I think it's significant that Holzhauer is a professional gambler. The people who can make a living betting are whizzes at calculating probabilities and using them to their benefit. Holzhauer KNEW his odds of answering a clue correctly were 97 percent (!) so why not bet as big as he can?
He also was a contrarian in his thinking that the object of the game was, yes, to win, but also to maximize your money-making possibility. He had one chance to make a lot of money in a hurry ... and he took it. (He trusted his system and the probabilities).
In today's science, the government model needs to spread their chips (bets) around and fund some maverick approaches. Instead, they put all of their "bets" on one approach ... And what if that approach is either wrong or less likely to pay big dividends with life-improving breakthroughs?
We don't even have a chance to let the mavericks solve big world problems. If nothing else, public science funders should put aside some chunk of change for scientists who DO think outside the box. But that's not going to happen (or doesn't happen). So, really, great breakthroughs are probably going to have to come from scientists who do it themselves and don't depend on government grants.
And, then after that, their "contrarian" breakthroughs will probably be ignored or dismissed ... because they upset the money-making template of the Establishment players.
Regarding AIDS and HIV, I think we have an example from decades ago of how the Science Establishment (led by You-Know-Who) went "all in" on a vaccine and a drug (AZT) that perhaps killed more people than it saved. As RFK, Jr. and Celia Farber point out in their books, if you went against the approved narrative, you were going to be cancelled by Fauci's thugs.
Lesson: It's not easy being a maverick or contrarian. (But, still, see James Holzhauer, it can literally pay off big-time ... if you are allowed to follow through with your contrarian theories or programs).
You beat me to it! Peter Duesberg, author of "Inventing the Aids Virus" He specifically called out Anthony Fauci and others for pushing AZT, and their bogus theory of HIV > AIDS. He trusted the "science". True science, that is.
I totally agree that if you see all rushing in one direction, it pays to keep a cool head and see if the right way is against the flow. It is reminiscent of when Jesus said, "broad is the way to destruction..." Those that are wise seek out the right way, instead.
UPDATE: Here's a story from late May 2023 about a shot-putter setting a new world record ... after the tweaked the technique all shot-putters have been using for decades.
By now, we know that future "Jeopardy!" contestants did NOT emulate Holzhauer's game strategy. Perhaps because they can't answer all the clues with James' astounding success rate. However, James actually lost the grudge match of all-time Jeopardy champs to Ken Jennings (who still has the record for most consecutive appearances without a loss and is one of the hosts of the show today).
In this "Tournament of Champions" show-down, Jennings adopted all of Holzhauer's techniques to beat him. So if you want to beat someone like Holzhauer, you better play the game like he does.
The other key to Holzhauer's success is the guy knows more general knowledge than just about any other person in our country. He was not weak in any category.
I'm sure readers can come up with more examples of contrarians who had success using a new template or technique in their field or sport.
I mentioned Dick Fosbury, who almost over-night changed the way people did the high jump and the pioneers of "soccer-style" kicking in football.
I still think Rick Barry's technique would produce higher free-throw percentages if more people practiced it.
PGA golfer Byrson DeChambleou has several unorthodox parts of his game and approach to golf and he's had some pretty good success. I might do a future column on "mavericks" who re-worked the way things were done in X field so any other great examples would be appreciated!
Wilt Chamberlain, one of the worst free throw shooters in NBA history, actually shot them under-handed one season. His free throw percentage went from 50 percent to 60 percent. But despite the huge improvement he stopped shooting them that way because he didn't like the way it looked!
When I was nine years old, the President of the United States was murdered in Dallas, Texas. Two days later, the alleged murderer was himself murdered under very odd circumstances. Even though at the time I did not know others questioned the story, this was the beginning of my "critical thinking" regarding many issues.
In my teens and twenties, I encountered difficult issues with the medical system, and have questioned just about everything since then. In 1976 or thereabouts, I read three books that helped to solidify my views: Sugar Blues, by William Dufty; Dr. Atkins' Super-Energy Diet, by Robert Atkins; and Hypothyroidism - Unsuspected Illness, by Broda Barnes.
I remember my great uncle telling me in the late '70s that his doctor told him he had to quit eating eggs. I asked him, "Why?" He spit out: "Oh, cholesterol, you know." I have been eating at least two eggs a day all of my adult life, plus lots of real butter, heavy cream, and all sorts of saturated fat. Back in the mid-1980s, my family doctor had cholesterol tests done on me (without my knowledge). When I went for my annual physical, the nurse pulls out my chart and looks it over. She then says, "Oh, my!" And I said, "What's wrong?" And she says: "It's your cholesterol." So I asked, "What's wrong with my cholesterol?" She replied: "Nothing. It's ideal. This is what we want people to have, but nobody ever gets there."
Every year my current doctor tests my cholesterol, and every year it comes back excellent. In December of 2013, based upon an MRI of my hip, my doctor and two others tried to diagnose me with bone cancer. My doctor told me I had to go get a pet scan, I just said "No." The other doctors read me the riot act, saying I had to do this, I had to do that. One made an appointment with an orthopedic oncologist for me. I just said no to everything and cancelled the appointment.
Instead, I have read a lot about cancer and also about nutrition. Although I had cut a lot of sugar out of my life in 1976, I still ate various sugary things, but pretty much cut all of it out nine years ago. When I learned about the pet scan, which is based upon a radioactive dye in a sugar solution, it suggests to me that the medical system already knows there is a connection between refined sugar and cancer. I am not claiming that sugar causes cancer, but from what I have read, cancer cells cannot survive long without it.
So in my opinion, the "cure for cancer" has been known for millennia - it's called a healthy, nutritious diet, as outlined by Weston Price in his 1939 book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, and Vilhjalmur Stefansson, in his 1960 book, Cancer: Disease of Civilization?
I'm in the group that thinks a "real cure" for cancer probably would be blocked. They blocked the use of Ivermectin and HCQ ... and then they pushed remdesivir, which is a killer in itself.
Again, the "contrarians" in science are targets and discredited a lot more than James Holzhauer was. That was just a game. What he did didn't matter. But it would if more people thought about the lessons of his approach.
See the Matt Tabbi column today in which he shows how selected MSM were spoon fed "approved" stories by the government and so lost their need to be creative in order to earn a meal ticket.
Another thought: In 1996 I read Inventing the AIDS Virus, by Peter Duesberg, with foreword by Kary Mullis. Peter Duesberg exemplifies the "contrarian" in science, targeted and discredited (by a certain Anthony somebody as I recall). I read Kary Mullis's autobiography, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, in 2020, and was sad to learn he died the year before.
Both of these brilliant men are among many scientists and doctors who have stood up against the "establishment" to benefit others with their work.
Back in 1982, when my dad was dying from "inoperable" brain tumors, a friend lent me a book titled One Answer to Cancer, by William Kelley. (In my opinion, it was one of many answers to cancer.) I read the book, but sadly it was too late to do much for my dad. Fortunately, he did not undergo any "treatment" such as radiation or chemotherapy.
My mom was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in May, 2002, and I was told she had two or perhaps three months to live. She was sent to another hospital where they put a stent in her bile duct (without surgery, amazingly), and that solved the immediate problem of jaundice due to the tumor crushing her bile duct. She never received any other cancer treatment, and had a very good year before she declined and passed away in August, 2003.
Both my parents were heavy smokers and ate a fair amount of sugar-laced foods. My dad also worked around radio and television transmitters for forty years, and I believe all the above contributed to their illnesses.
From this experience, I made my mind up that I would never undergo cancer "treatment," with the possible exception of surgery to remove a tumor that was impeding my ability to function. I also refuse any cancer tests, such as colonoscopies or biopsies.
Getting back to the book, One Answer to Cancer, I believe it was promoting laetrile. After the doctors tried to diagnose me with bone cancer, I read World Without Cancer, by G. Edward Griffin, and began eating apricot seeds on a daily basis. Whether they help to prevent cancer I do not know, but I love the flavor and I enjoy eating them.
Among many other books that influenced me were The Cancer Industry, by Ralph Moss; Cancer as a Metabolic Disease, by Thomas Seyfried; and a reprint of The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer, by John Beard.
"World Without Cancer" chronicles the discovery of vitamin B17 and creation of Laetril. It also covers the FDA corruption with the pharma mafia that banned Laetril and even Apricot seeds.
Right on. The current paradigm, adopted by every government everywhere as "public health policy", says the best/only way to prevent infectious diseases and save lives is to forget about treatment and innate nutrition-dependent protection, and instead make the evolved natural immune response dysfunctional forever by repeatedly injecting tiny amounts of foreign antigenic substances and poisons that sicken and shorten life. THAT one has gotta go, doncha think?
I think The Matt Hancock text leaks provided a rare insight into how government acts and reacts to events more in a self preservation manner than for the good of the public. For the past 50 years I have understood the concept of "looking good". Ronald Reagan understood it very well.
Most politicians understand the concept and don't care if a policy is good for the people as long as it earns votes.
Talk about the "template" being massively wrong ... and dangerous. But you can't go against the template (i.e. "conventional wisdom" or "the accepted science" or "the narrative.). Of, if you do, you will probably become an outcast. Still, there are examples of people who did this and everyone quickly "got it" and followed the new and improved technique. So why doesn't that happen in science or medicine?
If everyone is doing something, it’s likely wrong. More likely the process/action can be more efficient/effective. I constantly ponder improving everything I do.
Also, the cabal will NEVER allow cancer to be eliminated.
The line between Public Health and Private Health is gone. Whereas before Public Health dealt with issues that affected the public at large, such as sanitation, hygiene, food handling, contagion control, pollution, it now concerns itself with our private lives, what we as individuals eat, smoke, drink, our life-style, sexual behaviour, and how best to protect healthcare provision so as not to put a burden on hospitals - which now is its primary function. We must serve the interests of the service that supposedly is there to serve us - flatten that curve!
Medical research is big business because of its emotional appeal, with rich charities, private donors, Government and the medical/pharmaceutical industry funding it. Most research cash - 80% I think - goes on payroll expense, work environment. The best funded is cancer research which scores high on the Emote-ometer, so if you were in cancer research would you really want to find a cure, or publish work declaring a cure is unlikely? A drug is something you give a rat to produce a research paper. First rule of research papers is: final paragraph to contain the words, ‘Further research is required’.
Now, please don’t think I’m being a cynical contrarian.
Great article! In addition to our early treatment contrarians saving patients in COVID, Burzynski in Houston is a cancer doc with the singular contrarian approach. Persecuted by the Texas Medical Board for decades ~ not because his treatment was unsafe or ineffective (opposite true) but because didn’t confirm to their paradigm of huge Pharma apparatus (and corruption). The documentaries on YouTube are extremely moving and support your conclusion. During my residency in the 90’s a dear friend developed a cancer which he candidly told her his approach would not help ~ so had integrity. If I get it, I’m going to his clinic and/or a homeopath. Contrarian for-the-patient docs can problem solve and don’t kill iatrogenically. Thank God for AAPSonline.org and all our “early treatment” heroic contrarians saving folks from iatrogenic for-profit conformist harm!
Speaking of contrarians, here is a good one: David Martin, Ph.D.
Yesterday commenter Cindy posted (on Bill's previous Substack) a link to an important 27 minute YouTube video of Martin explaining a 2016 publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, authored by collaborators at the University of North Carolina which definitively explains who created the SCV-2 virus, and where they did it....made in the USA...!
It just doesn't get any more definitive than this.
Here is this video. I hope you will have a look and pass it on, and thank you Cindy.
If you haven't been steeping yourself in David Martin and his reveals since this drama started 3 years ago you might be wondering about the credentials and wherewithal of this individual.
Please wonder no more. He is arguably the brightest thinker and analyst on the SCV-2 and C-19 tyranny that I know of. Please see for yourselves!
His analysis of the patent history is a start for you if you would like to steep in some vintage David Martin.
For instance, his now 3 year old exposure of US patent #7279327 is another noteworthy reveal. Baric and Yount applied for this patent in 2002. This is the same Baric and Yount of U. of North Carolina who Martin exposes as the real creators of the SCV-2 virus in the video link Cindy has provided. Yes indeed, this all really started back in 2002...over 20 years ago!
You can also go to this page at the Planet Lockdown website and scroll down through the listing of luminary interviews to get to David Martin's interview if you want to see some vintage David Martin.
"World Without Cancer". Cancer is a deficiency disease. Vitamin B17. Good luck getting past the FDA and big pharma. Apricot seeds. They do not kill me, despite FDA warnings.
Here's another unconventional thinker: Rich Cavallaro. He built a vehicle that could go directly downwind faster than the wind. Almost 3x faster! See the following links.
Warning: you can can go down a rabbit hole researching this! In any case, it is fun reading and watching all the "experts" vigorously protesting the impossibility of this vehicle.
A contrarian reply to the post of admiration for contrarians. The examples provided were measurably successful contrarians. Their novel approaches were therefore good. My qualifier would be focused and knowledgeable contrarians can change the game. But those who are contrarians without proper grounding can do more harm than good.
W. Edwards Deming does offer a caution about changing without proper grounding and it is captured by his illustrative Moving the Funnel experiment. Before changing a complex process, one must understand its variability. If not, then one is tampering (as Dr. Deming called it), which will make the system more unstable. The gambler understood game theory and applied it to Jeopardy. The hot dog eater had some understanding of how to wolf-down hot dogs and proved the efficacy of his idea.
I thought it was telling that there was so much push-back against Holzhauer's techniques or game strategy.
I just thought of another possible example that might be germane to my larger point. For decades, NASA had a monopoly on space travel and research. But now private companies are doing the same thing. So it's possible (albeit rare) that private citizens take on projects without government financing or government taking over the project.
IKE warned us about the government taking over all science and research. The scientist tinkering in his garage is almost extinct. All the research eggs are pretty much place in one basket.
I worked for 35 years as an aerospace engineer. I worked for NASA on the International Space Station. I've also served as a chief engineer for DOD & IC programs with over $1B in contract value. From this background, I agree completely with what you've said.
I published a few papers advocating for a change to the way DOD and IC programs were managed. I was ignored, but the work had some impact to the field. Musk never consulted me, but his approach is consistent with what I advocated. This is a long, long story but an example is found in the approach to capturing milestones in a project.
The DOD, IC, and NASA all are afraid of failure. Hence, they analyze trying to prevent failure far beyond the point of diminishing returns. Musk, on the other hand, recognizes that failures are how we learn. So, he will slap a rocket together, light the candle, and if it fails he learned something and makes a better rocket next time. It is obvious which approach was better.
History speaks to this. I'm citing numbers from an old man's memory but they are close enough. Back in the 1960s, Kelly Johnson built planes (U2 & SR71) for a total budget of less than $100 million and sold them at $2 million per copy. These are 1960 dollars. Most importantly, the requirements -> design -> build -> test process took 2 years.
The Navy's new P9 surveillance/anti-sub aircraft has been in the works for 30 years for the reasons I mention above. It's development will run into the billions. I think they are selling for $200 million per copy. We've regressed and it was all because of the $200 hammers and $400 toilet seats. We don't have that problem any longer, but the ones we have are much worse.
This is a natural evolution of massively growing governments. Change that occurred was a shift from ambitious goals without bureaucracy to preservation of job/career with bloated bureaucracy. BTW, I'm at nearly 40 yrs supporting NASA and DoD. Same across the board.
Cancer is a chaotic cell growth pattern brought on by a chaotic lifestyle at the body-mind-emotion-spirit levels in our lives. We tend to think about it from the physical body perspective, but there is more to the story. However, in regards to the physical body, yes, cancer cells are obligate sugar feeders. These cells have lost the ability to apoptose. Apoptosis is programmed cell death in the face of faulty cellular life. Genetic maladies are not the proximal cause, but are a downstream aberration usually due to faulty mitochondrial function.
A couple of books come to mind: 1) Tripping Over the Truth by Travis Christofferson and 2) Cancer as a Metabolic Disease by Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D.
The first book is good investigative journalism drama about cancer and the cancer racket.
The second is by a biochemist at Boston College. Chapter 11 is about mitochondrial suppression of tumorigenecity. The book is dense enough with biochemistry, but one does not need to be so schooled in biochem to get the points this author is bringing to the fore.
In both books Nobel laureate Otto Warburg's research is a central theme; the Warburg Effect.
There was a story about a high school student who literally built a integrated circuit from scratch at home with some used and rebuilt equipment he bought ($1400.00 total outlay as I recall). Most would say to work at that microscopic level is impossible at home without spending millions of dollars but this kid didn't understand the word impossible and did it anyhow.
Elon Musk has a different approach to design. You do it on paper until you think you have the rocket figured out then you live fire an instrumented demostrator and let it crash to figure out the rest of the design. He found it was faster and cheaper than designing to the nth degree and still having design flaws.
It's really strange there was any pushback at all -- it's obviously within the rules and therefore fair game. It's not even a grey area like Billicheck taking advantage of dumb kickoff timing rules for that one year.
“ For example, I’m convinced the long-awaited cure of cancer probably won’t happen … perhaps because all the scientists are coming at the question the wrong way. Nobody thinks outside of the box - because that won’t secure giant government-funded research grants.”
I think it's significant that Holzhauer is a professional gambler. The people who can make a living betting are whizzes at calculating probabilities and using them to their benefit. Holzhauer KNEW his odds of answering a clue correctly were 97 percent (!) so why not bet as big as he can?
He also was a contrarian in his thinking that the object of the game was, yes, to win, but also to maximize your money-making possibility. He had one chance to make a lot of money in a hurry ... and he took it. (He trusted his system and the probabilities).
In today's science, the government model needs to spread their chips (bets) around and fund some maverick approaches. Instead, they put all of their "bets" on one approach ... And what if that approach is either wrong or less likely to pay big dividends with life-improving breakthroughs?
We don't even have a chance to let the mavericks solve big world problems. If nothing else, public science funders should put aside some chunk of change for scientists who DO think outside the box. But that's not going to happen (or doesn't happen). So, really, great breakthroughs are probably going to have to come from scientists who do it themselves and don't depend on government grants.
And, then after that, their "contrarian" breakthroughs will probably be ignored or dismissed ... because they upset the money-making template of the Establishment players.
Regarding AIDS and HIV, I think we have an example from decades ago of how the Science Establishment (led by You-Know-Who) went "all in" on a vaccine and a drug (AZT) that perhaps killed more people than it saved. As RFK, Jr. and Celia Farber point out in their books, if you went against the approved narrative, you were going to be cancelled by Fauci's thugs.
Lesson: It's not easy being a maverick or contrarian. (But, still, see James Holzhauer, it can literally pay off big-time ... if you are allowed to follow through with your contrarian theories or programs).
You beat me to it! Peter Duesberg, author of "Inventing the Aids Virus" He specifically called out Anthony Fauci and others for pushing AZT, and their bogus theory of HIV > AIDS. He trusted the "science". True science, that is.
I totally agree that if you see all rushing in one direction, it pays to keep a cool head and see if the right way is against the flow. It is reminiscent of when Jesus said, "broad is the way to destruction..." Those that are wise seek out the right way, instead.
Good post!
We are effectively putting all of our eggs in one (research or science) basket.
Azt = dr fauci again.
Dr. Death
Dallas Buyers Club
UPDATE: Here's a story from late May 2023 about a shot-putter setting a new world record ... after the tweaked the technique all shot-putters have been using for decades.
https://sports.yahoo.com/historys-best-shot-putter-smashes-011152134.html
The good old days of polygraphs and poppy seeds.
By now, we know that future "Jeopardy!" contestants did NOT emulate Holzhauer's game strategy. Perhaps because they can't answer all the clues with James' astounding success rate. However, James actually lost the grudge match of all-time Jeopardy champs to Ken Jennings (who still has the record for most consecutive appearances without a loss and is one of the hosts of the show today).
In this "Tournament of Champions" show-down, Jennings adopted all of Holzhauer's techniques to beat him. So if you want to beat someone like Holzhauer, you better play the game like he does.
I've watched the show for a long time, and I think that players would just get themselves in a mindset for a category and go from there.
The exceptional players don't need to do this, and can bounce from category to category without missing a step.
The other key to Holzhauer's success is the guy knows more general knowledge than just about any other person in our country. He was not weak in any category.
Exactly. He can do things others can't because he's got exceptional talent.
It's sort of like asking why people don't emulate Peyton Manning, calling optimum plays at the line after scanning the defense.
It's because they can't.
I'm sure readers can come up with more examples of contrarians who had success using a new template or technique in their field or sport.
I mentioned Dick Fosbury, who almost over-night changed the way people did the high jump and the pioneers of "soccer-style" kicking in football.
I still think Rick Barry's technique would produce higher free-throw percentages if more people practiced it.
PGA golfer Byrson DeChambleou has several unorthodox parts of his game and approach to golf and he's had some pretty good success. I might do a future column on "mavericks" who re-worked the way things were done in X field so any other great examples would be appreciated!
Everybody shooting under 75% should be trying underhand.
Wilt Chamberlain, one of the worst free throw shooters in NBA history, actually shot them under-handed one season. His free throw percentage went from 50 percent to 60 percent. But despite the huge improvement he stopped shooting them that way because he didn't like the way it looked!
I like the way the point goes on the scoreboard.........
Who was the first Aussie American football punter? Went from having to field all punts from the 20 yard line to the 10 yard line...
When I was nine years old, the President of the United States was murdered in Dallas, Texas. Two days later, the alleged murderer was himself murdered under very odd circumstances. Even though at the time I did not know others questioned the story, this was the beginning of my "critical thinking" regarding many issues.
In my teens and twenties, I encountered difficult issues with the medical system, and have questioned just about everything since then. In 1976 or thereabouts, I read three books that helped to solidify my views: Sugar Blues, by William Dufty; Dr. Atkins' Super-Energy Diet, by Robert Atkins; and Hypothyroidism - Unsuspected Illness, by Broda Barnes.
I remember my great uncle telling me in the late '70s that his doctor told him he had to quit eating eggs. I asked him, "Why?" He spit out: "Oh, cholesterol, you know." I have been eating at least two eggs a day all of my adult life, plus lots of real butter, heavy cream, and all sorts of saturated fat. Back in the mid-1980s, my family doctor had cholesterol tests done on me (without my knowledge). When I went for my annual physical, the nurse pulls out my chart and looks it over. She then says, "Oh, my!" And I said, "What's wrong?" And she says: "It's your cholesterol." So I asked, "What's wrong with my cholesterol?" She replied: "Nothing. It's ideal. This is what we want people to have, but nobody ever gets there."
Every year my current doctor tests my cholesterol, and every year it comes back excellent. In December of 2013, based upon an MRI of my hip, my doctor and two others tried to diagnose me with bone cancer. My doctor told me I had to go get a pet scan, I just said "No." The other doctors read me the riot act, saying I had to do this, I had to do that. One made an appointment with an orthopedic oncologist for me. I just said no to everything and cancelled the appointment.
(continued below)
Instead, I have read a lot about cancer and also about nutrition. Although I had cut a lot of sugar out of my life in 1976, I still ate various sugary things, but pretty much cut all of it out nine years ago. When I learned about the pet scan, which is based upon a radioactive dye in a sugar solution, it suggests to me that the medical system already knows there is a connection between refined sugar and cancer. I am not claiming that sugar causes cancer, but from what I have read, cancer cells cannot survive long without it.
So in my opinion, the "cure for cancer" has been known for millennia - it's called a healthy, nutritious diet, as outlined by Weston Price in his 1939 book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, and Vilhjalmur Stefansson, in his 1960 book, Cancer: Disease of Civilization?
I'm in the group that thinks a "real cure" for cancer probably would be blocked. They blocked the use of Ivermectin and HCQ ... and then they pushed remdesivir, which is a killer in itself.
Again, the "contrarians" in science are targets and discredited a lot more than James Holzhauer was. That was just a game. What he did didn't matter. But it would if more people thought about the lessons of his approach.
See the Matt Tabbi column today in which he shows how selected MSM were spoon fed "approved" stories by the government and so lost their need to be creative in order to earn a meal ticket.
Another thought: In 1996 I read Inventing the AIDS Virus, by Peter Duesberg, with foreword by Kary Mullis. Peter Duesberg exemplifies the "contrarian" in science, targeted and discredited (by a certain Anthony somebody as I recall). I read Kary Mullis's autobiography, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, in 2020, and was sad to learn he died the year before.
Both of these brilliant men are among many scientists and doctors who have stood up against the "establishment" to benefit others with their work.
Back in 1982, when my dad was dying from "inoperable" brain tumors, a friend lent me a book titled One Answer to Cancer, by William Kelley. (In my opinion, it was one of many answers to cancer.) I read the book, but sadly it was too late to do much for my dad. Fortunately, he did not undergo any "treatment" such as radiation or chemotherapy.
My mom was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in May, 2002, and I was told she had two or perhaps three months to live. She was sent to another hospital where they put a stent in her bile duct (without surgery, amazingly), and that solved the immediate problem of jaundice due to the tumor crushing her bile duct. She never received any other cancer treatment, and had a very good year before she declined and passed away in August, 2003.
Both my parents were heavy smokers and ate a fair amount of sugar-laced foods. My dad also worked around radio and television transmitters for forty years, and I believe all the above contributed to their illnesses.
From this experience, I made my mind up that I would never undergo cancer "treatment," with the possible exception of surgery to remove a tumor that was impeding my ability to function. I also refuse any cancer tests, such as colonoscopies or biopsies.
Getting back to the book, One Answer to Cancer, I believe it was promoting laetrile. After the doctors tried to diagnose me with bone cancer, I read World Without Cancer, by G. Edward Griffin, and began eating apricot seeds on a daily basis. Whether they help to prevent cancer I do not know, but I love the flavor and I enjoy eating them.
Among many other books that influenced me were The Cancer Industry, by Ralph Moss; Cancer as a Metabolic Disease, by Thomas Seyfried; and a reprint of The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer, by John Beard.
"World Without Cancer" chronicles the discovery of vitamin B17 and creation of Laetril. It also covers the FDA corruption with the pharma mafia that banned Laetril and even Apricot seeds.
Right on. The current paradigm, adopted by every government everywhere as "public health policy", says the best/only way to prevent infectious diseases and save lives is to forget about treatment and innate nutrition-dependent protection, and instead make the evolved natural immune response dysfunctional forever by repeatedly injecting tiny amounts of foreign antigenic substances and poisons that sicken and shorten life. THAT one has gotta go, doncha think?
I think The Matt Hancock text leaks provided a rare insight into how government acts and reacts to events more in a self preservation manner than for the good of the public. For the past 50 years I have understood the concept of "looking good". Ronald Reagan understood it very well.
Most politicians understand the concept and don't care if a policy is good for the people as long as it earns votes.
Talk about the "template" being massively wrong ... and dangerous. But you can't go against the template (i.e. "conventional wisdom" or "the accepted science" or "the narrative.). Of, if you do, you will probably become an outcast. Still, there are examples of people who did this and everyone quickly "got it" and followed the new and improved technique. So why doesn't that happen in science or medicine?
The answer might be here: https://www.eugyppius.com/p/more-on-what-is-wrong-with-the-science?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=268621&post_id=103465463&isFreemail=false&utm_medium=email
If everyone is doing something, it’s likely wrong. More likely the process/action can be more efficient/effective. I constantly ponder improving everything I do.
Also, the cabal will NEVER allow cancer to be eliminated.
Monkey see monkey do
The line between Public Health and Private Health is gone. Whereas before Public Health dealt with issues that affected the public at large, such as sanitation, hygiene, food handling, contagion control, pollution, it now concerns itself with our private lives, what we as individuals eat, smoke, drink, our life-style, sexual behaviour, and how best to protect healthcare provision so as not to put a burden on hospitals - which now is its primary function. We must serve the interests of the service that supposedly is there to serve us - flatten that curve!
Medical research is big business because of its emotional appeal, with rich charities, private donors, Government and the medical/pharmaceutical industry funding it. Most research cash - 80% I think - goes on payroll expense, work environment. The best funded is cancer research which scores high on the Emote-ometer, so if you were in cancer research would you really want to find a cure, or publish work declaring a cure is unlikely? A drug is something you give a rat to produce a research paper. First rule of research papers is: final paragraph to contain the words, ‘Further research is required’.
Now, please don’t think I’m being a cynical contrarian.
The law of supply and demand.
Great article! In addition to our early treatment contrarians saving patients in COVID, Burzynski in Houston is a cancer doc with the singular contrarian approach. Persecuted by the Texas Medical Board for decades ~ not because his treatment was unsafe or ineffective (opposite true) but because didn’t confirm to their paradigm of huge Pharma apparatus (and corruption). The documentaries on YouTube are extremely moving and support your conclusion. During my residency in the 90’s a dear friend developed a cancer which he candidly told her his approach would not help ~ so had integrity. If I get it, I’m going to his clinic and/or a homeopath. Contrarian for-the-patient docs can problem solve and don’t kill iatrogenically. Thank God for AAPSonline.org and all our “early treatment” heroic contrarians saving folks from iatrogenic for-profit conformist harm!
Speaking of contrarians, here is a good one: David Martin, Ph.D.
Yesterday commenter Cindy posted (on Bill's previous Substack) a link to an important 27 minute YouTube video of Martin explaining a 2016 publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, authored by collaborators at the University of North Carolina which definitively explains who created the SCV-2 virus, and where they did it....made in the USA...!
It just doesn't get any more definitive than this.
Here is this video. I hope you will have a look and pass it on, and thank you Cindy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMSz209wV8g
If you haven't been steeping yourself in David Martin and his reveals since this drama started 3 years ago you might be wondering about the credentials and wherewithal of this individual.
Please wonder no more. He is arguably the brightest thinker and analyst on the SCV-2 and C-19 tyranny that I know of. Please see for yourselves!
His analysis of the patent history is a start for you if you would like to steep in some vintage David Martin.
For instance, his now 3 year old exposure of US patent #7279327 is another noteworthy reveal. Baric and Yount applied for this patent in 2002. This is the same Baric and Yount of U. of North Carolina who Martin exposes as the real creators of the SCV-2 virus in the video link Cindy has provided. Yes indeed, this all really started back in 2002...over 20 years ago!
You can read about #7279327 here https://archive.org/details/us_patent_7279327
You can also go to this page at the Planet Lockdown website and scroll down through the listing of luminary interviews to get to David Martin's interview if you want to see some vintage David Martin.
https://planetlockdownfilm.com/full-interviews/
I love Dr. Martin "Bowtie Guy"!!
"World Without Cancer". Cancer is a deficiency disease. Vitamin B17. Good luck getting past the FDA and big pharma. Apricot seeds. They do not kill me, despite FDA warnings.
Here's another unconventional thinker: Rich Cavallaro. He built a vehicle that could go directly downwind faster than the wind. Almost 3x faster! See the following links.
Warning: you can can go down a rabbit hole researching this! In any case, it is fun reading and watching all the "experts" vigorously protesting the impossibility of this vehicle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_(wind-powered_vehicle)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyQwgBAaBag
He's a very intelligent gambler who played Jeopardy that way.
A contrarian reply to the post of admiration for contrarians. The examples provided were measurably successful contrarians. Their novel approaches were therefore good. My qualifier would be focused and knowledgeable contrarians can change the game. But those who are contrarians without proper grounding can do more harm than good.
W. Edwards Deming does offer a caution about changing without proper grounding and it is captured by his illustrative Moving the Funnel experiment. Before changing a complex process, one must understand its variability. If not, then one is tampering (as Dr. Deming called it), which will make the system more unstable. The gambler understood game theory and applied it to Jeopardy. The hot dog eater had some understanding of how to wolf-down hot dogs and proved the efficacy of his idea.
I thought it was telling that there was so much push-back against Holzhauer's techniques or game strategy.
I just thought of another possible example that might be germane to my larger point. For decades, NASA had a monopoly on space travel and research. But now private companies are doing the same thing. So it's possible (albeit rare) that private citizens take on projects without government financing or government taking over the project.
IKE warned us about the government taking over all science and research. The scientist tinkering in his garage is almost extinct. All the research eggs are pretty much place in one basket.
Bill,
I worked for 35 years as an aerospace engineer. I worked for NASA on the International Space Station. I've also served as a chief engineer for DOD & IC programs with over $1B in contract value. From this background, I agree completely with what you've said.
I published a few papers advocating for a change to the way DOD and IC programs were managed. I was ignored, but the work had some impact to the field. Musk never consulted me, but his approach is consistent with what I advocated. This is a long, long story but an example is found in the approach to capturing milestones in a project.
The DOD, IC, and NASA all are afraid of failure. Hence, they analyze trying to prevent failure far beyond the point of diminishing returns. Musk, on the other hand, recognizes that failures are how we learn. So, he will slap a rocket together, light the candle, and if it fails he learned something and makes a better rocket next time. It is obvious which approach was better.
History speaks to this. I'm citing numbers from an old man's memory but they are close enough. Back in the 1960s, Kelly Johnson built planes (U2 & SR71) for a total budget of less than $100 million and sold them at $2 million per copy. These are 1960 dollars. Most importantly, the requirements -> design -> build -> test process took 2 years.
The Navy's new P9 surveillance/anti-sub aircraft has been in the works for 30 years for the reasons I mention above. It's development will run into the billions. I think they are selling for $200 million per copy. We've regressed and it was all because of the $200 hammers and $400 toilet seats. We don't have that problem any longer, but the ones we have are much worse.
Mike
This is a natural evolution of massively growing governments. Change that occurred was a shift from ambitious goals without bureaucracy to preservation of job/career with bloated bureaucracy. BTW, I'm at nearly 40 yrs supporting NASA and DoD. Same across the board.
Cancer is a chaotic cell growth pattern brought on by a chaotic lifestyle at the body-mind-emotion-spirit levels in our lives. We tend to think about it from the physical body perspective, but there is more to the story. However, in regards to the physical body, yes, cancer cells are obligate sugar feeders. These cells have lost the ability to apoptose. Apoptosis is programmed cell death in the face of faulty cellular life. Genetic maladies are not the proximal cause, but are a downstream aberration usually due to faulty mitochondrial function.
A couple of books come to mind: 1) Tripping Over the Truth by Travis Christofferson and 2) Cancer as a Metabolic Disease by Thomas Seyfried, Ph.D.
The first book is good investigative journalism drama about cancer and the cancer racket.
The second is by a biochemist at Boston College. Chapter 11 is about mitochondrial suppression of tumorigenecity. The book is dense enough with biochemistry, but one does not need to be so schooled in biochem to get the points this author is bringing to the fore.
In both books Nobel laureate Otto Warburg's research is a central theme; the Warburg Effect.
Mitochondrial health is key.
There was a story about a high school student who literally built a integrated circuit from scratch at home with some used and rebuilt equipment he bought ($1400.00 total outlay as I recall). Most would say to work at that microscopic level is impossible at home without spending millions of dollars but this kid didn't understand the word impossible and did it anyhow.
Wait until you see what they do with CRISPR.
Elon Musk has a different approach to design. You do it on paper until you think you have the rocket figured out then you live fire an instrumented demostrator and let it crash to figure out the rest of the design. He found it was faster and cheaper than designing to the nth degree and still having design flaws.
It's really strange there was any pushback at all -- it's obviously within the rules and therefore fair game. It's not even a grey area like Billicheck taking advantage of dumb kickoff timing rules for that one year.
“ For example, I’m convinced the long-awaited cure of cancer probably won’t happen … perhaps because all the scientists are coming at the question the wrong way. Nobody thinks outside of the box - because that won’t secure giant government-funded research grants.”
Or, research funds from Amgen.
When Trump broke Trump.
When he stopped thinking outside of conventional wisdom.
When he listened to the "covid experts"
That day he truly became what he always claimed to despise, a pandering politician.
We are all paying for it.
I guess you can listen to the experts, but then do exactly the opposite of what they say.
Right, it's all Trumps fault. Geeze. He could have helped us, but he's a tiny cog being manipulated by a century old mafia.
Ask Trump if he is a "tiny cog"