Hot News!
• RALLY FOR SAFE JOBS AT CINTAS ON OCTOBER 14!
• Proportional Representation: Christopher Smitherman v. Jeff Berding
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 |
|
|
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Did Wulsin’s malaria problem get cured by the Ohio Medical Board?
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Photo courtesy of here.
Jeff Coryell over at the Ohio Daily Blog recently posted an item about how the Ohio Medical Board closed the complaint against Vic Wulsin. That prompted Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog to post a response to the news. We decided to contact the Wulsin campaign to get a copy of the press statement, and what we found was belligerence from Kevin Franck, Wulsin campaign spokesperson.
Coryell’s item includes the following:
Here is a statement from Wulsin campaign spokesman Kevin Franck, confirming that the ethics complaint is dead in the water:
“Dr. Wulsin voluntarily met with the State Medical Board of Ohio on April 24, 2008 to discuss an anonymous ethics complaint. The Board found that there was no merit whatsoever to the complaint and declined any further action on the issue. These false allegations represented the lowest form of sleazeball politics. Fortunately for the voters of the 2nd district, the truth prevailed.”“The real issue in this campaign is Jean Schmidt. In her first full term in Congress, Schmidt has voted against increasing benefits for American veterans, providing healthcare to poor children and reducing interest rates on student loans. Those are facts worthy of debate.”
The first thing I noticed was the phrase “anonymous ethics complaint.” Dr. Robert Baratz has been very public with the fact that he filed the complaint, even flying to Cincinnati to hold a press conference on the matter.
So I emailed Kevin Franck, asking if I could have a copy of the press statement. His response: “Nope.” He wrote that I should call if I had further questions, so I did. I was surprised by what happened next.
First, I was curious why he would not send me the press statement. He told me the Wulsin campaign would not share information with me because I would just write something negative. I told him that the campaign had not shared information with me before, and Franck was dismissive of that point.
I asked if the press statement had been sent to a wide variety of media, or just to Jeff Coryell. Franck wanted to know why I thought it mattered. I explained that there was a difference between sending a broad media statement to several sources, versus placing a story with a single blogger. Franck told me that no matter how he answered, I would write something negative—and so he asked me to share with him what two negative stories I had in mind so he could pick his favorite.
I asked why he referred to the complaint as “anonymous,” when everyone knows Dr. Robert Baratz filed it. He said the Board did not reveal the identity of the person who filed. And then he kept saying things like this: “The Board found that your complaint has no merit.”
I kept asking why he referred to the complaint as “mine,” since I am not the one who filed it. Franck insisted on continuing to refer to the complaint as mine. I said, “Do you understand that it is my position that I did not file the complaint?”
“I don’t speak for you and I don’t need to understand your position,” said Franck.
One must wonder why the Wulsin campaign would not want to get out in front of this press statement. Why such convolution and belligerence when I just asked to see the statement?
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
07 Jun 2008 at 04:02 pm | #
Could it be because you have been nothing more than a mouthpiece for Dr. Baratz and that as a ‘media activist’ and not a reporter, you have consistently and repeatedly used innuendo and leaps of logic to come to specious conclusions that a normal reporter would not be allowed to?
You’ve said it before, Dean, you’re not a reporter. Why do expect to be treated like one when it suits your purposes?
07 Jun 2008 at 04:57 pm | #
Interesting comment posted below BizzyBlog’s article: http://tinyurl.com/4v8ocl
Tom and all Republicans out there - Here’s another amusing angle.
For the sake of argument, assume Dr. Wulsin has bad stuff to hide about her association with the Heimlich Institute. (Yes, I know that’s difficult to imagine.) If that’s the case, there’s one person with the power to sink her. That person is Heimlich Institute vice president and loyal Republican Phil Heimlich.
Chew on that for awhile. If Wulsin’s hiding dirt and Phil doesn’t hand over the information to expose her, then Wulsin wins the race, Phil deserves a lion’s share of the blame.
If I were Barry Bennett (Jean Schmidt’s chief of staff) or a Republican blogger, I’d start pressuring Phil to ante up or else suffer the prospect of being the Republican responsible for handing the Ohio 2nd to the Dems. (He already gave them Hamilton County, remember?) For Phil, that would be the final nail in the coffin of his political career.
Better yet, Barry, try the honey vs. vinegar approach. Offer Phil a job in exchange for the information, something where he can’t break anything or steal the silver or appoint Ron Roberts. Then everybody’s happy.
Well, maybe not Jeff Coryell.
Or Coryell’s horse whisperer, Kevin Franck.
07 Jun 2008 at 08:22 pm | #
anonymouse: you have consistently and repeatedly used innuendo and leaps of logic to come to specious conclusions
Those are serious charges, A-Mouse, so let’s see you back ‘em up. I’m calling you out on both your allegation and your conclusion.
Provide the specific examples of the “repeated (uses) of innuendo” and the specious conclusions to which you refer. Links and pull quotes, please.
And make it fast.
08 Jun 2008 at 08:53 am | #
Tough talk Rat Catcher. What happens if Anon doesn’t get it to you fast enough?
Funny...don’t recall you demanding Jason and Justin and little Andy Warner (remember him?) to prove any of their allegations. Guess the same rules don’t apply to people playing reporter.
08 Jun 2008 at 03:14 pm | #
What happens if Anon doesn’t get it to you fast enough?
I’ll laugh my arse off at her for shooting blanks, that’s what. Just like I’m doing at you now, you silly subject-changer.
Now go lick out my punchbowl and pay me for the privilege.
09 Jun 2008 at 05:51 am | #
What I find hilarious is that instead of just doing a straight story about how Wulsin was cleared of ethics violations, the Beacon does a story about their camp not wanting to speak to them.
Seems to me that the Wulsin camp is playing this pretty smart by refusing to speak with the Beacon who has done nothing but been antagonistic to the Wulsin campaign. Malariotherapy aside, hounding people with video cameras, demanding they answer their questions, and then running back to the keyboard when they don’t is ridiculous in my opinion. Is it any wonder they won’t give the Beacon a press release.
Sounds to me like the Wulsin camp has made a good decision and the Beacon is left grasping at straws to smear Wulsin now.
And I already anticipate a comment from the Dean about how I’m changing the subject or use ridicule to make a point.
09 Jun 2008 at 06:05 am | #
First, why should we put malariotherapy aside.
Doing nothing, and then just running to your keyboard (like you do) is even more ridiculous in my opinion.
09 Jun 2008 at 09:23 am | #
Stop the bitch slapping boys and girls!
Bottom line is the Malariotherapy is REAL and I don’t give a damn about an ethics report at the state or not. Innocent women and children are dying because of this and Vic Wulsin WAS a Staff Memember of the Heimlich Institute. She took blood money and she can not deny one damn dollar that she took from those people. Even if she wants to claim that she blasted a report out of the water, which we know she didn’t do.
She took the money-cashed the checks. She knew what she was getting into before she even started working there.
Just realized that there is a force much greater that you will have to deal with one day that is bigger than the press, or Jason with a video camera, and it may not be so sweet! And this force may be eternal. Only she will have to face the truth. Only she has to look into the mirror every day with blood on her hands. And money in the bank. I hope it was worth it.
The truth hurts and it is forever.
09 Jun 2008 at 11:15 am | #
Who Cares?, you missed the point - and the boat.
First, if Team Wulsin was smart, they would not have raised the medical board issue. By doing so, they only attracted more attention. Second, the manner in which they did so - apparently via a private leak to Jeff “Igor” Coryell rather than issuing a press statement, followed by Kevin Franck’s hilarious performance with the Dean - only attracts more suspicion. In other words, they handed a chocolate sundae with a cherry on top to Team Schmidt.
As for Who Cares?, as the bumper sticker says, you can’t fix dumb.
09 Jun 2008 at 04:36 pm | #
In other words, they handed a chocolate sundae with a cherry on top to Team Schmidt.
Glad I got my crystal ball fixed last week. (Darn thing predicted a win for Big Brown.) Looks like it’s working again....
Here’s a squirt of whipped cream from Jeff Coryell: http://urlite.com/7224/
And Bill Sloat (who else?) adds the nuts: http://urlite.com/7226/
Hold on, what’s this? The crystal ball is saying something about Big Brown again. But this time it’s not about the Belmont race, it’s about Wulsin.
09 Jun 2008 at 05:33 pm | #
Dean you assume I run to my keyboard....LOL...I think we both know I don’t do too much running.
As for your contention that I do nothing. That is not true. When I feel an issue is worth fighting for I very much do something. I also think you are well aware of that. I just don’t find Wulsin’s supposed involvement with malariotherapy a cause for the ages like the Beacon does. Someone’s literature review is hardly indicting of a person in my opinion. I think we already know that we will agree to disagree on that point.
09 Jun 2008 at 06:41 pm | #
Do nothing, Rhonda has it right, And in the end, the love you make....oops that is a song...back on track...The bottom line is Dr. Vic is the only one who knows the truth about all of this. And if she can look in the mirror and think that what she did is ok, and she can sleep without wondering about those innocent women with AIDS, and how they died leaving child, and she cashed the paycheck- Then maybe she does belong in Washington with the rest of the low life running this country. The will all rot in eternal hell. Democrat or Republican. They all knived people in the back to get ahead. She is just another one of then, only this time she does have real blood on her hands.
10 Jun 2008 at 08:11 am | #
Gargle: The bottom line is Dr. Vic is the only one who knows the truth about all of this.
NOT!
10 Jun 2008 at 07:38 pm | #
Let’s see if I get the logic:
1. Dr. Vic is accused of unethical behavior.
2. Dr. Vic is investigated by the state medical board, which, presumably has a better understanding of medical ethics than your typical ex-english-teacher-blogger.
3. Dr. Vic responds to the medical board.
4. The medical board considers the merits of the complaint against the evidence, some of which may or may not be available to your typical ex-english-teacher-blogger.
5. The medical board clears Dr. Vic.
6. The Beacon and its anti-Vic denizens declare “That’s OK, we know she’s guilty anyway!”
Sad. Pathetic and sad.
The Dean has stated on many occasions that he does not have all the facts of this case. He has tried to weasel and cajole as many facts as he can from the folks he is simultaneously trying to slime, and when they didn’t respond, he simply implied or even stated outright that they surely must have something to hide. Throw in the gratuitous videotaped rhetorical ambush which ANY politician would have steadfastly ignored, and it makes for great theatre. Crappy reporting, but great theatre.
Apparently, however, the state medical board heard more evidence than the dean did and came to a completely different conclusion. Unfortunately, since the investigation was conducted confidentially, it will not stop the Dean or his puppetmaster Dr. Baratz (who, as we all know, flew into cincinnati for a poorly attended sham of a press conference, so you know he’s serious!) from repeating the same tired allegations over and over.
Well, for the past few months, all we’ve heard about is how Dr. Vic has an ethics case pending against her, so she’s as good as guilty. Now that the ethics case has been dismissed she’s still guilty, according to the Beacon and the Dean’s fan(s). Is it any wonder the Wulsin camp wanted nothing to do with the Dean or his site? It seems they had you pegged pretty well.
Nobody is saying you should, Dean, but as it relates to Dr. Wulsin, it would appear that the state medical board has decided that the subject doesn’t relate to her.
P.S. Thanks for the homework assignment rat catcher, but if you didn’t notice, school’s out for the summer. However, if you’re looking to amuse yourself, you are more than free to go back through all of the dean’s pieces about Dr. Vic and show me all the times he said something fair, equitable, or evenhanded about her. Please get back to me chop-chop with pull quotes, dates, and some Graeters. Strawberry Chip is preferable.
11 Jun 2008 at 06:41 am | #
So I suppose that Jean Schmidt is a better candidate for Congress than Wulsin, Dean? With this being an election year for Congress in November, I’m surprised you have not analyzed Schmidt’s record in Congress as opposed to beating up on Dr. Wulsin. I’m from the 2nd Congressional District and I know that Schmidt does not have a good record in Congress. She supports Bush over 90% of the time! Isn’t that relevant to this Congressional race?
11 Jun 2008 at 06:44 am | #
I never said I supported Schmidt. I do not. But why does that mean I should ignore issues involving Wulsin? Just because of the “D” by her name?
Sometimes I think Democrats would vote for Hitler, if he got the Party endorsement.
11 Jun 2008 at 06:47 am | #
Surely, comrades, surely there is no one among you who wants to see Jones come back?
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Animal_Farm#Chapter_3
11 Jun 2008 at 07:41 am | #
Dean, I didn’t say that you supported Schmidt. That wasn’t the criticism. I didn’t even say ignore issues involving Wulsin. This has nothing to do with partisan politics. This has to do with who do you want to represent you in the 2nd Congressional District? Who more aligns themselves with issues that impact the 2nd Congressional District? Last I checked, there was no 3rd party candidate in the race so who should be the Representative? Or does it not matter between the two?
11 Jun 2008 at 11:14 am | #
Someone’s literature review is hardly indicting of a person in my opinion.
Only Dr. Wulsin and her supporters have claimed her report for the Heimlich Institute was a “literature review.” Others have called it a private fundraising prospectus for the Heimlich Institute’s “malariotherapy” experiments. Presumably all parties agree that the experiments are illicit, unethical, and merit additional scrutiny. (By the way, Dean and others, a good question for Team Wulsin is “Do you think the experiments merit additional scrutiny?” Given the candidate’s profile as a public health physician, presumably her answer would be a resounding affirmative. If not, well, you do the math....)
Medical ethics experts and medical journal editors could certainly be contacted in order to provide their perspectives on the “literature review” v. “fundraising prospectus” question.
Here’s Dr. Wulsin’s report, “Immunotherapy and Beyond,” December 2004: http://www.shrunkin.com/4976/
Here’s the website of the American Society of Bioethics + Humanities: http://www.asbh.org/contact_us.html
Here’s the website of the American Medical Writers Association: http://www.amwa.org/default.asp?id=118