Hot News!
• Tea Party leader gets grilled by NAACP membership
On today's date in The Beacon archives, we published:
•Smitherman still saying the issue is about a “streetcar” (2009)•More on Amy Goodman’s Arrest and the Struggle for a Free Media (2008)
•Journalist Amy Goodman Unlawfully Arrested At RNC (2008)
•Seizing Illegal Guns—Thinking About 2% (2007)
•Information or Advertisements? (2007)
•Nick Lachey: “I have never supported George W. Bush.” (2007)
Contact Us
v mail: (513) 685-0678
e mail: click here
Monday, June 16, 2008
Vic Wulsin: No Merit? No Merit!
Posted by The Dean of Cincinnati
Photo courtesy of here.
When Kevin Franck sent a press statement to blogger Jeff Coryell, the Wulsin-loving moderator of Ohio Daily Blog, he said the medical complaint against Wulsin’s license was found by the Ohio Medical Board to have “no merit.” There just seems to be one itty-bitty problem with this seemingly simple statement: it ain’t true! Ironically, when Wulsin’s campaign released documents to The Enquirer, they dug a big scoop out of their own grave on this one—since the letter not once indicates that the complaint had “no merit.” It looks like Wulsin’s camp just got caught saying something that has, well, no merit!
Here’s the statement Franck sent to Ohio Daily Blog:
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.
Some of these words demand further investigation, like “voluntarily” in addition to “no merit.”
According to this letter advising Wulsin of her hearing, the board “requested” her attendance, and then went on to say this:
Please be advised that your failure to appear for your scheduled office conference may result in the issuance of a subpoena for your appearance at an investigatory deposition, and that failure to cooperate in an investigation conducted by the Board ... constitutes grounds for discipline…
It hardly sounds like she did anything “voluntarily”; instead, it looks like she did want they asked to avoid getting a subpoena to make her show up anyway!
But more significantly, the issue of the Board finding “no merit.” Read the whole letter for yourself. Here are the Board’s findings:
So they determined that “no further action was required.” That is different than saying the complaint has “no merit.” So what gives?
Well, Kevin Franck at Wulsin’s campaign failed to respond to multiple requests for documentation substantiating the claim.
It seems a rather convoluted strategy at play by Team Wulsin here.
Now, I’m no fan of Schmidt, but she got full blast when she issued a letter saying Wulsin “participated” in the Heimlich Institute’s experiments. (Remember, Wulsin’s own report states that she analyzed raw data from East Africa.) But the Wulsin-heads started freaking out how about Schmidt was lying, playing dirty politics, and how someone should file a complaint against her campaign for telling lies in campaign material.
But the premise—that Schimdt is lying—seems entirely based on this claim by Kevin Franck: namely, that the Board found “no merit.” If that is true, however, why doesn’t the letter from the Medical Board say that?
Methinks somebody’s nose is growing.
• 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.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
16 Jun 2008 at 10:42 am | #
Aren’t you nitpicking a bit here? I think “no further action required and the complaint has been closed” can be accurately described as the complaint having “no merit”
I mean, if action was required, then the complaint would then be defined as having merit, would it not?
16 Jun 2008 at 10:57 am | #
Oh, the power of conjuctions. Franck said:
(I added to caps to emphasize.)
See, Wulsin’s camp claimed the Board found two things. That is not true. They found ONE.
Additionally, they said “no further action” was required. I have no idea what the Board’s meeting with Wulsin was like. For all I know, they reamed her a brand new one for an hour.
Wulsin’s camp should have just said that the Board decided to take no action against her license. That would have been true. But Wulsin’s camp knows that all the details of the Board complaints are confidential. They can say what they like, and how can anyone prove otherwise?
But by releasing the letter, as they did, they apparently caught their own selves in a conundrum.
16 Jun 2008 at 12:03 pm | #
“I have no idea what the Board’s meeting with Wulsin was like. For all I know, they reamed her a brand new one for an hour.”
Okay, if this is true, then “The Board found that there was no merit whatsoever to the complaint AND declined any further action on the issue.” can also be true, can it not?
I mean, if the board told Wulsin there was no merit, and she told Franck, then the statement is still correct, if unproven in print.
The board isn’t required to say “there was no merit”. In fact, given the status of the body and the general privacy under which it operates, it may not even be allowed to make such a statement publicly. The way they put it might be the only way they can.
Mind you, I’m not saying you’re definitely wrong—maybe it wasn’t said. But unless someone on the board can tell you that this wasn’t said during the meeting, I don’t think you can fairly say whether it’s true or false.
16 Jun 2008 at 12:26 pm | #
My god, when will you change your name to the “Barber of Cincinnati,” you’re clearly adept at splitting hairs. When an investigatory agency says no further action is necessary, that’s a finding of no merit to the Complaint. I don’t know of any rational, reasonable person, who would disagree. The idea that the State Board, in an investigatory meeting, reamed Wulsin for an hour, is tin-foil hat buffoonery. They investigated the case, listened to Dr. Wulsin’s testimony, and concluded that there was no basis to investigate further as there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.
You can try to spin this into whatever ridiculous fantasies you may have of it being something different, but it doesn’t make it so.
But you keep carrying water for Steve Black and Jean Schmidt.
16 Jun 2008 at 02:11 pm | #
For all I know, they reamed her a brand new one for an hour.
1) This is a shocking innuendo, one which Kevin Franck and Team Wulsin can quickly put to rest by making public the minutes of Dr. Vic’s meeting with the medboard. When’s that going to happen?
2) Also, plenty of outraged commenters on the DKos and TPM stories suggested that Team Wulsin should file a complaint against Team Schmidt for allegedly “stretching the truth” (as the Enquirer’s feckless, fact-less Malia Rulon put it) in the Schmidt fund raising letter. When’s that going to happen?
For answers to the above, see my username.
16 Jun 2008 at 03:57 pm | #
When you write “there was no evidence of wrongdoing,” you are making things up. The investigation is confidential. The only record we have is this letter that Wulsin made public, and it does not say the things she claims.
The letter above is not a “public letter.” Read it. It says “Private and Confidential” at the top. Wulsin is free, of course to let it become public (as she did), but to suggest they worded the paragraph the way they did due to something about making “such a statement publicly” is absurd. The statement was NOT made publicly.
And if there is no proof, then Team Wulsin has no business acting like its golden gospel. Or is her strategy to run a hear-say campaign?
If they had just stuck to the facts—and said the Board determined no further action was required—then this conversation would not be happening right now.
16 Jun 2008 at 04:22 pm | #
Are you insane?? Of course a disciplinary body which, after a brief investigation, finds no action is necessary is a finding that there was no wrongdoing. If there were wrongdoing the body would take action against it. If they uncovered wrongdoing, but lacked the jurisdiction to take action, then they’d refer the matter to the appropriate jurisdiction.
You seem to have a compulsive need (after a long time of hyping the fact that the Ohio Medical Board was investigating Wulsin) of trying to minimize the reality of the Board’s findings.
You honestly don’t think the Medical Board’s “Public Inquiries” Officer didn’t expect that this letter would be made public? Does it matter? The fact is that after hearing Dr. Wulsin’s side of the story the Board found no reason to pursue this “complaint” any further and notified Dr. Wulsin that it found no reason to take any further action (such as finding a violation or taking disciplinary action).
You are spinning, Dean. Absolute FAIL.
16 Jun 2008 at 06:19 pm | #
Modern Esquire: They investigated the case, listened to Dr. Wulsin’s testimony, and concluded that there was no basis to investigate further
Hey ME, do you think the board should have offered the National Council Against Health Fraud the right to attend the hearing and to present information? That was the organization that filed the complaint. Might have added more voices to the mix and more transparency, right? That’s what we Democrats are supposed to be about, innit?
Oops, sorry, I forgot. That’s the last thing Team Wulsin wants. I’ll go back to being a good little Coryell and keep my eyes and ears covered.
16 Jun 2008 at 10:00 pm | #
Dean,
I have been on the record as opposing your viewpoints about Wulsin. But there is more than a semantical difference between no further action required and no merit.
For instance, one could face disciplinary action, comply with the punishment, and then have their claim or hearing face no further action. This is certainly different than no merit.
I tend to believe that in this situation, they reviewed the charges and then dismissed them, but the letter released does not explicitly state that. Now the letter Wulsin recieved could be boilerplate, but one would think she would disclose more than she did if that were the case.
So I actually agree with you on this one. There is too big of a difference in th e meanings between “no merit” and “no further actions.”
16 Jun 2008 at 11:47 pm | #
Hm. Interesting question. Does the medical board typically invite complainants to participate in the hearings?
No?
I suppose that’s your answer.
17 Jun 2008 at 04:33 am | #
“no further action required and the complaint has been closed” = “No Merit”.
Shorter Orgone Conclusion: THE BOARD IS BIASED TOWARD WULSIN! IT’S A CONSPIACY!!
17 Jun 2008 at 10:19 am | #
Does the medical board typically invite complainants to participate in the hearings?
Why not ask the board? That’s not protected information.
17 Jun 2008 at 10:23 am | #
Comment posted at Matt Hurley’s Weapons of Mass Discussion blog:
Matt, Dean, others:
Regarding the medical ethics issues and Dr. Wulsin’s professional obligation to report the Heimlich experiments (as well as what appears to be a shortfall by the State Medical Board of Ohio to follow their own standards), you may wish to review these documents from the state medical board and the American Medical Association, which include Dr. Wulsin’s AMA member page: http://tinyurl.com/6xg6pv
They’re uncomplicated and easy to follow. If you give this five minutes, you’ll understand the conundrum faced by Dr. Wulsin, one which is likely to dog her for the rest of her career, regardless of the outcome of the current political race.
It’s recommended that you download the pdf file rather than viewing it online. That will permit viewing the highlighting (which is not visible in the Scribd window).
Thank you both for continuing to report on these issues. It appears inevitable that major media will soon be taking a look.
17 Jun 2008 at 10:48 am | #
Orgone:
To answer your question, no, I don’t think “National Council Against Health Fraud” needed to be present during the Medical Board’s investigatory questioning of Dr. Wulsin. In fact, it would have been highly inappropriate and unusual for them to do so.
Now, if the Board’s investigation found enough to believe it should consider disciplinary action, then a Board meeting in which such action was considered probably WOULD have allowed the Complainant to be present and be heard. But not during the agency’s investigatory phrase.
You don’t have alleged victims of crime sit in on the questioning of their suspected attackers. The Medical Board doesn’t represent the Complainant and the Complainant has no right to dictate the course of the agency’s investigation.
17 Jun 2008 at 12:38 pm | #
Crazy Guggenheim: IT’S A CONSPIACY!!
Iph yew saye sew.
17 Jun 2008 at 04:35 pm | #
Frank CKevin:
“as well as what appears to be a shortfall by the State Medical Board of Ohio to follow their own standards.”
Yeah, because you’re an expert on medical bioethics how exactly? The body which people like you insisted needed to investigate Dr. Wulsin, the body whose investigation you cited as “evidence” of the significance and validity of your attacks against Wulsin, has concluded that there is absolutely no basis to take any action against Wulsin.
So, of course, instead of accepting the logical premise that you were wrong to falsely accuse Dr. Wulsin of violating her professional ethics, the Board’s findings now somehow become yet another party to the “conspiracy.”
Does that tin foil hat itch when you wear it that long?!?
18 Jun 2008 at 06:27 am | #
Modern Esquire: So, of course, instead of accepting the logical premise that you were wrong to falsely accuse Dr. Wulsin of violating her professional ethics, the Board’s findings now somehow become yet another party to the “conspiracy.” Does that tin foil hat itch when you wear it that long?!?
Given your faith in the medical board’s current position on the matter and your conclusion that I’m loony and uninformed, it would appear Dr. Wulsin has nothing to worry about. Therefore, both of you may rest easy.
As the saying goes, nothing to hide, nothing to fear.
18 Jun 2008 at 11:20 am | #
I have more faith in the Ohio Medical Board to decide matters of medical ethics than I do you. After all, they are charged with investigating and prosecuting violations and you can’t even seem to answer a basic question as to your qualifications of the issue.
Why can’t you just own up that you were wrong?
19 Jun 2008 at 02:14 pm | #
If Dr. Wulsin was a Republican and the medical board arrived at the identical result, I suspect Modern Esquire and his ilk would find the ruling to be the most outrageous miscarriage of justice since the Scottsboro Boys.
However, I do concur with the issue ME raised about credentials. When reporters more capable than Malia Rulon report the story, it is hoped that they will interview medical ethics experts about whether or not Dr. Wulsin participated in the Heimlich “malariotherapy” experiments.
I’d start with Dr. Peter Lurie at Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, who wrote a 1997 New England Journal of Medicine article which cited the Heimlich experiments in China. Dr. Lurie was also quoted in this February 16, 2003 Enquirer article by Robert Anglen about UCLA professors who were mixed up in that project.
“Participated” was the word used in the Schmidt campaign fundraising letter. As a result, numerous comments on the DKos and TPElections blog accused Rep. Schmidt of lying. It would be helpful, at least for nonpartisans, to shed some expert light on the appropriateness of that word choice.
Along those lines, instead of barking at commenters and making “tin foil hat” insults here and on other blogs because they express a difference of opinion about Dr. Wulsin’s conduct, ME and others may wish to contact experts in the appropriate fields in order to obtain their opinions.
Dean, will you agree to run legitimate material of that nature on the Beacon if ME or others submit it for publication?
20 Jun 2008 at 09:38 am | #
You are giving state medical boards way too much credit. They hire investigators with no medical training and no investigatory training. They put them in a position where finding what is wrong only makes waves. When state medical boards find someone guilty, it almost never is as a result of their own investigations. It is when a licensed professional fails to keep up continuing education requirements or gets indicted by the courts. Those things put state medical boards in the position of being legally required to meet out discipline. When it is up to them to do the investigations, they don’t find anything wrong. Check out their published list of disciplinary actions to see that for yourself. When their own investigators cannot figure out (or be bothered to figure out) how to find evidence, they close cases with a standard form letter, which is what was written here. That is the routine. That is the result for almost all complaints made to state medical boards. Nothing should be concluded from the fact that the Ohio State Medical Board did not notice a reason to pursue a case. Do a search on OSMB Disciplinary Actions and you can find more about that.