That's going to change.

Moreover, there will be huge profit opportunities, in many enabling technologies, for those who invest accordingly. And today I'm going to tell you about a company that will hand you your best chance to make a transformational fortune.

We know that many current treatments work on some people, yet not others. Some drugs are safe for many people, but have dangerous side effects for others. This is because all of us have individual differences in our genetic code based on heredity and environment. Even slight differences can lead to very different reactions to medications.

This has created serious regulatory problems. Drugs are denied regulatory approval not because they do not work, but because some fraction of the population suffers adverse effects. As a result, we are often denied incredibly effective therapies simply because they are not universally effective.

This shockingly primitive state of affairs exists because, until very lately, we simply have not had the tools to get to the genetic roots of disease. Scientists and pharmaceutical companies haven't precisely known how a particular drug's chemical profile interacts with a genetic one. Medical science, in turn, has been unable to tailor drugs to work with a specific genetic makeup.

This is rapidly changing. Just a few short years ago, the human genome was first mapped. The genome, as you know, is the entire collection of genetic code that defines us at a biological level. Now scientists are studying single genes and their individual expressions.

It is meaningful, from the investor's perspective, that Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project, has just been selected by the Obama administration to head up the National Institutes of Health. Collins has long been a prominent champion for using the knowledge gained from human genome to accelerate personalized medicine.

This is important because institutional forces, with lobbying clout, always resist change. Much of Big Pharm, and its regulators, are vested in the "one size fits all" model. Many of the old players fear personalized medicine because it threatens the existing hierarchy. Collins' presence at the top of the NIH will help counter this institutional resistance.

Incidentally, Collins has stated that genomics is currently where the computer industry was back in the 1970s - at the beginning of a technological revolution. While he was speaking in scientific terms, we should remember that the '70s was also the right time to begin investing in a diversified portfolio of breakthrough computer technologies. Those who did so, despite claims that it was too risky or early, were made rich.

Dr. Collins is not alone in his views about personalized medicine. Former FDA director under G.W. Bush Dr. Andrew Von Eschenbach urges that the FDA approval process be overhauled and streamlined to help accelerate the adoption of personalized medicine. He is on record predicting that the medical industry will, in fact, undergo this profound metamorphosis.

I won't pretend, by the way, that the prospect of socialized US medicine does not threaten the pace of this transformation. If American pharm's prices and profits are controlled by the same people who run the Post Office and Medicare, it will not be good for R&D. It will not, however, stop progress. It will only shift it offshore.

Canada and much of Europe have squelched innovation in their countries by nationalizing health care. Rather than allowing drug companies the profits needed to fund future medical technologies, they mandate cheap care. This is why we regularly see politicians from these countries coming to the US to avoid long delays or get therapies unavailable in their own countries. I live in Florida, incidentally, and a million or so Canadians winter here annually. The weather is a factor, of course, but so is our superior medical care.

Many Asian and Eastern European countries, though, have learned from America's past successes. They are more than willing to become the next medical science powerhouses.

I speak regularly with the CEOs of some of the most important breakthrough medical companies. Universally, they tell me the same thing. They are all constantly courted by Asian investors who come with the blessings of their political leaders. These American CEOs are saddened, as am I, by the prospect that they may be forced offshore. They are, though, unwilling to halt the progress of medical science in the misguided quest for lower medical costs. I maintain hope, by the way, that Americans will stop this self-destructive move toward socialist health care.

In Greek mythology, Proteus was the son of Poseidon, who could change his shape at will. From this comes the adjective "protean," meaning versatile, flexible and adaptable. It is not coincidence that this also describes the proteins expressed by our genes.

By now, the public is somewhat aware of genome progress. Now that the code is cracked, however, we know that it was simply the first step in the process of developing truly personalized medicine.

Though our genome contains the basic information that determines our biology, our proteome is the entire domain of protein chemistry that regulates the structure and functioning of our individual cells. By extension, the proteome determines how each of our bodies function. Everyone's proteome is unique, because each of us has a unique genome and has been exposed to unique environmental factors.

The human genome contains a staggering amount of information. If it were a book, it would contain a billion words. Yet consider this: Each individual gene can determine the cellular manufacture and function of many, many proteins. Genes are merely the instructions for making proteins. Unlike our genome, which stays mostly the same over time, our proteome is always in a state of flux.

Proteomics concerns itself with these proteins and their interactions. These interactions determine the course of nearly all human diseases. They also open up entire new avenues of treatments and investment.

One important proteomic avenue is cancer chemotherapy. A recent study of personalized medicine by Scottsdale Healthcare showed that when cancer patients were individually profiled at the molecular level, treatments were more successful. Tumors that had resisted shrinkage using several courses of conventional chemotherapy were successfully treated when the patient's individual genetic makeup was used to customize treatment.

Many of these personalized treatments use therapeutic monoclonal antibodies directed against specific proteins. They work only, however, in specific tumors that strongly express that particular protein. For example, tumors need to develop new blood vessels in order to grow. If the protein instructions are known, antibodies can be developed that prevent new blood vessel formation by these tumors. Antibodies can also be developed against other growth factors that feed the tumor's growth.

We have already seen big investor successes in this arena. Early investors in Genentech struck gold. Genentech, now owned by Roche, was the first company to develop a targeted proteomic cancer therapy when it brought the breast cancer drug Herceptin to the market in 1998. Yet Herceptin is effective only in less than a third of breast cancer patients. In some, it can trigger dangerous cardiac side effects.

The FDA, therefore, has approved procedures to test the breast cancer for the genetic protein expression that is specifically targeted by Herceptin. Women can now be individually screened for overexpressing the particular HER2 protein that Herceptin targets.

Regards,

Patrick Cox
for The Daily Reckoning Australia

• When Computers Meet Cell Biology
• The Obama Administration’s Impact on Nuclear Energy
• The Government’s Response to the Credit Crisis Will Ultimately Impact Our Lives
• American Banking System is a Branch of the Federal Government
• The Future of Medical Technology

The analysts were confident about valuations going forward, especially long term. Company execs swore their deals didn't need any money, while brokers and bankers alike had a gleam in their eye about the financing opportunities amid the debris - even a sense of urgency. One broker - my former business partner, actually - wondered whether the fundamentals for gold have ever been as bullish in our lives.

The answer was unambiguous. The market has answered too.

Newmont and Freeport this week filed documents in conjunction with potential underwritings by J.P. Morgan and Citigroup, in the amounts of $1.2 billion and $750 million, respectively, totaling just under $2 billion. Kinross sold UBS about $400 million worth of stock last week. Lundin's Red Back also negotiated a bought deal worth about $150 million with a group of underwriters led by Cormark Securities and BMO last week. Earlier this month, Yamana closed a $135 million share offer and borrowed $200 million, while in December, Agnico-Eagle raised some $300 million from stock issuances after borrowing $300 million a few months earlier (in September). Where's the deflation?!

The money is coming into the gold sector. The Canadian National Post reported last week that gold miners are "raising cash with ease... many generalist funds have jumped onto the precious metals bandwagon."

Many juniors have also reported financings where needed. Some are turning them away. Share issues are just too dilutive down here, and any company that doesn't need money to survive 2009 is prudent to refuse.

Asked about the ability of miners to raise cash in this environment, the analysts at the podium at the Cambridge House investment conference in Vancouver all agreed there is always funding for assets that have sound economic fundamentals. They finance themselves. In fact, in my experience, it is often better to buy the shares of companies with good assets that need cash than companies with cash and no assets, even if the latter are trading at a discount to cash breakup, and even if funding is relatively scarce. Companies with a lot of cash can sometimes get lazy and put up their feet, or insiders waste it - or even steal it, if they lack integrity. Cash itself yields nothing. It's a depreciating good, as you know. It's one thing to buy a company at below cash breakup and then break it up and keep the extra cash. It is another thing to invest in a company at cash breakup or less. We invest to earn profits.

If you want to buy cash at a discount, buy a T-bill or term deposit. Or else, you're just sharing in potential losses due to debasement, negligence, debauchery or theft. That doesn't mean you should avoid the deals that have a lot of cash - just that's not what you're investing in. You are investing either in the underlying asset, which yields profit (i.e., more cash in the future) or management's abilities.

Ultimately, sound "assets" will hold their value better than idle cash in an inflationary environment.

It is obvious that through this crisis, despite some turbulence, gold prices have held up better than just about any other asset, commodity or currency (other than dollars and yen) we may imagine. From the point of view of a gold miner, this is a very good thing. Even better is that the price of oil, a significant cost input for miners, has fallen a lot relative to gold. This is bullish for margins. Also bullish for gold miners is that the slump may have freed up capital and labor for the development of gold assets, where previous scarcity drove up capex estimates so much that some projects had to be abandoned.

The combination of strong investment demand for gold and lower input costs makes gold stocks one of the only sectors poised for any growth in operating results (i.e., earnings and cash flows) in 2009.

On the other hand, the ratio of gold prices to many of the commodities, and the averages, is at more than a 10-year extreme, and it is not sustainable. As a matter of fact, I think it could be a drag on gold prices. Gold is the only commodity challenging the resistance point in its post-March 2008 downtrend.

It looks poised to break out, and the other commodities appear to be bottoming.

However, while the extremity lasts, it could cap gold prices.

My feeling is that the gold ratios (i.e., gold prices relative to other assets, commodities and currencies) are going to ebb in the short term while commodity prices catch up a little. I continue to think that this catch-up phase will include a rally in stock prices, and a general recovery in risk appetite, even if short-lived. While it lasts, it is likely to shave a few safe-haven points off gold. It hasn't started yet.

I'm not looking for new lows in gold on this... just some backfilling and consolidation while the other commodities and assets catch up some. This could happen over the next few months. Then look out.

Regardless, however, I expect gold shares to benefit from the general return of risk appetite too.

That is, but for some ebb and flow, I expect gold shares to do well whether gold goes up or not - so long as it doesn't go down too much. As long as it holds the $800-850 level, gold shares are a buy.

It is still a buyer's market. Many gold shares are still factoring in a gold price of less than $800. But don't be hasty.

Rather, be deliberate, which means don't waver from the plan or your conviction on dips. Buy them. Try not to buy on days when everyone else is, like today, but make sure you have a shopping list and just pick away at it when you get the dip.

Investors should always wade in (and out) of their positions, rather than jumping in and out - as ole Jesse Livermore used to do. They called him the "Boy Plunger." He made big on the way up and lost big on the way down. There are lots of folks like that on Wall Street. They're big gamblers. You could say the Fed made them. They don't care about the black swan, because they believe that should they lose, they will just win again tomorrow.

Keep in mind, though, you're not buying blue chips here. Small-cap miners (and options) are extremely volatile and risky.

Remember this is for 10-20% of your financial assets - whatever you can sleep at night with. Some people can sleep with more - some can't sleep anyway. I guess the analogy doesn't apply to insomniacs, but you get the gist.

Good trading,

Ed Bugos
for The Daily Reckoning

• Exhausted Gold Shares
• A Sovereign Debt Crisis Bullish for U.S. Dollar and Bearish for Gold
• A Trader’s Market or an Investor’s Market?
• How to Trade Gold Shares
• Oil Prices Under $70

What is this country coming to? We don't know. But we don't like the looks of it.

Still, what can we do? The subject came up this weekend. School has finally ended for summer. One son is back from Boston. Two others have finished their tests in France. We took them with us to Normandy for the weekend, so we could all work at painting the windows and doors of our old house, barns and stables. The nice thing about painting is that it is an invitation to conversation.

"Dad, what are you investing in?" one of the boys wanted to know.

We explained that we had put the family money in a variety of things.

"I'm not really an investor - except in the business," we began our explanation. "But I know some people who are good at it. They do research on individual companies - like Warren Buffett. And if they're good, and if they're lucky, they do a bit better than the market itself. In a single year, it wouldn't matter very much. But over a very long time, it adds up. So, I gave them some of the family money.

"Emerging markets, for example. I don't know about next year. Or even 5 years out, but it seems a reasonable bet that 10 or 20 years from now, those investments in emerging markets will have done better than putting the money into U.S. stocks. And if you have someone you trust on the case, you can take a long view, spread out among several different markets, and not worry about it."

"You mean, you put all the money into emerging markets?"

"No...no... only about a quarter of it. The rest is in gold, natural resources, and European stocks - same thing there, I have someone I trust making very long-term investments. I don't know if gold is going up in the short run. But over the very long run, there's never been anything better as a way to store wealth. And I think also that over the long run natural resources will be a good place to be - if you've got someone you trust making the choices. I'm in a very privileged position in that I get to see so many different people trying so many different ways to make money. In my business, I see them...I meet them...I study their theories and see their results. Most of them are a waste of time. Worse than that, they're a danger to your money. But a few are real pros...people you can trust...and people who will do a good job for you."

"Yeah Dad, I've been reading The Daily Reckoning. My thinking is probably getting warped by it. Because I'm putting the money I save this summer into gold too. But Dad, what if gold goes down like it did in the '90s...and what if those managers lose the money? What are you going to do? Shouldn't you have a lot of money in the bank to retire on?"

"Nah...I'm not going to retire. And when I get too old to work...just ship me out to the ranch and let me dry up and blow away."

"Okay Dad...sounds like a plan."

Until tomorrow,

Bill Bonner
The Daily Reckoning Australia

• Painting for Good Money
• World Economy Has Never Been in a Fix Like This
• The Family Office
• Painting the Shutters With the Family
• Bill Bonner on More Fed Folly and His Brand New Pickup Truck