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).
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'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!
Mar 8, 2023·edited Mar 8, 2023Liked by Bill Rice, Jr.
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.
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?
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.
Mar 8, 2023·edited Mar 8, 2023Liked by Bill Rice, Jr.
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.
“ 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).
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'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!
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)
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?
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.
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/
"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.
“ 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.