The Enquirer reports on the battle for ethics between Vic Wulsin and Jean Schmidt, but the article fails to name one of the most conspicuous aspects of Wulsin’s 2006 ethics disclosure form: her alleged employment for the Heimlich Institute. Blogger Matt Hurley has been staying current on related press statements from Schmidt’s campaign, and it’s clear that Schmidt does not intend to ignore either The Heimlich Institute or malariotherapy. Wulsin’s omissions on her 2006 forms add fuel to this growing fire.
Spend some time on this form—particularly the sixth question in the “Preliminary Information” box on page 1, the information included on page 2, and the totality of page 6:
Wulsin should have checked “Yes” for that sixth question on the first page, since she made more than $5,000 working (allegedly) for the Heimlich Institute. Why is it blank? Is this an “oversight” to cover for the fact that a specific dollar amount is not included on page 2? I guess it could be an oversight, but it’s noteworthy how so many of these oversights relate to Wulsin’s work on malariotherapy.
Speaking of which, whenever asked about her involvement in malariotherapy experiments, Wulsin says she was just hired to do a “literature review.” Yet page 6 of this document says she was hired for “epidemiology consultancy.” Which is it, Vic? Which better describes someone who handled raw human data? Which best describes the person who called for conducting further malaria studies? (Just read Vic Wulsin in her own words!)
Slowly, but steadily, the story of Wulsin’s time with Henry Heimlich spreads like a disease.
Thank you for reading (and printing from) The Cincinnati Beacon.
Photo courtesy of