PDA

View Full Version : If you have 10% of your assets in PM's...


TwoBitWisdom
11-08-2010, 10:56 PM
then 10% of your assets are insured against hyperinflation.

The other 90%? Nope, they aren't insured. They are devaluing every time Ben Bernanke turns on the printer.

For instance, a silver quarter could buy a gallon of gas back around 1970. Today the coin is worth about a gallon of gas. But the rest of your paper money doesn't have that staying power. If you still had a dollar bill in your pocket from 1970, you couldn't buy 4 gallons of gas with it today. If fact, you'd get maybe 1/3 of a gallon with that dollar bill...a 12-fold loss.

That's why I also own some mining shares. Mining shares can go up much faster than the price of gold. That helps ensure the other 90% of my assets.

These days I wouldn't own any other stock, except for maybe the "Cloud computer technology" (Sell your Microsoft stock! Ballmer just unloaded $1.3 billion of his Microsoft stock.)

curtains
11-09-2010, 05:17 AM
Thanks for starting this thread and packing it full of rumor, conjecture, innuendo, and hearsay. It's a veritable cornucopia of lose.

MyBids
11-09-2010, 06:46 AM
Thanks for starting this thread and packing it full of rumor, conjecture, innuendo, and hearsay. It's a veritable cornucopia of lose.


What are you talking about? There's nothing wrong with the OP's post. He's
just putting down how he feels and sees it. What you say his post has is what
your post is.

ConanTheLibertarian
11-09-2010, 07:27 AM
then 10% of your assets are insured against hyperinflation.

The other 90%? Nope, they aren't insured.

I think if 90% of assets are paper - that's a true statement.
Many folks have non-paper assets. Homes, land, businesses, knowledge, skill, equipment, etc. Things that can bring money. I make electricity, and for the past 35 years, that has tended to make money. As much as kitco folks like to post, I imagine that business will remain viable.

As inflation sets in for the long haul (and repatriation of foreign held USDs) all hard assets, clear down to your canned goods in the pantry will rise in value.


Nothing is insured. Remember full faith and credit...Not even Gold. It makes us feel less at-risk than paper money, but government can ban the transactions or even the possession of it with an Executive Order (evidently). And Piggly Wiggly won't take it at that point.

And - yes, FDR demonized the Goldbugs of 1933 as "hoarders" harming the economy. On top of confiscation, we get bad press.

curtains
11-09-2010, 07:47 AM
Putting 10% of your assets in pms is a guideline to hedge against inflation, not insure against it. Of course if hyperinflation rears its ugly head, then 10% will not be enough. Putting a large percentage of your assets in pms hops you over the line into speculator territory. An area I've squarely set camp in nonetheless.

The OP also touts mining stocks as a well to make a leveraged play in pms as well as safeguarding against inflation. This is also a highly speculative and deserves more scrutiny than a simple:

Mining shares can go up much faster than the price of gold.

I also have put aside a large portion of my assets into miner shares when gold was $750 and they as a whole have underperformed. Yes I would have done better just buying bullion. Will their day come? Maybe. I hope so. But it's a guess. A gamble.

Also, fluff in your icon and sig regarding the curing of cancer does not elicit confidence in your financial musings. Indeed it wafts the faint odor of snake oil.

Ykoun Cronleius
11-09-2010, 11:35 AM
One thing you have to realize is that the purchasing power of PM's has been supressed so there will be a huge gap up in purchasing power happening which ultimately increases your overall purchasing power. Let's say you have $100K in savings and you have 10% or $10K of assets in Silver. That silver should actually have a purchasing power of $50K +.

TwoBitWisdom
11-09-2010, 12:00 PM
I think if 90% of assets are paper - that's a true statement.
Many folks have non-paper assets. Homes, land, businesses, knowledge, skill, equipment, etc. Things that can bring money. I make electricity, and for the past 35 years, that has tended to make money. As much as kitco folks like to post, I imagine that business will remain viable.

As inflation sets in for the long haul (and repatriation of foreign held USDs) all hard assets, clear down to your canned goods in the pantry will rise in value.


Nothing is insured. Remember full faith and credit...Not even Gold. It makes us feel less at-risk than paper money, but government can ban the transactions or even the possession of it with an Executive Order (evidently). And Piggly Wiggly won't take it at that point.

And - yes, FDR demonized the Goldbugs of 1933 as "hoarders" harming the economy. On top of confiscation, we get bad press.

What you say about physical assets and your ability to make electricity are points well taken. Good stuff well said.

TwoBitWisdom
11-09-2010, 12:18 PM
Also, fluff in your icon and sig regarding the curing of cancer does not elicit confidence in your financial musings. Indeed it wafts the faint odor of snake oil.

Thanks for clarifying the source of your animus.

The only wafting odor I smell is the snake venom of chemotherapy. During the last 65 years, it has put somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 million victims into caskets in the US, and many more worldwide.

Anyone who still supports that nonsense along with radiation and surgery - both of which promote cancer growth - just hasn't been paying attention.

Meanwhile, I have interviewed people who were so far gone they were given up on by the venom dispensers. One of the patients was actually in a coma when the doctor suggested to her husband to take her home. They tried something different and became cancer free.

You call what I know to be "fluff." You can disregard my thoughts on financial stuff if you wish. That is fair enough. Meanwhile, the doctor's method has durably cured more people of cancer than any ten oncologists you can name. Make that 1,000 oncologists.

Rockhounder
11-09-2010, 12:29 PM
Thanks for clarifying the source of your animus.

For the last 65 years the only wafting I smell is the snake venom of chemotherapy. It has put somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 million victims into caskets in the US, and many more worldwide.

Anyone who still supports that nonsense along with radiation and surgery - both of which promote cancer growth - just hasn't been paying attention.

Meanwhile, I have interviewed people who were so far gone they were given up on by the venom dispensers. One of the patients was actually in a coma when the doctor suggested to her husband to take her home. They tried something different and became cancer free.

You call what I know to be true "fluff." You can disregard my thoughts on financial stuff if you wish. That is fair enough. Meanwhile, the doctor's method has durably cured more people of cancer than any ten oncologists you can name. Make that 1,000 oncologists.

If it would actually work as advertised, and be the cure that it touts, you would have new doctors using that method versus a method that doesn't work as well. To all you conspiracy folks who say that all doctors want to do is keep you sick to get more money, then why would they bother to give antibiotics for a bacterial infection, or bother to set a broken leg straight, or remove cervical cancer pre-cancerous cells? COnspiracy theories don't work if there are 10s of thousands supposedly involved... there is always whistleblowers to prevent things like this from getting around.

In the City Of Hope (leading cancer center) my cousin is a researcher for pulmonary cancers... She's always talking about all the new theories they are hearing about and subsequently testing..... Form being exposed to first tier people who are actually looking and testing the latest techniques, my Barbars Streisand meter has gone through the roof on this poster..... I'll bet he's also a big fan of homeopathic tincture techniques...... 1 billionth part poison to water, create a "healing" potion. but funny that there are that many poisons and heavy metals, etc already in our drinking water, so are we all actually self medicating just by drinking water, and breathing air, which has the same levels of poisons? By that theory, nobody should ever be sick..... once again, use the logic parsing train...... see where it takes you.......

Roger Knights
11-09-2010, 12:42 PM
I also have put aside a large portion of my assets into miner shares when gold was $750 and they as a whole have underperformed. Yes I would have done better just buying bullion. Will their day come? Maybe. I hope so. But it's a guess. A gamble.
It's here now, especially junior miners (GDXJ). Senior miners hedged (short-sold) their future production (perhaps following the advice of Nadler?), hence much of their underperformance.

TwoBitWisdom
11-09-2010, 12:51 PM
If it would actually work as advertised, and be the cure that it touts, you would have new doctors using that method versus a method that doesn't work as well. To all you conspiracy folks who say that all doctors want to do is keep you sick to get more money, then why would they bother to give antibiotics for a bacterial infection, or bother to set a broken leg straight, or remove cervical cancer pre-cancerous cells? COnspiracy theories don't work if there are 10s of thousands supposedly involved... there is always whistleblowers to prevent things like this from getting around.

In the City Of Hope (leading cancer center) my cousin is a researcher for pulmonary cancers... She's always talking about all the new theories they are hearing about and subsequently testing..... Form being exposed to first tier people who are actually looking and testing the latest techniques, my Barbars Streisand meter has gone through the roof on this poster..... I'll bet he's also a big fan of homeopathic tincture techniques...... 1 billionth part poison to water, create a "healing" potion. but funny that there are that many poisons and heavy metals, etc already in our drinking water, so are we all actually self medicating just by drinking water, and breathing air, which has the same levels of poisons? By that theory, nobody should ever be sick..... once again, use the logic parsing train...... see where it takes you.......

Your premise is incorrect for a couple of reasons. First, you are assuming that a better cancer cure would be given the green light. That is historically inaccurate.

Secondly, you think it would take thousands of people to put the clamps on a better cure. That is also historically inaccurate.

Your cousin works in a lab. Maybe she should get out of the lab and see real people who were cured of real terminal cancers. I have.

Rockhounder
11-09-2010, 01:18 PM
Your premise is incorrect for a couple of reasons. First, you are assuming that a better cancer cure would be given the green light. That is historically inaccurate.

Secondly, you think it would take thousands of people to put the clamps on a better cure. That is also historically inaccurate.

Your cousin works in a lab. Maybe she should get out of the lab and see real people who were cured of real terminal cancers. I have.


Please name for me better medicine or surgical procedures which are suppressed( enough so to cause a normal observer to agree that better medicine is suppressed as the median historical trend). I would like to know.

It does not take thousands of people to put the clamps on a better cure. It takes just one whistle blower with proof to expose such a supression, and with hundreds of thousands of good, honest, moral people working in the medical fields, the ONLY way for a better cure to remain suppressed is if NOBODY knows about it. You don't think that someone who has a TRUE better method is going to sit on it and lose potential millions of financial gain from marketing it???

Deena is surrounded every day by cancer patients at COH. Many of them are in trial programs with the new testing......

ALso, your statement of cure of terminal cancer is predicated on an assumption that a patient who was sured using your techniques would not have gotten better on their own... yes the law of averages shows, and also hearing firsthand from Deena that some patients do have "miraculous" cures, when they decided to stop treatment. The human body does mysterious things or cancers metastasize into a different enough form finally where it kicks in the autoimmune response finally....

Also, please give me any references where your previous statement of "Surgery causes cancer" has any case studies please.

TwoBitWisdom
11-09-2010, 01:48 PM
Please name for me better medicine or surgical procedures which are suppressed( enough so to cause a normal observer to agree that better medicine is suppressed as the median historical trend). I would like to know.

It does not take thousands of people to put the clamps on a better cure. It takes just one whistle blower with proof to expose such a supression, and with hundreds of thousands of good, honest, moral people working in the medical fields, the ONLY way for a better cure to remain suppressed is if NOBODY knows about it. You don't think that someone who has a TRUE better method is going to sit on it and lose potential millions of financial gain from marketing it???

Deena is surrounded every day by cancer patients at COH. Many of them are in trial programs with the new testing......

ALso, your statement of cure of terminal cancer is predicated on an assumption that a patient who was sured using your techniques would not have gotten better on their own... yes the law of averages shows, and also hearing firsthand from Deena that some patients do have "miraculous" cures, when they decided to stop treatment. The human body does mysterious things or cancers metastasize into a different enough form finally where it kicks in the autoimmune response finally....

Also, please give me any references where your previous statement of "Surgery causes cancer" has any case studies please.

Once again, you're surmising what you think should have happened in the history of cancer cures. I spend 100 pages in my book laying out the history of what actually happened in one case. There are many other cancer cures, each with their own tragic events.

Dr. Seymour Brenner, M.D., FACR, ran the largest radiation oncology clinic in the US. He examined many cases of patients treated by Dr. Revici. Dr. Brenner wrote, "As a Diplomate of Radiology, I have reviewed many cases of cancer that Dr. Revici has cured. ...Dr. Revici has cured many patients who were otherwise considered incurable."

As for surgery causing the spread of cancer, you're invited to examine the work of Judah Folkman, M.D., inventor of Angiostatin and Endostatin. He was also the chief of surgery at Boston Children's Hospital (Harvard.)

He discovered that removing a primary tumor turns on hidden satellite lesions regardless of their distance from the primary, that were previously dormant. He describes the biochemical response that occurs better than I ever could.

As for so-called spontaneous healing. Dr. Revici had more spontaneously healed patients than all the other oncologists in the nation put together.

When the whistleblower is punished for blowing his whistle, you get a different outcome than the one you wish would happen. Historical facts trump our wishes. There have been many whistleblowers, but you haven't heard about them, have you?

Rockhounder
11-09-2010, 02:31 PM
Once again, you're surmising what you think should have happened in the history of cancer cures. I spend 100 pages in my book laying out the history of what actually happened in one case. There are many other cancer cures, each with their own tragic events.

Dr. Seymour Brenner, M.D., FACR, ran the largest radiation oncology clinic in the US. He examined many cases of patients treated by Dr. Revici. Dr. Brenner wrote, "As a Diplomate of Radiology, I have reviewed many cases of cancer that Dr. Revici has cured. ...Dr. Revici has cured many patients who were otherwise considered incurable."

As for surgery causing the spread of cancer, you're invited to examine the work of Judah Folkman, M.D., inventor of Angiostatin and Endostatin and was the chief of surgery at Boston Children's Hospital (Harvard.)

He discovered that removing a primary tumor turns on hidden satellite lesions regardless of their distance from the primary, that were previously dormant. He describes the biochemical response that occurs better than I ever could.

As for so-called spontaneous healing. Dr. Revici had more spontaneously healed patients than all the other oncologists in the nation put together.

When the whistleblower is punished for blowing his whistle, you get a different outcome than the one you wish would would happen. Historical facts trump our wishes. There have been many whistleblowers, but you haven't heard about them, have you?

What it boils down to is percentages. What is the sucess rate in overall percent of healing in one treatment versus another. There always may be case studies, which can validate any point. If you take two similar populations of cancer patients and give them one treatment versus another, I would always go with the one that has the best survival rate... for example the survival rate now of acute lymphocytic leukemia revolves around the value of 80 percent, If your healing methods are better, with a higher healing rate, then please give me the compilation of statistics which show that... I will then go to that camp. If you don't work with Leukemia, then which cancers do you work with, and of all patients seen and worked on by you, what percent have had a remission or cure rate. We then can go to the accepted current statistics of "regular" oncological survival rates, and compare them. Then it's simple, go with the treatment of the highest percentage of success. It needs to be more than a few case studies... we need to see the mean/average of a statistically valid population.

TwoBitWisdom
11-09-2010, 03:40 PM
What it boils down to is percentages. What is the sucess rate in overall percent of healing in one treatment versus another. There always may be case studies, which can validate any point. If you take two similar populations of cancer patients and give them one treatment versus another, I would always go with the one that has the best survival rate... for example the survival rate now of acute lymphocytic leukemia revolves around the value of 80 percent, If your healing methods are better, with a higher healing rate, then please give me the compilation of statistics which show that... I will then go to that camp. If you don't work with Leukemia, then which cancers do you work with, and of all patients seen and worked on by you, what percent have had a remission or cure rate. We then can go to the accepted current statistics of "regular" oncological survival rates, and compare them. Then it's simple, go with the treatment of the highest percentage of success. It needs to be more than a few case studies... we need to see the mean/average of a statistically valid population.

You're trying to compare apples to watermelons.

Dr. Revici's patients were almost always patients who were in the late stage of their disease. They had been through the mill, but they still had cancer and were debilitated by their previous treatments.

Here is not the place for this conversation. I just told you that Dr. Revici had durably cured more terminal cancer patients any 1,000 oncologists in the US you could name combined. But that statistic hasn't sunk in.

And you've been informed that a highly qualified radiation oncologist with 35 years experience has found numerous cancer patients who WERE NOT CURABLE were indeed cured by Dr. Revici. In other words, those patients had a one in 100,000 chance of being cured because that is the accepted spontaneous cure rate.

One in 100,000 means the average oncologist has never seen one in his practice. Revici was curing the 1 in 100,000 on a regular basis.

In that case you need to take 100,000 to the 1,000th power to grasp the likelihood of the cures being spontaneous.

No other doctor using chemo, surgery or radiation can claim anything close to Revici's success.

BTW, the so-called spontaneous cures are often cases of people who started taking some supplements or started eating foods from their garden. So they weren't spontaneous. The doctors merely called them that because they didn't understand the mechanism of cure. So the true spontaneous cure rate is far more rare than 1 in 100,000.

Rockhounder
11-09-2010, 04:01 PM
You're trying to compare apples to watermelons.

Dr. Revici's patients were almost always patients who were in the late stage of their disease. They had been through the mill, but they still had cancer and were debilitated by the previous treatments.

Here is not the place for this conversation. I just told you that Dr. Revici had durably cured more terminal cancer patients any 1,000 oncologists in the US you could name combined. But that statistic hasn't sunk in.

And you been informed that a highly qualified radiation oncologist with 35 years experience has found numerous cancer patients who WERE NOT CURABLE were indeed cured by Dr. Revici. In other words, those patients had a zero in 100,000 chance of being cured because that is the accepted spontaneous cure rate.

One in 100,000 means the average oncologist has never seen one in his practice. Revici was curing the 1 in 100,000 on a regular basis.

In that case you need to take 100,000 to the 1,000th power to grasp the likelihood of the cures being spontaneous.

No other doctor using chemo, surgery or radiation can claim anything close to Revici's success.

BTW, the so-called spontaneous cures are often cases of people who stated taking some supplements of started eating foods from their garden. So they weren't spontaneous. The doctors merely called them that because they didn't understand the mechanism of cure. So the true spontaneous cure rate is far more rare than 1 in 100,000.

I understood your previous statement, I was just trying to find out some numbers. How many of his patients that were previously classified as uncurable did he see in total, and what percent of those did he cure. then all that has to be done is look at the same percent of "uncurable" classified patients in general, and see how many of them became well.. That is the ratio I want to know. please tell me his ratios, and then I can do DYOD on the ratios from other sources and compare them.

Thanks

TwoBitWisdom
11-09-2010, 04:31 PM
I understood your previous statement, I was just trying to find out some numbers. How many of his patients that were previously classified as uncurable did he see in total, and what percent of those did he cure. then all that has to be done is look at the same percent of "uncurable" classified patients in general, and see how many of them became well.. That is the ratio I want to know. please tell me his ratios, and then I can do DYOD on the ratios from other sources and compare them.

Thanks

Not every patient treated by Revici was part of a study which is exactly the same as at most medical practices. For instance, he cured lots of people while he was in France at the Pasteur Institute, but had to flee the Nazis.

But I will give you one example. Twenty-two terminal patients out of 55 saw their cancers clear up. The expected cure rate was -0-. Or if you want to say 1 in 100,000 is the spontaneous cure rate, then you can do the calculation from there if your calculator has that many digits.

Now try to find a single doctor in the US using FDA-approved treatments who has cured 22 terminal patients. There is not one. In fact, you wouldn't be able to find any five doctors combined who has done that.

Rockhounder
11-09-2010, 04:43 PM
Not every patient treated by Revici was part of a study which is exactly the same as at most medical practices. For instance, he cured lots of people while he was in France at the Pasteur Institute, but had to flee the Nazis.

But I will give you one example. Twenty-two terminal patients out of 55 saw their cancers clear up. The expected cure rate was -0-. Or if you want to say 1 in 100,000 is the spontaneous cure rate, then you can do the calculation from there if your calculator has that many digits.

Now try to find a single doctor in the US using FDA-approved treatments who has cured 22 terminal patients. There is not one. In fact, you wouldn't be able to find any five doctors combined who has done that.

Just called Deena, asked about Dr Revici. They have done exhaustive research into the Revici method, I'm getting the stats send to me in the next day or so, will post a link to the City of Hope database, link..... basically, he had a good idea about lipids being involved in cancerous cell formation, but in the USC study, found that healthy eating , reduction of fatty acids, did help health, it did not reverse cancers at a different rate than control group

TwoBitWisdom
11-09-2010, 09:01 PM
Just called Deena, asked about Dr Revici. They have done exhaustive research into the Revici method, I'm getting the stats send to me in the next day or so, will post a link to the City of Hope database, link..... basically, he had a good idea about lipids being involved in cancerous cell formation, but in the USC study, found that healthy eating , reduction of fatty acids, did help health, it did not reverse cancers at a different rate than control group

Very good.

A reduction in fatty acids, if anything, might increase the rate of cancer, especially if they were omega-3's that were being reduced. The Revici Method is not a diet, so whatever results there might be from various permutations of various diets wouldn't be a measure of the effectiveness of the Revici Method.

ROCKozt
11-10-2010, 04:36 AM
If you have 10% of your assets in PM's...
then 10% of your assets are insured against hyperinflation.

If you have 10% in...then you DEF do not have enough...

prunggu
11-10-2010, 05:06 AM
If I end up with cancer, I just want to be laid down on a comfortable bed in my home with my family and allowed to either recover or die as swiftly as possible for both myself and my family. I may give an ozt to a doctor for morphine to help with the pain, but I wouldn't give the doctor a gram to try and keep me alive if I'm dying.

assesingsit
11-10-2010, 06:04 AM
I have enough PM's and RE , some other inflationary protection ,,Food not enough yet !
And am building a rainwater purification system of my own design clean water but I am still in prototype untested phase
I will soon see ;)

If I get cancer I'm going down with the ship

prunggu
11-10-2010, 06:45 AM
I have enough PM's and RE , some other inflationary protection ,,Food not enough yet !
And am building a rainwater purification system of my own design clean water but I am still in prototype untested phase
I will soon see ;)

If I get cancer I'm going down with the ship

Yup...And save the crew and some of the passengers. I've already been both a passenger and crew on that boat. I don't want my family liquidating their wealth and my hard earned years of labour to keep me alive for a couple more months.

Love embraces death as much as it does life; doctors don't.

I've been thinking about buying a couple of rice fields with a share crop deal with a farmer --- not for profit, but for food. If I don't need to buy and can eat while the farmer can sell and eat --- all's good. I like the idea of harvesting rain (I get a lot of it), but could not find any information as to how it could be made drinkable. Please keep us informed.