Is Joe Wessels up to something?  In today’s Post, he has an article the editors entitled ”Different styles, both successful:  Heimlich suited to life in politics.” However, the piece reads like thinly veiled analysis of sexual innuendo.

Why, for example, did Wessels interview John Morelock for this piece?  We first wrote about Morelock on October 18th—and to the best of our knowledge we were the first people to report on the Morelock-Heimlich connection.  Why is Wessels following up with this guy?  Is there something to the relationship between him and Heimlich?  And why does Wessels want us to know that Morelock produces lubricants?

Then check this out, about Phil’s first date with his wife Rebecca:

So Heimich is 40 years old, and going out on first dates while bringing his parents along.  His wife calls him a mama’s boy, his mama never thought he’d get married, and his best friend has a job manufacturing lubrication.

Then, Wessels ends the article with another quote from lubricant-manufacturing Morelock:

Lubricant-manufacturing Morelock, for whatever reason, knows Phil Heimlich’s sleeping habits, and his late-night energy levels.

I’m just saying… Is Joe Wessels trying to tell us something?

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. Rev. Haggard says:
   04 Nov 2006  at  08:22 pm | #

   Heimlich is more than up to the grind, said Morelock.

   The grind? Woo woo.

2. Hyde Park Hellcat says:
   04 Nov 2006  at  08:41 pm | #

   Heimlich brought his parents along as a “surprise” on his first date with a woman??? For most women, that would have been the LAST date. You expect to go out on a date with a guy you just met and he shows up with his parents? Eeww, he’s an adult baby!

   This is right out of an abnormal psych textbook. What were mommy and daddy there for anyway? From what I’ve heard about Phil, sounds like this more of a job interview for Rebecca than a date. The parents were interviewing her to see if she’d provide suitable camo for an aging “bachelor” Repub trying to move his career forward.

3. anon says:
   04 Nov 2006  at  09:06 pm | #

   Wessels got the name of the company wrong: his close friend John Morelock, the owner and chief executive officer of Calgary Industries, a Fairfield-based cleaner and lubricant manufacturer

   The company is Calvary (as in where JC was crucified) Industries. Here’s a pic of Morelock, who looks like Don Johnson, circa Miami Vice.

4. says:
   04 Nov 2006  at  09:20 pm | #

   Fabuuuuulous!!!!

5. says:
   04 Nov 2006  at  11:58 pm | #

   Phil Heimlich = Ted Haggard!!!!!!!!!!

6. Bearman says:
   05 Nov 2006  at  06:16 am | #

   So it’s OK to suggest that Heimlich is gay but not that Strickland is.  I am not voting for the guy, but I think its extreme in both cases even though it is a joke.

7. says:
   05 Nov 2006  at  06:45 am | #

   Bearman,

   Do you think Wessels behaved inappropriately?

   My headline is a complete fact:  Wessels published that Heimlich’s lubricant producing friend knows his sleep schedule.

   The real issue is Wessels agenda in writing about this.  Is there more he knows that didn’t get to print?

8. anon says:
   05 Nov 2006  at  07:02 am | #

   Bearman, Phil Heimlich has been Ohio’s loudest and most persistent anti-gay rights advocate. Strickland hasn’t made a career out of attacking gay people’s civil rights.  That’s why Heimlich’s fair game.

9. Nasty, Brutish & Short says:
   05 Nov 2006  at  07:40 am | #

   It must be hypocrisy Sunday here at the Beacon.  What’s bad for the Blackwell campaign and Bill Cunningham is totally fine, if the innuendo is about a Republican.

   And no, Dean, Joe Wessel’s article was not at all as you describe.  He talks about Heimlich being a basketball fan, for one thing. 

   This post is the only one with the innuendo.  But hey, we’re talking about a Republican, so I guess that makes it okay.

10. says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  08:56 am | #

    NB&S:

    Not quite.  My headline indicates that this was a perspecive forwarded by Wessels.  The question is whether Wessels does this on purpose.

    Fine, he like basketball.  But check out Calvary industries:

    http://www.calvaryindustries.com/

    “Lubrication” is not featured as a key thing with the business.  There are many things the place does.

    So, why did Wessels choose to talk about a lubrication manufacturing friend, and why does the article end with this lube-friend talking about Phil’s sleep habits?

    I’m just saying, and I think it’s legitimate, that Wessels seems to be up to something.

    It is not as tabloid-blatant as the Enquirer’s piece on Strickland, but that doesn’t mean something is not going on.

    Besides, where in my article did I say the innuendo was fine?  My post is NOT the only one.  Everything I noticed in Wessels’ piece is true.  How can it be me making it up then?

11. says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  08:57 am | #

    BTW, NS&B:

    Why did you never post my comment to this article:

    http://nastybrutish-n-short.com/blog/2006/10/monday_morning_enquirer_outrag.html

    Why do you defame Peter Heimlich?  Could it be that you are a blind Heimlich fan?

12. Nasty, Brutish & Short says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  09:44 am | #

    Dean,
    A couple of things.  First, I don’t screen comments for content, as long as they aren’t profane.  I don’t recall you commenting on that post, but if you did, and I didn’t post it, I apologize.

    Second, no, I am not a blind Heimlich fan.  I think he’s the better choice of the two, because he will support lower property taxes and I’m on board with the conservative social agenda.  And, I don’t think he’s unethical (as you seem to).  But I certainly wish he were more personable, and I think his connections with Chris Finney are appalling.

    Third, as for defaming Peter Heimlich, it is pretty clear that Peter is not in the black sheep of the family category.  He’s past that, and well into la la land, with his absurd attacks on his parents and his brother.

    Fourth, as for the whole innuenndo bit with Phil… I realize you aren’t the one whostarted it, and the rumors have been around for a while.  But I do think you’re re-inforcing it, but reading stuff into Joe Wessels’ article that I just don’t think are there.

    Fifth, if Joe was trying to drop hints about something in the article, of course, I think that is highly inappropriate, and something his editors should ask him about.  But I just don’t see it.

13. says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  10:29 am | #

    Can you name a single, absurd Peter Heimlich “attack”?

14. anon says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  02:10 pm | #

    Dean, you left out this part of Wessels’s article:

    Phil Heimlich found Jesus in a Bob’s Big Boy in Michigan...Heimlich asked a classmate in his University of Virginia Law School class, Bob Meek, about Christianity. Meek gave him a book by Josh McDowell to read. The book fascinated and intrigued Heimlich, and the more he read, the greater was the feeling that his emptiness was being filled with Christ’s love. At the end of the book there was an invitation to invite Christ into his life.

    “So, I did right there in the Big Boy....”

    Right there in the Big Boy? Sounds like more scurrilous innuendo. Phil should file a defamation suit!

15. Anon says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  03:11 pm | #

    an invitation to invite Christ into his life.

    Phil later invited Chris into his life.

16. Nasty, Brutish & Short says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  03:49 pm | #

    Dean,
    Peter Heimlich’s absurd attacks seem to be the focus of his entire adult life.  Anyone who decides that their life’s work is going to be to destroy their father’s reputation, and their brother’s career, is someone who is [Editor’s Note:  Portions of this comment have been deleted.].  There is no evidence that his allegations have any merit.  And there is no evidence that the allegations are anything other than extremely disturbed familial attacks.  Anyone who goes down that path, is contending with such serious [Editor’s Note:  Portions of this comment have been deleted.] that whatever they have to say, is meritless.  Clearly, we are talking about someone who is focused on destroying his family.  Not on speaking truth to power.  He assumed a fake identity to try to destroy his family, for crying out loud.  And no media outlet bought it.  Except for this one.

    So yes.  I do believe that ALL of Peter Heimlich’s attacks on his family are meritless.  If they came from an unbiased source, I might be willing to reconsider.  But anything that comes from Peter, is worthless.

    Perhaps you should reflect on whether your intense dislike for Phil Heimlich has clouded your judgment… especially when it comes to listening to [Editor’s Note:  Portions of this comment have been deleted.]

17. says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  03:57 pm | #

    NB&S:

    Wow.  So many thinking errors in your comment.  I only have a minute or so…

    Peter Heimlich’s absurd attacks seem to be the focus of his entire adult life.

    Do you know Peter Heimlich personally?  Do you know what he does with his life from day-to-day, what he does with friends, the personal lifestyle of him and his wife?  Because if you don’t, then how in the world do you know the “focus of his entire adult life”?  Do you even know how old Peter is?  What he has done with his life?  Where he lives?  What he does for a living?

    From line one, you betray your sweeping generalizations based on a total lack of knowledge about your subject.

    There is no evidence that his allegations have any merit.

    Really?  Let’s see…

    Peter alleged that the Heimlicih Maneuver for near-drowning was dangerous and life threatening.  Turns out all credible medical experts agree.  Recently, the Dayton Daily News published a HUGE series on this fact.

    So what are you talking about?  Have you ever visited Peter’s site?

    http://medfraud.info/

    I can’t find a single crazy thing on the site.  Peter provides extensive documentation, and when you check with medical experts, his claims all turn out to be true.

    Perhaps you should reflect whether you blind allegiance to party politics has clouded your judgement.  Here’s the thing—medical safety and the lives of innocent people should transcend party politics.  I have targeted both a Republican and a Democrat currently running for office due to their connections to these acts of injustice.  Why?  Lives might be on the line.

    What’s your excuse?

18. Nasty Brutish and Slanderous says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  04:16 pm | #

    Nasty, Brutish and Stupid, becareful my anonymous friend. You’re making some wild and slanerous allegations without merit and it’s reavealing who you might be.

    Anyone who has a crooked father that has put people’s lives at risk because he’s an ego maniac, should certainly do the right thing and shed light on their fraudulent and dangerous claims. The only question is why the Enquirer provides cover and perpetuates Henry Heimlichs discredited theories.

    The samething goes for people that have a brother that’s an extremely crooked politician like Phil. Peter has helped shed light on Phil’s lies and shady dealings. Perhaps you should reflect on whether your intense love for Phil Heimlich and the financial benefits you’ve received from him cloud your judgment.

    Please provide some evidence for your wild and slanderous claims or we’ll have to question your blind allegiance and mental capacity for reason.

    The Beacon has provided evidence about its claims. Put up or shut up!

19. anon says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  04:19 pm | #

    Last week CityBeat reported that Phil Heimlich’s insurance company made a financial offer to his brother because Phil had defamed Peter. That’s an admission of wrongdoing by Phil and an acknowledgement of liability.

    Peter’s attorney is Louis Sirkin, nationally-known free speech lawyer.

    Does anyone know the identify of Nasty, Brutish, and Short? On his/her website he/she claims to be an attorney.

20. says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  04:40 pm | #

    Yes, NB&S, calling people mentally ill is pretty serious, especially by someone who claims to be an attorney. Take a look at the photo that accompanies the CityBeat article which shows Peter and Karen.  They’ve been married for close to 20 years, and Karen is co-author of their website. Are you also calling Karen “mentally ill”? How about all the medical experts who have denounced Henry as a fraud and a quack? Are they all also mentally ill? Or does someone become mentally ill when their criticisms become an inconvenience to your political candidate?

21. Chrissy's Hissy's says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  04:48 pm | #

    Nasty, Brutish and Finney, you are a coward and you and Phil have really lost your cool. Your meltdown was pretty funny to us, but really the nail in the coffin for Phil’s failed reelection bid. BTW, Erin, where’s that footage? I got $500 for it.

    If you’re such a smart attorney, then you know that you can be sued just like your crooked business partner Phil. Simply being anonymous won’t keep you safe. We have ways of finding out who you are. So please, keep talking because we’re certainly listening.

22. anon says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  05:19 pm | #

    Why is NBS having a fit about the Wessels article which discussed Phil’s peculiar dating habits, followed by the Dean’s item which wondered whether Wessels was using code words like “mama’s boy” to say what many suspect about Phil. (People do tend to whisper when an outspoken opponent of gay rights is himself unmarried until he’s nearly 50.)

    Appropos of nothing, NBS then begins to attack Peter Heimlich as “mentally ill,” purposefully ignoring the numerous published articles which support Peter’s research about Henry Heimlich’s medical career.

    A good question is why NBS would choose to attack Peter in connection to Wessels’s article, especially since Peter is not mentioned in the Post article. Could it be that NBS - obviously a Phil supporter - is anxious that Phil’s brother would likely know the truth about the rumors that have long circulated about Phil?

23. Nasty, Brutish & Short says:
    05 Nov 2006  at  09:06 pm | #

    Oh for Pete’s sake (literally).  I didn’t bring up Peter Heimlich.  The Dean did, because he said I hadn’t posted a comment of his on a post of mine that appeared weeks ago.  I don’t screen comments for content, so if the post didn’t appear, I said I was sorry.  It could all have happened while my blog was under constant attack from a crazy liberal commenter, with a zillion IP addresses.  Any time the Dean wants to comment over at NBS, he’s more than welcome.

    And yes, I do think anyone who carries on a lifelong quest to destroy his father and his brother is [Editor’s Note:  Portions of this comment have been deleted.].  A serious allegation, yes.  But no nearly as serious as the ones levied by Peter Heimlich.  These kinds of comments--from a family member, no less--deserve no credit whatsoever.  Anyone can tell they are from a very troubled source.  I mean, he assumed a fake identity to trash his father in the press.  Sorry, anyone who does that has zero credibility.  Does anyone really need a PhD in abnormal psych. to see that we are dealing with [Editor’s Note:  Portions of this comment have been deleted.]? 

    And, as for the supposed medical experts who have lined up behind Peter?  I have yet to see any who would be eligible to testify as “expert” in court.  This all seems to be a quest Peter Heimlich is on, and the only person who has bought in is the Dean.  [The new bit from the Columbus Dispatch, for example, adds nothing]. 

    And as I have previously explained, I am not a diehard Heimlich supporter, nor do I post only pro-Republican items (as a lot of bloggers on my side do).  In fact, my harshest criticism is usually reserved for Republicans who aren’t doing enough.  In fact, I have posted warnings to Phil about how if he lies down with dogs, he will wake up with fleas.  [That was appropos of Chris Finney].

    But hey, if folks think I am a big Heimlich supporter--and that it matters, at this point--I don’t care.  Because I’m not, and it doesn’t.

24. says:
    06 Nov 2006  at  06:02 am | #

    NB&S,

    I don’t understand.  Are you saying that no experts oppose the maneuver for near-drowning?  Are you saying no experts oppose the maneuver for asthma? Are you saying no experts oppose malariotherapy?

    Do some research!  You are wrong on all points!  Peter’s thesis has been shown to be totally on topic!

    What are you talking about?  Are you just making this stuff up from the top of your head, or do you actually have a resource?

    Who cares if he used a fake name.  How would you feel if you discovered that your own father had done something that could cause a threat to life throughout the whole world??

25. anon says:
    06 Nov 2006  at  06:40 am | #

    Nasty, Brutish, and Short’s statements about Peter Heimlich are false and defamatory. If you know NBS’s real name, please forward to the Dean at dean@deanofcincinnati.com

26. anon says:
    06 Nov 2006  at  08:09 am | #

    NBS: And, as for the supposed medical experts who have lined up behind Peter?  I have yet to see any who would be eligible to testify as “expert” in court.

    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.”

    From “Off the Deep End” by Curt Guyette, Detroit Metro Times, December 8, 2004

    Six years later, the American Heart Association again held its national conference. This time, Dr. Linda Quan, a highly regarded drowning expert from the University of Washington, chaired the panel on near-drowning...According to Quan, Heimlich was invited to attend the conference, but didn’t show. His absence, however, didn’t stop him from lashing out again. “He went to my university and accused me of scientific misconduct,” she says. “Basically he said I hadn’t used good science. They did an investigation and cleared me of any wrongdoing. “I don’t think anyone takes him seriously,” Quan adds. “He has not produced any serious science.”

    From “The Trouble With Henry” by Shane Johnson, Salt Lake City Weekly, December 30, 2004

    Retired U.S. Coast Guard Rear Adm. Alan Steinman, the Stanford-trained M.D. who devised the current drowning resuscitation guidelines for the armed forces, said it’s not bad blood but bad science that’s done in the Heimlich for drowning. “The entire premise of Dr. Heimlich’s hypothesis is wrong,” Steinman said in a telephone interview from his home in DuPont, Wash. “The lungs are not filled up with water in drowning. Any water that gets down into the airway and lungs is rapidly absorbed. There’s absolutely no basis whatsoever for advocating the Heimlich maneuver in resuscitation of near-drowning victims. In fact, it’s counterproductive and dangerous.”

    Notes Dr. James Orlowski, a drowning expert and chief of pediatrics at University Community Hospital in Tampa, Fla.: “None of [Heimlich’s] cases have been adequately enough documented for the scientific community to look at them critically.”

    Furthermore, Orlowski said he’s investigated 30 near-drowning cases where the maneuver is suspected of causing severe physical harm. The injuries range from damage to the pancreas and stomach ruptures to documented cases of aspiration pneumonia—where he said the Heimlich Maneuver induced vomiting, which was then inhaled into the lungs during resuscitation. And counter to Heimlich’s claims, even if there is fluid in the lungs, it’s well understood that “you can very easily ventilate or breathe through that fluid with no trouble at all,” Orlowski said.

    Overt dangers aside, Orlowski said the gravest consequence of using the Heimlich is that it unnecessarily wastes precious seconds in getting air into a drowning victim’s lungs.

    (snip)

    Loren Greenway, administrative director of respiratory and pulmonary medicine for Intermountain Health Care, and a nationally certified asthma educator, finds Heimlich’s asthma maneuver physiologically unfounded and dangerous.

    “Using the Heimlich maneuver in an acute asthmatic condition ... could actually kill somebody,” said Greenway, adding that asthma-treatment medications are necessary and safe in treating the underlying inflammation that causes mucous buildup, and that a Heimlich Maneuver could not possibly affect the inflammation.

    As to the claims made on Heimlich’s Website and elsewhere, Greenway said that “without the data to prove it, there is no more egregious kind of statement that can be made than ‘If you use this, your asthma will go away or get better.’ In my opinion, it’s tantamount to malpractice. I think it would be laughable if it was presented at an internationally renowned conference.”

    From: “Lifeguard calls public campaign ‘unethical’ defiance of protocols” by Kevin Lamb, Dayton Daily News, August 11, 2006

    After several medical panels rejected the Heimlich maneuver for their lifesaving guidelines in the early 1980s, Heimlich took his case to the public. He promotes Heimlich-first rescues by talking to the media, school children and lifeguards. “He’s asking lifeguards to reject protocols that have been vetted by experts,” said B. Chris Brewster (president of the US Lifesaving Association). “That’s highly unethical.”

    Etc, etc....

27. anon says:
    06 Nov 2006  at  08:27 am | #

    NBS: I mean, (Peter Heimlich) assumed a fake identity to trash his father in the press. Sorry, anyone who does that has zero credibility.

    Nasty, Brutish, and Short, isn’t that exactly what you’re doing here, hiding behind a pseudonym in an attempt to trash Peter Heimlich?

    Peter and his wife Karen aren’t hiding behind pseudonyms. Their names, contact e-mail, and phone number are available on their web site and they’ve been widely quoted in numerous articles.

    So how about it, NBS? What’s your real name and phone number, you little shit?

28. Dr. Ruth says:
    06 Nov 2006  at  09:28 am | #

    Is Rebecca a paid wife or what? Is Mommy and Danny would show up on a date- I think I would have called for a cab and left. What about her character? Was she desperate and dateless as well?

    And as for NB&S- What a pussy-must be so aligned w/ Phil that he can’t show his face.BTW-your Web page is so HS-ish...Paris Hilton- Oh please.

29. Monica says:
    06 Nov 2006  at  11:09 am | #

    Why on earth is this post relevant other than to point out that it was rather conveniently printed by the Post at a time when Phil could use positive press...maybe to humanize him. Other than that I could care less about his sexual behaviors and/or practices.

30. Nasty, Brutish & Crazy says:
    06 Nov 2006  at  11:23 am | #

    NBS’s comments are always lame so I never bothered to look at his blog, but his unwarrented attacks on Peter seem like a new low for him.

    I suppose if someone in your family is guilty of causing harm to the public in life or death scenarios he thinks you should just keep quiet. To speak out is just crazy. Well that’s not what I would do or anyone else with any morals would do. You should speak out and stop them any way you can. NBS doesn’t agree, instead you just shoot the messenger.

    Phil’s a crook that’s going to lose and Dr. Heimlichs shameless frauds are coming to light faster and faster. If there’s any justice in this world they would both be behind bars in that new jail Phil is dying to build.

31. Play w. ME says:
    07 Nov 2006  at  12:19 pm | #

    OH NBS, come on out and play w/ me! I want to know who you really are!

32. FSSK says:
    07 Nov 2006  at  03:44 pm | #

    I know who he is.

33. Oh pleez Share says:
    07 Nov 2006  at  03:56 pm | #

    Who is the man/woman behind the curtain?