting advice;
Regardless of party, Americans would accept the AMA’s recommendations on vaccine safety over the CDC’s;
Half of older Americans age 65+ (50%) would be more likely to accept the AMA’s recommendations on vaccine safety over the CDC’s (13%); the only age group more likely to accept the CDC over the AMA are 18- to 29-year-olds, by 24% to 19%.
If the CDC and the AMA gave conflicting recommendations on the safety of a vaccine, Americans say they would be more likely to accept the recommendation of the AMA by a 2 to 1 margin over the CDC: 35% say they would take the recommendation of the AMA, while just 16% would take the recommendation of the CDC. In addition, 21% say they would take neither organization’s recommendation and 27% say they are not sure.
Party differences: Regardless of party, Americans would accept the AMA’s recommendations on vaccine safety over the CDC’s. More than 4 in 10 (43%) self-identified Democrats say they would accept the AMA’s recommendation regarding the safety of a vaccine, while 18% would accept the CDC’s. Three in 10 (31%) self-identified Republicans indicate that they are more likely to accept the AMA’s recommendation over the CDC’s (13%). Similarly, among self-identified independents or those in other parties, 31% would accept the AMA recommendation, compared with 18% who say they would take the CDC’s.
When faced with differing recommendations about the safety of a vaccine, Republicans are more skeptical of both the AMA and CDC, compared with Democrats and independents. A third (32%) of Republicans say they would take neither organization’s recommendation, compared with 8% of Democrats and 23% of independents.
“Political party differences here are not surprising,” said Ken Winneg, APPC’s managing director of survey research. “The different willingness to rely on the AMA vs. the CDC, based on political party, is consistent with research showing that partisanship is now a clear factor in health perceptions. But it’s important to note that most independents, Democrats, and Republicans would accept an AMA recommendation over a CDC one about vaccine safety.”
Age differences: Half of U.S. adults age 65 and older (50%) are more likely to take the AMA’s guidance on vaccines than the CDC’s (13%). However, younger adults 18 to 29 are statistically just as likely to say they would accept the recommendation of the CDC as the AMA’s on vaccine safety. Nearly a quarter (24%) of those 18 to 29 would go with the CDC’s recommendation and about 1 in 5 (19%) would take the AMA’s. Similar to other age groups, most young people say they would take neither organization’s recommendation (20%) though more say they are not sure (37%). A greater proportion in each of the other age groups would clearly pick the AMA’s recommendation on vaccine safety over the CDC’s (32% AMA vs. 18% CDC among 30 to 49-year-olds; and 36% AMA vs. 12% CDC among 50 to 64-year-olds).
Just over half say CDC providing trustworthy information on vaccines
Just over half of adults (52%) are confident that the CDC is providing the public with trustworthy information about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Just 16% are very confident and 36% are somewhat confident. One in five (21%) are not at all confident in the CDC and 27% are not too confident. There are no significant differences in overall confidence by party or gender.
Younger people age 18 to 29 are more likely to say they are confident in the CDC on vaccine safety and effectiveness (59%) than adults 65 and older (47%).
CDC’s prior advice on vaccines aligns better with public’s view than today’s advice
Until November 20, 2025, the CDC’s website said, “Studies have shown that there is no link between receiving vaccines and developing autism.” Then the website was revised to say, “The claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.” When asked which of these two statements about vaccines and autism comes closer to their own views, a narrow majority (52%) chooses the statement saying there is no link between vaccines and autism. Nearly a third (30%), however, say their views are closer to the latest statement by the CDC that “the claim that ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.” Eighteen percent (18%) say they are not sure.
Party differences: There are significant differences by political party identification in acceptance of the debunked autism-vaccination link. Democrats (74%) and independents (52%) are significantly more likely than Republicans (33%) to endorse the view that there is no link between receiving a vaccine and autism. Nearly half of Republicans (48%) say that the claim is not evidence-based, over three times more than Democrats (14%). Independents are between those groups: about 3 in 10 (27%) say they are closer to the view that the vaccine-autism link has not been ruled out.
Young adults 18 to 29 years old are more likely than older adults to hold the view that there is no link between receiving a vaccine and autism. Nearly 7 in 10 (68%) adults age 18 to 29 say there is no link, compared with 48% of those age 30 to 49, 44% of those age 50 to 64, and 55% of those age 65 or older.
Most people unsure what CDC website now says on vaccines and autism
In a follow-up question, APPC researchers asked survey respondents which of the two statements noted above about vaccines and autism is currently on the CDC website. Most people (50%) say they are not sure which statement is on the website. The others are split, with 19% incorrectly saying the “no link” statement is currently on the site, and 20% correctly saying the “studies have not ruled out the possibility [of autism]” statement is on the site. Small groups say that both statements (7%) are on the site or that neither is on the site (4%).
“A possible source of confusion,” said Patrick E. Jamieson, director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute, “is the continuing presence on the CDC site of the header ‘Vaccines do not cause autism’ which, according to an asterisk linked to it, ‘has not been removed due to an agreement with the chair of the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that it would remain on the CDC website.’ This crafty move has honored the letter but not the spirit of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s pledge to Senator Bill Cassidy (R., LA) that the CDC would not ‘remove statements on their website pointing out that vaccines no not cause autism.’ ”
Regardless of party identification, the most common response is that people are unsure which statement is on the CDC website, with 57% of Republicans, 43% of Democrats, and 50% of independents reporting that they are not sure. The remainder are generally split over which statement is on the site.
Decline in belief that vaccines are not linked to autism
A science-consistent public understanding about vaccinated and unvaccinated children and autism had been declining before Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became HHS Secretary and before these CDC website changes were made.
In April 2021, nearly four years before Kennedy became Health Secretary, APPC began tracking the public’s understanding about vaccinated and unvaccinated children and autism. Since that time, there has been a decline in the proportion of people who say the claim “that increased vaccinations are why so many kids have autism these days” is false. In April 2021, 71% said the statement was false, but that number dropped significantly to 65% in October 2023, two and a half years later. Similarly, the number who believe the statement to be true increased significantly over that time period, from 10% and 11% in April and June 2021, respectively, to 16% in October 2023.
“Even before Covid-19, our survey data were showing an increase in those who believe that either a particular vaccine or the number of childhood vaccinations cause autism,” said Laura A. Gibson, an APPC research analyst. “If that sentiment leads to fewer life-saving vaccinations, there may be tragic consequences for some children and communities.”
Nearly half (47%) of those surveyed report believing that children who are fully vaccinated are about as likely to show signs of autism as children who are not fully vaccinated. The public is evenly divided on whether fully vaccinated children are more likely (12%) or less likely (12%) to show signs of autism. Nearly 3 in 10 people (29%) are not sure.
Democrats (57%) and independents (47%) are also more likely than Republicans (38%) to say fully vaccinated children are just as likely as children who are not vaccinated to show signs of autism. Nearly a quarter (23%) of Republicans say fully vaccinated children are more likely to show signs of autism, which is nearly six times more than Democrats (4%). Independents are between those groups, at 9%.
Methodology
Data from the survey come from a nationally representative sample of 1,006 U.S. adults, conducted for the Annenberg Public Policy Center by SSRS, an independent market research company.
The sample was drawn from SSRS’s probability based online opinion panel and was fielded November 21-24, 2025, and has a margin of sampling error (MOE) of ± 3.4 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add to 100%. Combined subcategories may not add to totals in the topline and text due to rounding.
The policy center has been tracking the American public’s knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors regarding vaccination, Covid-19, flu, RSV, and other consequential health issues through the Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) and separate national samples since April 2021. APPC’s health survey team includes Ken Winneg, managing director of survey research, research analyst Laura A. Gibson, and Patrick E. Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute.
See other recent Annenberg health survey news releases:
The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
The graphic shows the decrease in the percentage of people who believe it is false to say that "increased vaccinations are why so many kids have autism these days." The change from April 2021 (71%) to October 2023 (65%) is statistically sigificant. Source: Annenberg Science and Public Health surveys from the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Credit
Annenberg Public Policy Center
Method of Research
Survey
Subject of Research
People
How two Russian scientists changed the way we understand aging and cancer
“Here, conceptual similarities between Mikhail Blagosklonny’s hyperfunction theory of aging and Vladimir Dilman’s elevation theory of aging are considered”
“Here, conceptual similarities between Mikhail Blagosklonny’s hyperfunction theory of aging and Vladimir Dilman’s elevation theory of aging are considered.”
In this work, Aleksei G. Golubev from the N.N. Petrov National Medical Research Center of Oncology reflects on the legacy of two influential Russian scientists, Vladimir M. Dilman and his son Mikhail V. Blagosklonny, who each introduced groundbreaking ideas about aging and cancer. Drawing from his own experience working in Professor Dilman’s lab, Golubev explores how their ideas remain deeply relevant to today’s scientific understanding.
The essay connects Professor Dilman’s “elevation theory” with Dr. Blagosklonny’s “hyperfunction theory,” two frameworks that challenge the conventional view of aging as a process of decline. Instead, both propose that aging results from continued biological processes that once supported growth but eventually become harmful when left unchecked.
Professor Dilman believed that aging begins with reduced sensitivity in the hypothalamus, a brain region that regulates the body’s balance. This desensitization disrupts metabolism and hormone levels, setting the stage for many chronic illnesses. Decades later, Dr. Blagosklonny expanded on this idea at the molecular level. Central to his theory is the mTOR protein complex, which regulates growth and metabolism and is now a major focus in aging research.
Golubev also explores the historical and personal connections between the two scientists. Professor Dilman, an endocrinologist trained in the Soviet Union, and Dr. Blagosklonny, a molecular biologist educated during the post-Soviet period, represent two generations shaped by a shared scientific tradition.
“Dilman’s scientific legacy is not as well recognized as it should be, partly due to bias in citation practices.”
The essay also draws attention to a troubling trend in science: the tendency to overlook early contributions, especially from non-Western scholars. Many of Professor Dilman’s insights, such as the connection between high blood sugar, insulin resistance, and cancer, have since been validated by modern tools, yet his work is rarely cited. Golubev points out how citation practices, language barriers, and historical isolation have contributed to this lack of recognition.
Finally, Golubev encourages the scientific community to look back and acknowledge the foundational work that shaped modern aging science. It also highlights the importance of cross-generational knowledge in moving science forward. By tracing the intellectual journey from hormonal regulation in the brain to molecular pathways in cells, this essay demonstrated the relevance of old ideas in a new biological era.
On the intergenerational transfer of ideas in aging and cancer research: from the hypothalamus according to V.M. Dilman to the mTOR protein complex according to M.V. Blagosklonny
