Dr. Henry Heimlich is up to his old tricks—pushing unsound medical advice into mainstream press at every opportunity that presents itself.  This time, he used the event of a lifesaving in Buffalo, New York to plug his mischief into the AP newswire.

In a June 21st article, ”Heimlich Highlights Lifesaving Duo,” Carolyn Thompson reports about Dr. Henry Heimlich’s appearance to honor some lifesavers.  The story is an interesting one:  a 17 year old kid uses the Heimlich maneuver to save the life of a choking nurse—the same nurse who saved the kid’s life seven years prior. 

Dr. Heimlich seized the moment to honor them through the Heimlich Institute’s “Save A Life Award” —and also to push his quackpot medical theories into yet another media outlet.  Thompson writes:

Dr. Heimlich is currently focusing on AIDS treatments?  Is this a reference to ”malariotherapy,” Heimlich’s dangerous idea of injecting Chinese and African AIDS patients with malaria in human experiments some have likened to Nazi Germany?  Bob Kraft, Dr. Heimlich’s publicist, has gone on the record saying malariotherapy experiments have ended—but it seems Dr. Heimlich is still pushing his cause.

But that’s not all.  Check out the conclusion Heimlich snuck into Thompson’s piece:

And so Dr. Heimlich uses another unwitting reporter to build his attempt to popularize the maneuver for near drowning cases.  Now that it’s hit the AP wire, the Heimlich media campaign has already started to spread.

Socializer!

del.icio.us

Furl It

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in 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!

1. anon says:
   22 Jun 2006  at  12:18 pm | #

   The Post picked up the AP story. Looks like they cut out the last line of the original article about drowning and asthma, but included the claim about Heimlich researching AIDS and cancer. Wasn’t Vic Wulsin mixed up with that?

2. local says:
   22 Jun 2006  at  02:50 pm | #

   Cincinnati Post—Runs AP Story

3. anon says:
   22 Jun 2006  at  04:21 pm | #

   Hello:
   Area 51 is calling, it wants its conspiracy theory back.

4. says:
   22 Jun 2006  at  04:50 pm | #

   No theories here: just simple observations of facts.

5. anon says:
   22 Jun 2006  at  04:59 pm | #

   Hello:
   Subjective or objective? Again, you conspiracy theorists can never get that one straight.

6. anon says:
   22 Jun 2006  at  07:28 pm | #

   What conspiracy? Henry Heimlich got invited to a press conference by a hospital PR man looking for some happy press coverage. That gave Heimlich the opportunity to sound off on his various quackery. The local AP reporter took dictation and her story hit the wire and ended up in the Post and lots of other papers around the country.

   Everybody knows Heimlich’s a publicity hound and an egomaniac. For the past few years, courtesy of his son Peter, Papa Heimlich’s gotten nothing but terrible press about his various quack theories and frauds. Even though local reporters don’t want to touch the story yet (except for Ben Kaufman at CityBeat), you don’t see Heimlich getting the endless softball coverage he used to get from Tim Bonfield at the Enquirer and others like Barry Horstman at the Post. In print or not, the word is out - the guy’s radioactive. So for Heimlich to have to fly to Buffalo just to get some ink is some measure of how desperate he must be.

   Like I said, no conspiracy, just lazy reporters or chickenshit editors who keep them on a short leash.

7. anon says:
   23 Jun 2006  at  07:08 am | #

   Hello:
   Speaking of lazy and chickenshit, what about the other side? Has Peter Heimlich’s history been dug up as extensively as his father’s, or are we just giving one side of the story, and drinking the Kool-Aid that everyone in Cincinnati who disagrees with Pete and company is in somebody’s pocket? Again, objective or subjective?

8. says:
   23 Jun 2006  at  07:11 am | #

   What does Peter Heimlich’s past have to do with Dr. Heimlich pushing dangerous medical theories into mainstream press?

   Peter Heimlich’s past does not put swimming children at risk.

9. anon says:
   23 Jun 2006  at  07:50 am | #

   Hello:
   Actually, it would be “drowning” children at risk.
   But let’s not quibble on such a minor detail. I’m sure, as a doctor of medicine, you have conducted extensive research in such matters, because it would be far too subjective to be relying on the breath-taking ramblings of some hair-replacement specialist, now wouldn’t it?

10. says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  08:08 am | #

    Typically near drowning victims were swimming first.

    And, anon., are you a medical expert?  If so, please site one piece of credible evidence defending Dr. Heimlich’s claims.

11. says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  08:08 am | #

    And if you have a question about Peter, just visit http://medfraud.info

12. anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  08:15 am | #

    Hello:
    I’m no medical expert, but I have a high degree in skepticism that cautions me from relying on a source with a clear ax to grind.
    As for the website, big deal?
    Heck, you got a website and that doesn’t make you credible.

13. anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  08:37 am | #

    I’m no medical expert, but I have a high degree in skepticism that cautions me from relying on a source with a clear ax to grind.

    The Dean and the article by Ben Kaufman of CityBeat don’t rely on Peter Heimlich. They relied on the American Heart Association, the American Red Cross, the Institute of Medicine, and numerous medical experts, all of whom agree that the Heimlich maneuver for drowning is useless and deadly.

    There’s no controversy here since the only doctor pushing this discredited theory is Henry Heimlich, who, despite 30 years of flogging his idea, has been universally rejected by resuscitation experts all over the world.

14. anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  08:59 am | #

    Hello:
    Nice.
    The American Heart Association merely doesn’t recommend the Heimlich in such instances, and cites one paper, written by two doctors on the subject. And funny, can’t really find anything regarding the subject on the Institute of Medicine site—must not be as high a priority there as it is in certain Cincinnati internet cafes.
    And anon, you wouldn’t be among the so-called “numerous medical experts” with a certain ax to grind, would you?
    Real informative stuff.

15. anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  09:28 am | #

    Hello:
    Oh, as for the Red Cross, it doesn’t entirely rule out using the Heimlich in drowning cases (or, “swimming cases,” as far as Deano’s concerned), instead suggesting it can be used as “a last resort.”
    And do you conveniently not include the American Lung Association in your list, because they don’t seem to have a position on this. Curious, isn’t it.

16. anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  09:51 am | #

    Institute of Medicine report abstract on PubMed:

    The application of the Heimlich maneuver as the initial and perhaps only step for opening the airway in all near-drowning victims has been proposed by Henry Heimlich and Edward Patrick, contrary to current resuscitation guidelines for the treatment of near-drowning victims established by the Emergency Cardiac Care (ECC) Committee of the American Heart Association. Although the Heimlich maneuver is useful for the removal of aspirated solid foreign bodies, there is no evidence that death from drowning is frequently caused by aspiration of a solid foreign body that is not effectively treated by the current ECC recommendations. Furthermore, the evidence is insufficient to support the proposition that the Heimlich maneuver is useful for the removal of aspirated liquid. Moreover, because there is no evidence to support Heimlich’s hypothesis that substantial amounts of water are aspirated by near-drowning victims or that such aspirated liquid causes brain damage and death, the available evidence does not support routine use of the Heimlich maneuver in the care of near-drowning victims. The routine use of the Heimlich maneuver for treatment of near drowning raises several concerns: (a) the amount of time it would take to repeat this maneuver and how long this would delay the initiation of artificial ventilation; (b) possible complications of the Heimlich maneuver, especially if the near drowning is associated with a cervical fracture; and (c) the prospect of teaching rescue workers a different protocol than that which is taught at present for resuscitating victims of cardiopulmonary arrest from all causes other than near drowning.

    anon 10:29
    The American Heart Association merely doesn’t recommend the Heimlich in such instances, and cites one paper, written by two doctors on the subject.

    Inaccurate. The American Heart Association’s most recent drowning guidelines unequivocally warns against the use of the Heimlich maneuver and three citations refer to the Heimlich issue:
    
    There is no need to clear the airway of aspirated water, because only a modest amount of water is aspirated by most drowning victims and it is rapidly absorbed into the central circulation, so it does not act as an obstruction in the trachea....Attempts to remove water from the breathing passages by any means other than suction (eg, abdominal thrusts or the Heimlich maneuver) are unnecessary and potentially dangerous. The routine use of the Heimlich maneuver for drowning victims is not recommended. (Circulation, December 13, 2005)

    Not one, but three citations in the AHA guidelines refer to the Heimlich issue. The citations are the Institute of Medicine report (Rosen et al), a research study by Jerome Modell MD of the University of Florida, Gainesville (internationally recognized medical expert on drowning), and the Manolios/Mackie drowning study. Australian drowning expert Dr. Ian Mackie was also primary author of the International Life Saving Federation medical commission’s position paper on the Heimlich manever (abdominal thrust) for drowning), which agreed with all other medical experts. It’s useless and deadly. 

    Anon 11:28 Oh, as for the Red Cross, it doesn’t entirely rule out using the Heimlich in drowning cases

    Inaccurate. The American Red Cross does not recommend the Heimlich maneuver for drowning under any circumstances. Check with your local affiliate.

    And do you conveniently not include the American Lung Association in your list, because they don’t seem to have a position on this.

    The American Lung Association has nothing to do with drowning rescue, hence no position on this matter.

17. Anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  10:03 am | #

    Hello:
    And yet you neglect to mention JP Ornato’s article on PubMed, which notes in part:

    “Significant controversy exists with regard to several aspects of special resuscitation, including whether or not there is a need to clear the airway of a near-drowning victim with the Heimlich maneuver ...  The conference panel on Special Situations recommended that: the Heimlich maneuver should only be performed on near-drowning victims when the rescuer suspects that foreign matter is obstructing the airway or the victim fails to respond appropriately to mouth-to-mouth ventilation, further investigation is needed to better define the need for, the risks of, and the timing of the Heimlich in the near-drowning victim ...”

    Hmmmm?

18. anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  11:02 am | #

    anon 12:03 Good to see you’ve discovered PubMed.

    You’re misreading the statement in Dr. Ornato’s 1986 article. He was referring to the unlikely situation in which a near-drowning victim might be choking on a solid foreign body. For example, a kid’s eating a piece of candy next to a pool, starts to choke on the candy, and falls in the water. There’s no debate regarding whether abdominal thrusts can remove a solid foreign body. That’s why so many choking victims have been rescued by the Heimlich maneuver.

    But water and vomit are not solid foreign bodies. More to the point, all experts previously cited agree that little water if any gets into the airway of drowning victims and what little that does, does not need to be removed. Rather, ventilation needs to begin immediately via CPR.

    For further clarification, you may wish to contact Dr. Ornato and ask him yourself.

19. anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  11:11 am | #

    From “Heimlich Maneuvers” by Tim Bonfield, Cincinnati Enquirer, May 10, 1993:

    Among Heimlich’s critics on the drowning issue is Dr. Joseph Ornato, professor of internal medicine and cardiology at the Medical College of Virginia in Richmond.

    “Dr. Heimlich continues to dirtort, misquote, fabricate, and mislead his peers and the public regarding the scientific ‘evidence’ supporting the safety and efficacy of his theory,” Ornato wrote in an August, 1992, letter to the Red Cross.

    “Dr. Heimlich’s ‘evidence’ consists of unsubstantiated, poorly documented anecdotes. He cites letters to the editor (published in the Journal of the American Medical Association) as though they represented rigorous scientific study.”

20. anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  01:50 pm | #

    Hello:
    Doesn’t mean it’s never worked or happened.

    In 1999, Coney Island lifeguard, Serena Levy, used the Heimlich to save a 12-year-old boy who slid from a water slide, went under water and surfaced, but stopped breathing.
    Levy said, in a story published by The Associated Press on July 9, 1999, that she squeezed the boy’s abdomen and the boy immediately vomited water and his lunch and started breathing.

    So to say to never use the Heimlich in these instances—and, I repeat again, the Red Cross suggests using it as a last resort—is questionable at best.

21. anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  02:49 pm | #

    Doesn’t mean it’s never worked or happened.

    Medicine is not a faith-based field. Many things are possible. It’s possible that space aliens really have abducted people in Roswell, but without proof, it’s simply a far-fetched story.

    This is not how science works. Science is evidence-based, not anecdotal. Let’s say a person has a fever and a witch doctor swings a dead cat over the person’s head. Just because the victim recovers doesn’t mean the dead cat was the cure. Likewise, the Coney Island case. Most drownings, especially in swimming pools, are brief submersions and any applied physical movement may revive them. (Read Mills-Senn’s landmark article on the Heimlich for drowning for a good layperson’s explanation.)

    The Coney Island has no scientific value. It’s an anecdote. Without a hospital report or the attending physician’s comment, it’s simply opinion. Like the dead cat, an advocate of the Heimlich for drowning may wish to attribute the rescue to the maneuver, there’s no evidence to support it.

    The same goes for the handful of anecdotal stories Dr. Heimlich has been touting for years and which he claims prove his theory. Physicians and reporters have asked Heimlich to provide any substantiating evidence, such as hospital reports, names of attending physicians he would have interviewed if he was doing legitimate investigation. He has refused to do so. To put it mildly, this is highly irregular, especially from a physician who claims he is researching a new idea. Legitimate scientists defend their work.

    Unlike the Heimlich maneuver, CPR was thoroughly researched and tested in clinical tests over many years, on both humans and animals. Heimlich has never done a clinical study on the maneuver for drowning. In fact, when an animal study was proposed by the American Heart Association in 1986, Heimlich called in animal rights activists to disrupt the study using tactics which included death threats and bomb scares. This was widely covered in the press. 

    I repeat again, the Red Cross suggests using it as a last resort

    Repeat this all you want, but it’s inaccurate. The Red Cross follows American Heart Association guidelines. Contact the Cincinnati chapter and find out what they have to say about the Heimlich maneuver for drowning rescue.

22. anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  03:16 pm | #

    Hello:
    Yes, I’ll get right on contacting the Cincy chapter. What’s the number, again, 1-800-paranoia?
    I’m ever so sure they haven’t been hounded into submission by the quack brigade to the point where they might actually require the Heimlich maneuver (chest thrusts, to the unbelievers) to spit out anything but the Peter Heimlich (et al) company line.
    On the other hand, and let’s try this approach for objectity’s sake: you might want to check with the national folks, who for some reason haven’t yet been ‘enlightened’ by the miles and miles of blogs and reports and villifiers that this sore subject seems to permiate every time it’s brought up—dead cats and all.

23. anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  04:01 pm | #

    The American Red Cross executive who oversees national water safety policy is Scott Conner, Vice President, Health & Safety Division.

    e-mail:
    Phone: (703)206-7763

    American Red Cross public affairs office: (202)303-5551

24. anon says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  04:25 pm | #

    Hello:
    You’ve got your sources and I’ve got mine, and I’d prefer not to publish their names on this site in fear of the reaction it would inspire.
    Let’s just say they’re high up the public affairs food chain, too.
    I don’t mind enduring this excercise in futility for at least one more post, because I enjoy tilting at windmills.
    But I wouldn’t wish it on others because this site and this topic inpsires a wing-nut witch hunt that tramples reputations and makes unbased accusations against those that, perhaps, didn’t know what they were stepping into.
    It all leads to too many calls, e-mails, tape recordings.
    Who’s running this site, Dick Cheney?
    But it’s Friday and my time’s up. There’s beer to drink and time’s a wasting.
    I’ll leave you all to the deafening sound of your one hand clapping.

25. Here here says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  04:45 pm | #

    But I wouldn’t wish it on others because this site and this topic inpsires a wing-nut witch hunt that tramples reputations and makes unbased accusations against those that, perhaps, didn’t know what they were stepping into.

    That’s what Jason My Main Man is all about. It’s alternately called “fighting for justice in Cincinnati”, “political theater” and “a hooby”.

26. Where where says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  05:14 pm | #

    Are there any emergency medicine specialists or drowning experts who agree with Dr. Heimlich’s drowning theories? Names, please?

27. Baby Gramps says:
    23 Jun 2006  at  10:15 pm | #

    You’ve got your sources and I’ve got mine, and I’d prefer not to publish their names on this site in fear of the reaction it would inspire. Let’s just say they’re high up the public affairs food chain, too.

    Let me get this straight. You’re an anonymous somebody who’s in touch with an unnamed bunch of medical specialists, but you’re afraid to provide any information because of “the reaction it would inspire.”

    The only reaction that would inspire would be hysterical laughter at the enjoyment of watching you getting your ass kicked up, down, and sideways here all day. After your beer, please come back for more!

28. Me says:
    26 Jun 2006  at  05:33 pm | #

    Are there any emergency medicine specialists or drowning experts who agree with Dr. Heimlich’s drowning theories?

    Edward A Patrick Md,

29. anon says:
    26 Jun 2006  at  07:06 pm | #

    A few problems with Dr. Patrick...but then, what are bogus credentials between old friends?

30. ok says:
    26 Jun 2006  at  08:01 pm | #

    I am a bit confused.  If he is Not really a Doctor then why is he still working in an emergency room?

31. anon says:
    26 Jun 2006  at  08:48 pm | #

    why is he still working in an emergency room?

    Guess he’s off tonight, since he’s trolling the Beacon.

32. P. Dilts says:
    26 Jun 2006  at  10:36 pm | #

    Book review: Artificial Intelligence with Statistical Pattern Recognition by Edward A. Patrick and James M. Fattu

    “Artificial Intelligence with Statistical Pattern Recognition” is a curious and frustrating book. Its authors, Edward A. Patrick and James M. Fattu, repeatedly claim to be making a contribution as fundamental as that of the Rev. Thomas Bayes, yet their level of rhetoric surely obscures the possible contribution of the work. While the authors’ intended goal of applying statistical pattern recognition for purposes of inference in complex domains is important, the book has been criticized for being long on hype and short on clarity.

33. ok says:
    27 Jun 2006  at  03:01 pm | #

    Teflon Ed.  Nothing seems to stick to him.  He seems to get away with everything.

34. anon says:
    27 Jun 2006  at  03:30 pm | #

    That’s what they used to say about Henry.

35. who cares says:
    28 Jun 2006  at  04:36 pm | #

    I am so sick and tired of all the sabers rattling and NOTHING ever happens.  These men have gotten away with all this for years and they continue to because NO one cares in Cincinnati to anything about it. Why are we still talking about these men years after it started.  It seems if you have money you can do what ever you want.

36. anon says:
    28 Jun 2006  at  09:50 pm | #

    I am so sick and tired

    No need for you to suffer. It will be better for your peace of mind if you avoid reading any more articles about the Heimlich maneuver for drowning scandal like this one Ben Kaufman wrote for CityBeat a couple weeks ago.

    NO one cares in Cincinnati to anything about it.

    Looks like Ben and CityBeat do. And it’s sure on your mind.

    Why are we still talking about these men years after it started.

    Uh, hopefully to prevent any more drowning kids from dying when somebody does the maneuver on them because Deaconess, Dr. Heimlich, and the Enquirer told them to?

    But what’s important is that you shouldn’t suffer. So next time you see a Heimlich maneuver for drowning expose, don’t pay any attention.

37. Better Late than Never says:
    04 Jul 2006  at  10:21 am | #

    Hey Anon,
    Sorry I missed the battle here, but on vacation.
    If you take ANY of this to the ER doctors at University- the only level 1 trauma in the area and the first accredited Residency program for Emergency Medicine in the US, They would have you laughing in line with the hundreds of uninsured waiting for medical care. I’ve talked to them- easy to pick up a phone and get to their academic offices- and they think that this story NEEDS to be broken by the media ASAP- but realize that the political ties and $$$$ have kept it quiet. They would NEVER-EVER use the Heimlich for ANY drowning victim unless it was used as a last resort on site and the person was already blue and cynide.
    So- all your talk about “High up in the Food Chain of PR"- well- all said and done- that may be all you have- If I was drowning- I’d rather have an ER doctor at my side instead of any of the staff at Dan Pinger...Got it Big Boy?
    This city it just to friggin’ afraid of what is going to happen once Peter cuts loose w/ the large media-hometown hero’s are going down because of the “brotherhood” and that is so obvious because of the coverup-and if you had read all of this crap from the initial letter to the Enquirer where Drs. Tew et.al signed- then you’d realize how important this really is and how deep the river runs.
    So just walk up to City View-have a beer and just get ready for a huge fireworks display. It’s gonna happen whether you think so or not- It just isn’t Jason, Peter, and Ben carrying the torch-there are many un-named that have this near and dear to their heart every day and keep working to keep finding more and more skeletons in the closet.

38. Nicky says:
    11 Jul 2006  at  06:49 pm | #

    So when do you think they will be taken down?  Before or after they are dead?