What did Dr. Peter Smith do with his windfall?

What did Dr. Peter Smith do with his windfall?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Dr. Peter Smith cared for the indigent in 1850 San Francisco, and the city paid him in interest-bearing scrip. Soon he was owed $64,000 and the city was forced to make repeated sales of real property to pay him back. According to Nancy Taniguchi's "Dirty Deeds", Senator David Broderick bought many of the "Smith lots".

With that terrific amount of money, where did Dr. Peter Smith go, and what did he do?

That is an interesting question. Indeed, the story of Dr Peter Smith is an influential one in the history of the city of San Francisco. A whole chapter is devoted to it in The Annals of San Francisco by Frank Soulé et al.

In 1850, Dr Smith entered into a contract with the city for the care of its "indigent sick". For this he was to be paid the sum of $4 per patient per day. This was to be paid in scrip, which could be redeemed later at an interest rate of 3% [Soulé et al, 1855, p370].

Dr Smith's hospital stood next to a "famed bordello" [Lavender, 1987, 220]. On 31 October 1850 a fire at the bordello (believed to have been started deliberately) spread to the adjacent hospital. Some 150 patients were rescued, but the hospital was destroyed and Smith suffered a personal financial loss of between $40,000 and $80,000 [Durham, 1997, 178] (depending which accounts you read).

Either way, this was a significant loss, and - at best - would have accounted for almost two-thirds of the amount owed to him by the city. This seems to have been the event that led him to sue the city of San Francisco for the money that he was owed. The city didn't have sufficient funds in its exchequer, and had to sell large tracts of land to settle the debt. That sale was mishandled, and much of that land sold for much less than it was actually worth.

He received the first part of the money owed ($19,239) in February 1851, and the balance ($45,538) later that year. Some of the balance seems to have been paid in the form of 75 of the lots being sold by the city. It appears that Smith sold many (perhaps all) of these lots on to other investors almost immediately.

So, allowing for his losses in the fire, and his expenses while recouping what he was owed by the city, he was hardly walking away with a fortune in his pocket. (The same could certainly not be said of many of those who purchased the land from the city!)

As to where he went, and what he did next, I don't think we really can say for sure. I did find an account published in the New York Times on 23 July 1860 which claimed that:

he went to Illinois; then he came back again; then he went to New-Granada, and there to this day he hangs out his shingle -- "PETER SMITH, M.D."

Presumably, in this case, New Granada referred to the former Republic of New Granada.

I'm always cautious about uncorroborated newspaper accounts, but if the New York Times correspondent was correct in his belief, then Peter Smith continued to practice as a doctor in New Granada (which by that point was known as the Granadine Confederation) until at least 1860.


  • Durham, Frank: Volunteer Forty-niners: Tennesseans and the California Gold Rush, Vanderbilt University Press, 1997
  • Lavender, David Sievert: California: Land of New Beginnings, University of Nebraska Press, 1987
  • Soulé, Frank, Gihon, John H, and Nisbet, James : The Annals of San Francisco, New York, 1855

Dr. Peter Smith was initially paid in "scrip" (IOUs), but he demanded that the city "cash out" his scrip. The end result was that the city sold a lot of prime waterfront San Francisco land to him to liquidate their $64,000 debt. He became a land speculator, making (and losing) a lot of money in this line. One of his investments was in a $40,000 hospital that was destroyed by fire (there was no insurance in those days). The "game" didn't last very long; he disappeared in 1854.

Peter Navarro

Peter Kent Navarro (born July 15, 1949) is an American economist and author. He served in the Trump administration as the Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and the national Defense Production Act policy coordinator. He previously served as a Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of the White House National Trade Council, a newly created entity in the White House Office, until it was folded into the Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, a new role established by executive order in April 2017. [1] [2] He is also a professor emeritus of economics and public policy at the Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine, and the author of Death by China, among other publications. [3] Navarro ran unsuccessfully for office in San Diego, California, five times. [4]

Navarro's views on trade are significantly outside the mainstream of economic thought, and are widely considered fringe by other economists. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] A strong proponent of reducing U.S. trade deficits, Navarro is well known as a critic of Germany and China and has accused both nations of currency manipulation. [10] He has called for increasing the size of the American manufacturing sector, setting high tariffs, and "repatriating global supply chains." [11] He is also a vocal opponent of multilateral free trade agreements such as NAFTA [12] and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. [13]

In the Trump administration, Navarro was a hawkish advisor on trade, as he encouraged Trump to implement trade protectionist policies. [14] [15] [16] [17] In explaining his role in the Trump administration, Navarro said that he is there to "provide the underlying analytics that confirm [Trump's] intuition [on trade]. And his intuition is always right in these matters." [7] In 2018, as the Trump administration was implementing trade restrictionist policies, Navarro argued that no countries would retaliate against U.S. tariffs "for the simple reason that we are the most lucrative and biggest market in the world" shortly after the implementation of the tariffs, other countries did implement retaliatory tariffs against the United States, leading to trade wars. [18] [19]

During his final year in the Trump administration, Navarro was involved in the administration's COVID-19 response. Early on, he issued private warnings within the administration about the threat posed by the virus, but downplayed the risks in public. [20] He publicly clashed with Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, as Navarro touted hydroxychloroquine as a treatment of COVID-19 and condemned various public health measures to stop the spread of the virus. [21] [22] After Joe Biden won the 2020 election and Donald Trump refused to concede, Navarro advanced conspiracy theories of election fraud. [23]

Over 6 million Americans suffer from Alzheimer's

In recent years, some major drug companies abandoned efforts to research brain diseases, including Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim in 2018 — in fact, Biogen had given up on Aduhelm at one point during the clinical trials in 2019 before reversing its decision— after decades of failure in search of a breakthrough.

The controversy surrounding the Biogen drug, including its potential cost, comes against a landscape of massive, unmet need for dementia treatment and a disease that costs the U.S. as much as $259 billion annually. More than 6 million Americans have Alzheimer's or another form of dementia, according to estimates from the Alzheimer's Association, and by 2050 that number could reach over 12 million people at a cost of $1 trillion annually.

That is why some dementia drug experts are focusing on the renewed attention and fresh financing rather than the potential negatives from the Biogen approval, according to Dr. Jeffrey Cummings, a neurologist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who publishes an annual review of the Alzheimer's drug development pipeline. His research consistently showed the drug-failure rate at 99.6 percent before the Biogen approval, a stark contrast to the 1 out of every 5 cancer drugs (20%) that are successful.

Cummings says any negative side effect for other drug trials in the short term would be "overcome, if anything, by the increased interest that companies and venture capital and biotech has, once they see that there is a way to get an approval for a particular disease."

In recent history, The National Institutes of Health spent two to three times more on heart disease and cancer research than on dementia, while a lack of qualified participants for clinical trials also slowed progress.

S.F. real estate deals were truly underwater in the 1800s

San Francisco's real estate wars may be vicious now, but they're nothing compared to what went on along the waterfront during the Gold Rush.

Forget the Ellis Act and owner move-ins - in those days, evictions were carried out by the firm of Smith & Wesson, and legal title was established by sending large ships crashing to the bottom of the bay.

Ghostly remnants of those swashbuckling days still exist. Under the Financial District and along the northeastern waterfront lie the buried hulks of dozens of Gold Rush ships.

Most of these ships were abandoned by their crews and used to fill in the bay. Some were used as stores or hotels before being dismantled. But a few of them met a more colorful fate: They were intentionally scuttled to establish title to water lots - real estate that was underwater at the time.

The financial rewards for sinking ships on water lots were vast, but so were the risks. The water lots were invariably next to one of the many wharves that sprang up during the Gold Rush. The owners of these wharves, for obvious reasons, were violently opposed to having their berthing spaces filled in, and would stop at nothing to prevent it.

As a result, the ships had to be sunk fast, usually in the dead of night, and the men doing the scuttling had to be prepared to fight for their lives against armed wharf employees.

San Francisco's champion scuttler was a Norwegian sea captain named Fred Lawson. From 1850 to 1853 he was responsible for sinking numerous vessels, including four in the block of water lots now bounded by Davis, Drumm, Pacific and Jackson. His story, as he related in the Examiner on Aug. 31, 1890, sheds light on one of the most unusual episodes in the city's history.

Lawson landed in New York in 1837 and arrived in San Francisco in the fall of 1849. After brief stints in the gold fields, he became a real estate speculator.

As Roger and Nancy Olmsted and Allen Pastron note in their 1977 book, "San Francisco Waterfront," Lawson and a partner bought three blocks of water lots in the early 1850s in the infamous "Peter Smith sales," a real estate and legal debacle in which the bankrupt city sold off 2,000 acres of prime land to satisfy a court judgment against it for $64,000 in favor of one Dr. Peter Smith.

Bought cheap

Lawson bought the submerged lots at the absurdly low price of $3,500 - blocks on the city waterfront were by far the most valuable in town, worth $500,000 or more - because their title was legally contested. But as the Olmsteds and Pastron write, "Lawson was prepared to operate on the not uncommon premise that possession was nine-tenths of the law." And the way he would take possession was either to sink pilings into the water or to sink ships.

Neither activity was for the faint of heart.

In the Examiner, Lawson recalled the day he sank the English ship Bethel at the corner of Drumm Street and the former Clark Street.

" 'She cost me $450,' he said. We exchanged a few shots before she went down. That is, I mean the wharfinger and myself did.' "

The wharfinger was the wharf boss, and he was no ally of Lawson or the scheme to scuttle the Bethel, to which he soon caught on.

" 'I had a line fastened to the wharf to steady her, and he started to cut it so she would drift away,' Lawson said. 'I yelled at him to drop the knife, but he didn't, so a bullet took it out of his hand. But he cut the rope first. No, there wasn't anybody hurt at that time but there might have been.' "

The ship drifted away, and Lawson had to sell it to a different lot owner.

A quick sinking

On another occasion, Lawson sank a ship called the Inez next to the Pacific Wharf Co.

" 'When my men drove piles for buildings in the slip in the daytime, (wharf employees) had them yanked out at night,' Lawson recalled. 'I got a little tired of this, so one dark night I floated the Inez in, ran her up to where I wanted her and she was on the bottom in a few minutes.

Finally, the real story about Peter Norman and the black power salute

Slowly but surely, Peter Norman is finally being recognised as the hero he deserves – and always wanted – to be.

About time, too. It’s only taken half a century.

Tuesday marked 50 years since Norman claimed silver in the men’s 200-metre final at the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City.

His time of 20.06 seconds still stands as an Australian record, would’ve won him gold at the Sydney Olympics and was part of the most successful Olympics from an Australian athletics team in history.

What Norman is widely remembered for, though, is the role he played in the silent protest of American sprinters Tommie Smith, who won gold, and John Carlos, the bronze medallist.

Time magazine considers it the most iconic photograph ever taken: the two black sprinters raising a fist, both sheathed in black gloves, into the thin Mexico City air as the American national anthem was played.

Big decision with big consequences: Taking part in Tommie Smith's and John Carlo's protest after claiming silver in the 200m at the 1968 Olympics changed Norman's life, and those of people close to him, forever. Credit: AP

Smith and Carlos were protesting against the treatment of African Americans in their own country, at a time when the US was literally burning as the civil rights movement gathered pace.

Eventually, with time, Smith and Carlos became the legendary figures they deserved to be, even attending the White House with the American Olympic team after the Rio Games two years ago at the invitation of then-president Barack Obama.

Both of them dragged Norman's legacy along with them, especially after his sudden death from a heart attack in 2006. Carlos, in particular, mentions Norman at every opportunity. “God picked the right man,” he has said.

In America, Norman is just as attached to what happened in 1968 as Smith and Carlos. Australia has taken a little longer.

Earlier this year, the Australian Olympic Committee posthumously awarded Norman the Order of Merit. Earlier this month, Athletics Australia and the Victorian Government announced it would be erecting a bronze statue outside Lakeside Stadium in Melbourne. It will also adopt October 9 as Peter Norman Day, which has been celebrated in the US since his death 12 years ago.

It follows the apology in federal parliament in 2012 from Labor MP Andrew Leigh for his mistreatment by Olympic and athletics officials .

Point of order, Mr Speaker!

Just how much Norman was blackballed, blacklisted, ostracised or just straight out wronged depends on who you speak to.

Recognition, at last: Australian Olympic Committee president John Coates and Janita Norman during a ceremony for late Olympian Peter Norman in June. Credit: AAP

Last week, a book I wrote about Norman was released by publisher Pan Macmillan. What had started as an exciting project developed into a very complex story about a very complex – and very flawed – man.

There have been so many mistruths and lies told about Norman’s life that it took a lot of work to separate fact from fiction. The silliest was the claim he would’ve been given a paid job with the organising committee at the Sydney Olympics if he publicly condemned Smith and Carlos for the stance they took.

Unravelling other parts of his story was more problematic.

The one mostly disputed is whether he was banned from competing at the Munich Olympics in 1972 because of what happened four years earlier. It’s a question that will never be answered: the accounts vary wildly with each person (who is still alive) that you interview. Other athletes from that time, including Raelene Boyle, do not believe it cost him.

Respect: Tommie Smith (left) and John Carlos carry the coffin of Peter Norman from Williamstown Town Hall in Melbourne in 2006. Credit: AAP

Since the book’s release, it’s been interesting to read and hear many of the mistruths raised again.

The assumption I came to in the end was that Norman was mostly hurt by being forgotten on the ladder of history. He thought he deserved greater recognition. And he did.

For mine, the most compelling – and overlooked – part of Norman’s story is how much the fame of 1968 completely threw his life off balance.

“There’s two Peter Normans,” said his former East Melbourne Harriers teammate Gary Holdsworth, who asked Norman to be best man at his wedding. “The story about what happened that night [in 1968] grew. Peter grew with it, around it, above it.”

Says Peter’s first wife, Ruth: “He came home and was a different person. Our lives weren’t our own any more. He’d become everyone else’s person.”

In the final stages of writing the book, Ruth and Norman’s children from that marriage – Janita, Sandy and Gary – agreed to be interviewed.

Sitting around a dining room table in Echuca, they laid bare their anguish and hurt about him walking out on the family to take up a relationship with another woman who he’d been having an affair with.

Speedster: Peter Norman breaks the tape in the 200m in Mexico City in 1968. Credit: Fairfax Media

Ruth had to take Norman to court to squeeze maintenance payments out of him and, for many years, he refused to see his children. They reconnected with him later in life, but it was far too late. He died at the age of 64.

Each time they hear and read about their father’s deeds in 1968, it reminds them of their own personal tragedy.

“We are here, caught up in the legacy,” Janita said during our interview. “A lot of people have suffered in a lot of different ways. But there has to be a bigger picture.”

At Norman’s funeral, Janita placed a letter in his coffin.

“I told him I forgave him,” she said. “Because the importance of what Peter did that night means more than our hurt.”

Peter Norman, the flawed hero we are only starting to truly know and understand.

Stephen Mitford Goodson: In Memoriam

Editor’s Note: The following was written by Kerry Bolton, after Stephen Goodson mysteriously died last year. If you do not have a copy of Goodson’s “A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Mankind”, you should purchase one immediately here. Mr. Goodson believed that every war in the 20th century was driven by central bankers (Rothschilds, et. al), and NOT by the false propaganda we were lead to believe (Germany and Japan are out to take over the world!).

Stephen Mitford Goodson, as his name suggests, was related to the Mitfords of Diana Mosley and Unity fame. Having served on the editorial board of The Barnes Review, he is most remembered by the imbecilic and notably unreliable Wikipedia and other sundry scum as a “holocaust denier” and for being “anti-Semitic” because the entirety of the world is supposed to be Judeocentric. However, Goodson arrived at his conclusions through his academic and professional backgrounds in economics and finance. He was an “outsider” on the “inside,” as it was put in his eulogy after his death on August 4.

Goodson felt a particular sympathy with Czarist Russia and flew the Imperial Russian flag from his home. His leadership of the Abolition of Income Tax and Usury Party, founded in 1994, was a reflection of his commitment to trying to strike at the real source, as distinct from the symptoms, of cultural crises. Although the party is now defunct, its detailed statements on banking and history remain online. He helped with the Ubuntu Party, which was formed in 2012 by the South African author, explorer, and archaeologist, Michael Tellinger. Like the previous party, the primary policy of Ubuntu was the creation of a state bank that would issue usury-free credit. Goodson was second on the list of party candidates in the 2014 elections. While Ubuntu is said to have been inspired by African concepts, Goodson was himself a man of the Right and a defender of the whites in Africa.

Probably his last article for The Barnes Review was “The Genocide of the Boers: A Pictorial History of the Role Rothschild Greed Played in the Crime.” Between 2016 and 2018, two of his books, Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd: South Africa’s Greatest Prime Minister and Rhodesian Prime Minister Ian Smith: The Debunking of a Myth were serialized by the British magazine, Heritage and Destiny. Goodson cited well-placed sources spanning decades, and made a compelling case for Ian Smith having always been a liberal, and for the assassination of Verwoerd as being part of a deeper plot that involved Johannes Vorster. In 2015, he wrote to the Rector of the University of Stellenbosch, opposing a decision to remove a plaque honoring Dr. Verwoerd, who had been a Stellenbosch graduate in sociology and psychology, stating:

“By tampering with our heritage nothing positive will be achieved. Pandering to the politically correct dictates of the liberal left is a soulless exercise which will only make matters worse in the long run, when demands may well be made to abolish Afrikaans as a language of tuition. Dr Verwoerd made a notable contribution to the development of our country. All the people of South Africa experienced an unparalleled period of peace and prosperity, and for that singular accomplishment he deserves recognition.”

Dr. Verwoerd and other Afrikaner Nationalists recognized that international capitalism, headed in South Africa by the Oppenheimer dynasty, was the primary enemy of Afrikaner survival, and Verwoerd was outspoken on Oppenheimer influence. Goodson has stated that in 1990 he met a veteran monetary reformer, Mrs. Judy Wolman, who told him that shortly before Verwoerd’s assassination he had met Mrs. Wolman and discussed the banking system with her, intending to talk further on the issue. In 1964, economist professor Piet Hoek started a report on the political and economic power of Oppenheimer’s Anglo-American Corporation, which Verwoerd intended tabling to Parliament. His assassination in 1966 prevented this. The report was given instead to Verwoerd’s successor, Vorster, and was never heard of again.

Goodson studied economics and law at the University of Stellenbosch and the University of Ghent. He managed investment portfolios for financial institutions. Between 2003 and 2012, he served as an elected member of the Board of the South African Reserve Bank. A critic of corruption and ineptitude at the Bank, he withstood immense pressure and efforts to remove him from the Board, but maintained his position until near the end of his third term (the maximum permitted).

In 2014, Black House Publishing issued Goodson’s A History of Central Banking & the Enslavement of Mankind. Goodson’s book traces the development of usury from ancient times to the present, and includes examples of those states that resisted international finance using alternative banking and credit systems. While these examples included the state banks of Australia and Czarist Russia, the Guernsey experiment, the theories of C. H. Douglas and Professor Irving Fisher, and others, that Goodson also had the intellectual honesty to include the banking systems of Axis Germany, Italy, and Japan was more than sufficient to bring opprobrium upon him. Goodson dedicated his book to Knut Hamsun, “a beacon of light and hope of the natural world order.” In an article on Hamsun, Goodson compared the situation of multicultural Norway today with that of Hamsun’s time, and wondered whether Hamsun and Quisling had been right, noting the role played by Norway’s government in opposing Apartheid:

Finally, we may contemplate Norway’s evolution during the sixty years since Hamsun’s death. Norway has one of the highest concentrations of foreigners in Europe at 601,000 or 12.2% out of a total population of 4.9 million. This is illustrated by the fact that currently 28% of births in Oslo are non-European and that the most common first name given to newborns is Mohammed. Today Islam is the second most popular religion (3.9%).

Norway was one of the more prominent critics of White South Africa’s policy of separate development, which had been successfully applied until the murder of Prime Minister Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd on September 6, 1966 at the behest of international bankers. Today Norway has multi-racial problems of a seemingly intractable nature.

The Foreword to A History of Central Banking was written by Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, Member of Parliament and head of the Inkatha Freedom Party, a notable leader of the Zulu, who has had a very stormy relationship with the African National Congress. What is particularly interesting is that Buthelezi comments in his Foreword that he and his party have advocated “that South Africa should reform its central banking and monetary system, even if it means placing our country out of step with iniquitous world standards.”

Also in 2014, Black House published Goodson’s Inside the South African Reserve Bank, dedicated to Czar Alexander II, who established the Russian state bank in 1860. Goodson traces the history of the Bank as a mechanism of international finance, like other central banks, but which were incorrectly assumed to be servants of the state, and hence “the people,” as well as efforts by both Nationalist and allied Labour politicians to assure that a central bank would be under state supervision. What makes Inside the South African Reserve Bank particularly unique is that Goodson includes draft acts for the issue of state credit. As an elected representative of the Bank’s shareholders, Goodson put forward numerous resolutions confronting the ineptitude and corruption within the Bank. In 2012, Goodson was suspended from the Board several months short of his final term, and there were attempts to prevent him from speaking with the news media even about non-Bank matters. Several months later, Goodson was smeared by the news media as a “holocaust denier.”

Goodson’s specific proposals drew outrage in 2017, when it was found that they had been adopted by the “Public Protector,” Busisiwe Joyce Mkhwebane, in her report on a banking scandal involving the private sector and the Reserve Bank. She proposed changes to the Reserve Bank after meeting Goodson for two hours, having read Inside the South African Reserve Bank. During the meeting, Goodson provided advice on how the Reserve Bank could fulfill its function in issuing state credit. At the time, Goodson also gave her A History of Central Banking, which she described on her Facebook page as “a must-read book.” Goodson was again smeared by the news media. The Jewish lobby’s outrage was prompt, with the characterization of Goodson’s books such that one might wonder whether these Jews have a collective narcissistic personality disorder in yearning to see a focus on them even when it is not present. Certainly, in neither of Goodson’s two books on banking is there a preoccupation with “Jews” per se.

In 2015, there were attempts by the Reserve Bank to prosecute Goodson for Inside the Reserve Bank for supposedly divulging business secrets. Goodson reacted with vigor, and his questioning of Colonel Schilz of the Criminal Priority Investigation Unit is a delight. “Is it a crime to expose crime?” demanded Goodson, Schilz conceding that it is not.

What a loss Stephen Goodson’s premature passing is to the fight against mammon. Nevertheless, his books and articles will offer a legacy to future generations. In the eulogy at his funeral, Dr. Peter Hammond of the Livingstone Fellowship stated :

“Stephen Mitford Goodson was a remarkable economist, Reformer, researcher and author. Stephen provided a tremendous service for future freedom and prosperity by lifting the veil of secrecy of so many facts and facets of the history of central banking and the enslavement of mankind. His explosive Inside the South African Reserve Bank – Its Origins and Secrets Exposed, placed him in the forefront of courageous resistance to the banksters and their globalist agenda. He believed that “Truth Conquers.”

Would Winning the Lottery Really Change Your Life?

USA Today reports that Mega Millions has hit a $1 billion jackpot — which is the largest Mega Millions prize ever.[i] The article recognizes that hitting those six lucky numbers will forever change your life. But how?

We have all heard stories about how some lucky lottery winners are not so lucky after all. Unprepared for sudden wealth, some solo winners squander their winnings, have friends and relatives come out of the woodwork demanding a slice of the pie, or buckle under the pressure of a financial windfall they are ill-equipped to handle.

When tickets are purchased as a team, such as through workplace office pools, winnings can be tied up in litigation for years without any of the winners ever seeing a dime. Far from the lighthearted jokes cracked beforehand about “not showing up on Monday,” lawsuits over lottery winnings drag on through endless motions, court appearances, and arguments over who put in what amount and when, who only ponied up the cash before a jackpot “rolled over” to create even bigger odds, and, consequently, who deserves how much of the award.

Solo winners are not immune from litigation either, particularly if they bought a ticket for someone else, or graciously let a fellow patron cut in line in front of them — only to buy the winning ticket that would have been sold to them absent their chivalry.

Stereotypes and horror stories aside, how do lottery winners really behave? Research results may surprise you.

Money Can't Buy You Happiness — but Smart Money Management Can

From a psychological perspective, we can all agree that money can't buy happiness. But it can definitely make life easier for many people — assuming they seek out or already possess the means to manage it. Many lottery winners, having grown wise through watching how sudden wealth has adversely impacted others, try as hard as they can to keep a cool head in deciding how to spend (or save) newly acquired financial abundance.

In a piece entitled, “Finding Prosperity as a Lottery Winner: Presentations of Self after Acquisition of Sudden Wealth” (2011), Anna Hedenus examined how lottery winners strategize their approach to winning in a fashion that counters the reckless spending narrative.[ii] Interviewing 14 Swedish lottery winners, she explores the counter-position that lottery winners adopt to combat the squandering winner stereotype. She notes that by using lottery winnings to project “moderate, non-luxury consumption,” the winners achieve feelings of security, fortune, and yes — even happiness.

Lottery Winners Are Still Themselves — Only Richer

In “Becoming a Winner But Staying the Same: Identities and Consumption of Lottery Winners” (2011), Bengt Larsson found that, contrary to the myth of lottery winners escaping current circumstances and becoming “someone else somewhere else,” in reality lottery winners generally remain the same — except for indulging in higher levels of consumption.[iii] Larsson concluded that receiving large winnings is generally accompanied with an effort to maintain identity and social relationships.

Mega Million Money Management

How do lottery winners manage their money, and does it matter how much they receive up front? According to Larsson's research, the answer appears to be yes.

Larsson compared money management behaviors between those who received lump-sum lottery winnings versus installments. He found that winners who received lump sums tended to save and invest, as compared with winners who received monthly installments — who were more likely to spend the money. In the author's words, "wild" lump sums make winners “tame” their winnings more firmly, whereas “domesticated” monthly installments can be spent more thoughtlessly without changing identity or becoming an unfortunate winner.”

Millionaires in the Workplace: Lottery Winners Keep Working

Think if you hit the jackpot you would end up leaving town and buying a yacht in the South of France? Think again. Believe it or not, research reveals that many lottery winners would choose to keep working.

Research by Bengt Furaker and Anna Hedenus (2009) found that a significant amount of lottery winners stayed in their same jobs.[iv] In their study, they found that less than 12 percent of winners quit working, and about 24 percent of participants took full-time unpaid leave. Of those who continued to work, 16 percent reduced their working hours, and 62 percent did not make any changes.

Furaker and Hedenus note that their results suggest that winning the lottery does not generally eliminate the desire to earn a living through employment. The size of the winnings, however, did have a significant impact on decisions to reduce work hours and take unpaid leave.

Winners and Losers

Research indicates that everyone reacts differently to the acquisition of sudden financial prosperity. Nonetheless, it is heartening to know that so many people choose to adopt sensible financial strategies to manage their winnings which manage wealth while maintaining relationships.

And of course, if you are holding a ticket for the big drawing — good luck!

The US Navy Saved a Boy Fleeing Vietnam — Now, He’s a Navy Doctor

Artillery impacted around the small fishing boat where a young family — 9-year-old Minh Van Nguyen, his mother, and his eight siblings — huddled for cover. Though 50 people were crammed on the boat as it rocked in the harbor of Vũng Tàu, 50 miles south of Saigon, the craft belonged to Nguyen’s family. It had been Nguyen’s father’s fishing boat, the luckiest boat that caught the biggest hauls in their home village of Phan Thiet. It also was the same boat his father was steering on a pre-dawn morning when he collided with another boat, falling over the side. His father’s death had left 9-year-old Minh — his name would become Peter Minh Van Nguyen when he eventually arrived in the US — with his mother and his eight siblings alone to face the end of the war and the arrival of communist forces.

Nguyen’s mother had lived under communist rule as a child and would not allow such a future for her children. As the North Vietnamese approached, she loaded her children onto her late husband’s boat with several other families.

“If we’re going to die, we die as free people,” Han Thi Nguyen told her children. “We’re not turning back.”

They were moored in the harbor as Vũng Tàu fell, with machine-gun fire zipping through the water near them.

“We didn’t have time to pull up the anchor because they were shooting at us, they were bombing. Bombs were exploding all around us,” Nguyen recalled. “My brother didn’t have time, and he just took a big axe and chopped the anchor rope off.”

The boat catapulted away as smoke from artillery hid their escape. Sam steered the boat clear of the harbor into open ocean.

They brought only food and water, no personal belongings.

“There’s nothing worth more than your life, just leave everything behind,” Nguyen remembers his mother saying. “If we get rescued and can start somewhere, we can rebuild — so my mom has a very, very strong will about that.”

The boat followed what they thought was a US military helicopter’s flight path into the South China Sea. One day turned to two, then three, then a week, and food and water began to run low. Nguyen’s mom refused to allow the boat to turn back.

On what Nguyen thinks was close to their 10th night at sea, the boat came upon what looked like a “floating city of lights,” a huge ship. They were out of food and water so, friend or foe, this would be the end of the line. When the sun rose, Nguyen’s eyes saw a massive hull, fearsome and gray and lined with jagged antennas and weapons. It was a US Navy warship. Those on Nguyen’s boat jumped and yelled and waved clothing and blankets on sticks. As they drew near, figures dressed in blue waved from the decks.

Nguyen raised his 9-year-old hand to wave back.

Earlier this month, nearly half a century later, Nguyen raised his hand again — his right hand — to join the same Navy his boat had stumbled upon. Now 54 and a doctor for almost 30 years, Nguyen directly commissioned into the Navy Reserve as a lieutenant commander in Victoria, Texas, two hours southeast of San Antonio.

“I have an opportunity to give back to the people that really saved my people, my family,” Nguyen said. “So, I did not hesitate to do it. I’m very grateful and very honored to be able to do that.”

On that fateful day in 1975, Nguyen and his family had stumbled onto not one ship but an American fleet, very likely Task Force 76 as its ships and air wing took part in Operation Frequent Wind, the final evacuation of Vietnam. In the US, the operation is famous for images of US sailors pushing helicopters off of flight decks into the ocean to make room for refugees. Task Force 76 rescued 100,000 Vietnamese “boat people” in the chaotic end of the war, the 50 on Nguyen’s boat among them.

The rear well of the destroyer opened, and a launch boat approached Nguyen’s boat. Nguyen said he will never forget how warm and welcoming the US sailors were.

In the weeks that followed, the Vietnamese villagers became de facto residents of the ship. Though none spoke English, they were treated well and the sailors made every effort to help them. Nguyen remembers the sailors giving him chocolate and other candy.

From the South China Sea, the US ship slowly made its way to the Philippines, then to Hawaii. Eventually, the US government settled Nguyen’s family in Louisiana, where he began to learn English. His family fit well into the routines and skills of the fishing industry along the Gulf of Mexico, and they soon moved on to a town — Seadrift, Texas, about 150 miles south of Houston — that was quickly becoming a hub of relocated Vietnamese fishing families. Nguyen and his family were one of the first refugee families to arrive in Seadrift. Though they worked hard to fit in, small-town America in the years after the Vietnam War was less ready for them.

“There was a lot of discrimination, a lot of bullying, a lot of intimidation,” Nguyen recalled. “Some of the people there didn’t like us and wanted to get rid of us, wanted to destroy our way of making a living.”

Eventually, the town became a flashpoint for racial tensions. In the 1970s and ’ 80s, chapters of the Ku Klux Klan operated openly in Texas, and the white supremacists made the Vietnamese in Seadrift a target, harassing families and threatening livelihoods. Tensions exploded in the town after a Seadrift resident was shot and killed after assaulting a Vietnamese fisherman.

Nguyen remembers how he was bullied so badly that he and a fellow Vietnamese friend would skip school to avoid the bullying. Eventually, the Vietnamese shooter was cleared of all charges after it was ruled self-defense, but the town’s tensions were too much, and the family fled.

“We were so scared for our lives. Like, we’re running from another war. We just came to America three, four years ago, and here we are trying to run away again,” Nguyen recalled. “We had to save our own lives again.”

In Vietnam, Nguyen had an uncle who was known in his village for local folk medicine. Nguyen took note of how his uncle would evaluate people and then prescribe herbal remedies. From a young age, he knew that he wanted to be a doctor.

“I always watched my uncle treat patients with different illnesses and how he used herbal medicine and folklore medicine to heal them,” Nguyen said. “I was interested in the disease process, and how you use different herbal medicine to treat people.”

Back in Louisiana, Nguyen finished high school and enrolled in college. Medical school was far too expensive, so he studied pharmacy, which reminded him of his uncle’s herbal practices. He even wrote a paper on treating high blood pressure with herbal remedies, which kindled a deeper love of medicine and treating people.

Nguyen graduated with a doctorate in pharmacy from the University of Louisiana Monroe in 1988. As he worked as a pharmacist, he again set his sights on medical school. In the early ’ 90s, he was accepted to Louisiana State University and graduated as an M.D. in 1995, and he qualified as an internal, emergency, and occupational specialist.

For the next two and a half decades, he built a practice and raised a family. But as he entered his 50s, the time when many doctors think about retirement, he decided to chase the one goal he hadn’t met: He contacted Navy recruiters to see if he could still join. After a lengthy interview, assessment, and waiver process, he direct-commissioned as a lieutenant commander in the Navy Reserve. He’s now the Post Acute Medical Rehabilitation Hospital’s president and chief of staff. Nguyen told Coffee or Die Magazine he will soon attend Officer Development School.

“Without being rescued by the US Navy and being brought to America and having the freedom and the opportunity to work hard, to learn, to excel — I mean I would never be here,” Nguyen said. “I would never have the opportunity that I have, and my children would never have the opportunity to attend college, either. I’m very grateful that America saved our family.”

And Nguyen’s leap may be starting a new family tradition: Nguyen’s son, Vincente Nguyen, will join the US Coast Guard this year.

“We’re not unique,” Nguyen said. “I mean, they saved thousands and thousands of Vietnamese refugees during that time. But, I have an opportunity to give back to the people that really saved my people, my family, so I did not hesitate to do it, so I’m very grateful. I’m very honored to be able to do that.”

On November 25, 2009, Dr. Robert Moors Smith died two weeks before he would have been 97. A pioneer of modern anesthesia practice, he was considered the “Father of Pediatric Anesthesiology” in the United States.

Dr. Smith was born in Winchester, Massachusetts and died there. While becoming an Eagle Scout, he and his four older siblings were home-schooled by their mother. He then entered Browne and Nichols School and subsequently graduated from Dartmouth College in 1934 and Harvard Medical School in 1938. After a rotating internship at the Faulkner Hospital near Boston, Dr. Smith underwent two years of surgical training at Boston City Hospital where each surgeon participated in anesthetizing patients. He then opened an office in a small town south of Boston and supplemented his income providing anesthesia for patients at a local community hospital helping establish a department of anesthesia at what is now South Shore Hospital in Weymouth, MA. When the United States entered WW II, his brief time as a general practitioner ended with his enlistment in the Army as a surgeon. However, because of the great need for anesthesiologists in the military, he was given a three-month training course in anesthesia at the Army Air Force Hospital in Greensboro, NC under the leadership of Dr. Frederic Clement and for the next four years he served as the Chief of Anesthesia with the 100 th General Hospital in France and Germany including at the Battle of the Bulge rising to the rank of Major.

Like many servicemen who became anesthesiologists during WW II, Dr. Smith pursued a post-war career in anesthesiology in a hospital near his hometown. In 1946 after he was released from the Army, he was appointed the first physician Chief of Anesthesia at Children’s Hospital Boston, a position he held until 1980 before moving to the nearby Franciscan (Rehabilitation) Hospital for Children where he worked until the age of 80. Though he initially had little experience caring for children, he supervised several nurses at Children’s Hospital Boston who until then provided the majority of anesthesia at the institution. The chief nurse anesthetist, Betty Lank, showed him the small blood pressure cuffs and masks an engineer at the hospital had fashioned for pediatric patients at her direction before any of these were commercially available. She used these items when providing anesthesia for the surgeon, Dr. Robert Gross, when he initiated the field of congenital cardiac surgery in 1938 by ligating the first patent ductus arteriosus. Dr. Gross went on to become Chairman of the Department of Surgery at Children’s Hospital Boston, and he and Dr. Smith worked together to help establish the modern era of pediatric surgery and anesthesia. In the days before the advent of cardiopulmonary bypass machines, they often did repairs of congenital heart lesions inside a hyperbaric chamber. Dr. Smith was particularly proud of the fact that the first intensive care unit which opened at the hospital in 1980 had two floors, one named in honor of him and the other in honor of Dr. Gross. Dr. Smith also worked with Ms. Lank for more than 20 years until her retirement in 1969 and they remained close friends until her death in 2001 at the age of 97.

During his time at Children’s Hospital Boston, Dr. Smith was a superb and compassionate clinician continually advancing practices in pediatric anesthesia to enable surgeons to perform increasing complex operations on smaller and younger patients. He was an advocate of “patient safety” many decades before the term became central to medicine. He was an early and adamant advocate of routine intubation of the trachea during anesthesia for children, with sterile and appropriately-sized tubes in order to prevent tracheitis and tracheal stenosis, and he encouraged wrapping small patients in order to prevent heat loss. In the 1950s when the monitoring of infants and children consisted primarily of visual observation of the patient and intermittent palpation of the patient’s pulse, Dr. Smith pioneered a new approach of continuous physiological monitoring by using a (precordial) stethoscope, taped on the chest wall over the trachea and heart, to assess ongoing changes in heart and breath sounds, as well as the regular use of the infant blood pressure cuff (sometimes referred to as the “Smith cuff”). These were progenitors in the development of elaborate monitoring systems that are the core of current and safe anesthesia care.

Dr. Smith was a well-mannered, soft-spoken gentleman. His presence in the operating room always had a calming influence even in the most trying circumstances. His quiet demeanor and great clinical competence inspired those around him to do their best, not always the style of behavior displayed by some of the surgeons dealing with a harrowing situation. One surgeon who knew him for more than half a century noted he never heard anyone say a bad word about Dr. Smith.

Dr. Smith was also energetic and physically fit. In the days before intensive care units were established, anesthesiologists were often the specialists summoned to handle emergencies throughout the hospital. Dr. Smith was frequently the first to respond to an overhead page by dashing through the stairs and corridors to reach the bedside for rescue. One of his former fellows recalls fondly that no one, not even the young students, could beat Dr. Smith in a race through the hospital – and he would always greet them with a grin on his face.

In addition, Dr. Smith was an excellent educator and father-like figure to many of his former trainees. He attracted students from all over the world who came to Boston to learn from him and witness the rapid growth of pediatric surgery during this time. He welcomed all who wanted tutelage regardless of experience or credentials. One former student tells how when he called Dr. Smith requesting to study under him, Dr. Smith’s response was a simple, “When can you be here?” More than 800 physicians received training with Dr. Smith at Children’s Hospital. He was also a faithful and regular visitor to the anesthesia residents at the nearby (but now defunct) Chelsea Naval Hospital despite his heavy work load at Children’s, he was grateful for the anesthesia training he received in the Army and this was one way he showed his appreciation.

In 1959 he published a comprehensive textbook entitled “Anesthesia for Infants and Children” which was one of the first of its kind specifically focused on the anesthetic management and care of young patients. It soon became a classic and he revised it through four editions before he retired from Children’s Hospital Boston in 1980. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Smith asked Dr. Etsuro K. Motoyama, one of his former fellows, to take over the editorship. He, together with Dr. Peter J. Davis as a co-editor, modified and expanded the book to a multi-authored volume and renamed it “Smith’s Anesthesia for Infants and Children” in Dr. Smith’s honor. It continues after more than half a century in a soon-to-be-published eighth edition, the longest ongoing textbook of pediatric anesthesiology in the world.

During his lifetime, Dr. Smith was the President of the Children’s Hospital Medical Staff, Chairman of the Committee on Pediatric Anesthesia of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and President of both the Massachusetts and New England Societies of Anesthesiologists. He received several prestigious awards and honors including being one of the few pediatric anesthesiologists to receive the Distinguished Service Award from the American Society of Anesthesiologists. In addition, he received a Special Recognition Award from the Section of Surgery of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Section on Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine of the American Academy of Pediatrics gives an annual Robert M. Smith Award to a pediatric anesthesiologist for a lifetime of achievement in the field. He was also an honorary Fellow of the Faculty of Anesthetists of the Royal Academy of Surgeons of Ireland and an honorary member of the Brazilian and Pan American Societies of Anesthesiologists. He was Clinical Professor of Anaesthesia at Harvard Medical School.

Dr. Smith lived by a simple phrase: be useful – enjoy yourself. For example, he once treated a young niece who developed croup by building a humidified tent with a card table and plastic sheeting in her living room. And he loved nature. He and his wife were avid bird watchers and he routinely extended overseas medical trips with bird watching expeditions. Always inventive, he once banished a surfeit of skunks by anesthetizing them with ether. He also was an excellent athlete enjoying golf as well as tennis, skiing and surfing. Well into his 80s, Dr. Smith continued to seek new thrills by trying roller-blading “I could blade fine, but stopping was a problem.” After moving into an adult assisted-living facility, he routinely organized educational programs.

A former colleague at the end of Dr. Smith’s memorial service uttered perhaps the most accurate tribute by noting that Bob would have complained that the service was “too long. I could have gotten a lot of stuff done.”

He is survived by one son, two daughters, eight grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. His beloved wife, Margaret, preceded him in death after 69 years of marriage.

Mark A. Rockoff, MD, Chair
Harry Bird, MD
W. Hardy Hendren, MD
Robert Holzman, MD
Etsuro Motoyama, MD
Jonathan Smith
David Waisel, MD

Recent Developments in the Field of Sleep Research

Sleep research, in recent years, has grown to encompass many other fields – from cardiovascular research, neurology, otolaryngology and more. The National Center for Sleep Disorders Research was created in 1993 to oversee the vast array of studies related to the diagnosis and treatment of sleep problems carried out every year. This governing body works to raise awareness about best practices and share information about new developments with professionals in the field of sleep research.

The treatment options and equipment designed to help with sleep disorders continues to improve. As research advances our knowledge of the function and dysfunction or sleep increases. In the past 15 years, there has been a clear shift towards in-home testing for people struggling with sleep problems.

This shift has made sleep testing much easier, more affordable, and accessible to the average person seeking better quality rest. In-home testing devices are now able to provide clinicians with data that is key to diagnosing the disorder. Additionally, mobile apps help improve treatment outcomes. Patients can easily track their progress and get sleep coaching support throughout the treatment program.

Watch the video: Thursday Thoughts with Dr. Alan Drimmer featuring Dr. Peter Smith


  1. Hymen

    Amazing topic, they are very interesting))))

  2. Deryck

    There is something in this. Now everything is clear, thank you very much for the explanation.

  3. Stefn

    I absolutely agree with you. There's something about that, and it's a great idea. I support you.

  4. Meztira

    Bravo, seems to me, is a magnificent phrase

Write a message