The Sidebar

September 1979 editorial published by trade magazine Emergency Medical Services

A news video published yesterday by Business Insider dealt another blow to my father's fraudulent 40-year campaign which he called, "back blows are death blows."

Here's a clip I made from the story by reporters Gene Kim and Jessica Orwig. (Click the link to watch the entire segment. I tried to post it here, but I couldn't get the embed code to work.)

Via Police officers come to the rescue of choking man at Subway restaurant by Kendra Mann, WJLA News, July 2nd 2016:
Via Heimlich maneuver's creator fights Red Cross by Cliff Radel, Cincinnati Enquirer, January 21, 2013:
Via Red Cross reverses policy on choking aid by Abram Katz, October 23, 2006 (based on my research and tip):

And records from the Ohio Secretary of State's office show that the Dysphagia Foundation was renamed "The Heimlich Institute" Aug. 30, 1982.

source

Via a June 7, 1982 letter from my father to Dr. Day (embedded below):


I've already reported that my father's financial arrangement with Day was part of a bizarre campaign to eliminate backblows from choking rescue protocols.

"To win," as reporter Tom Francis put it, "the choking rescue crown."

And beginning in 1986 and for the next two decades, my father wore that crown. During those years, U.S. first aid guidelines recommended only his namesake treatment.

But if current first aid guidelines and the Fairfax cops are any indication, despite the efforts of my crooked father and his cronies, science appears to have righted itself.  

Associated Press photo (source)

Per my previous item, for years my father's been telling a bizarre, self-aggrandizing lie that the American Friends Service Committee shipped "tens of thousands" of Heimlich chest valves to the North Vietnamese army and civilian population during the war.

Who was the editor responsible for letting that whopper into my father's recent memoir, Heimlich's Maneuvers, published last week by Prometheus Books?

I don't know, but here's another editorial oops in the book.

Abram Katz (source)

Years ago I uncovered this Yale-based scam and gave it to medical writer Abram Katz who reported it in the October 23, 2006 New Haven Register:

(The) only known study comparing the Heimlich maneuver and back blows was performed by three Yale scientists: Richard L. Day, Edmund S. Crelin and Arthur B. DuBois.

The paper, published in 1982 in the journal Pediatrics, concluded that the Heimlich is superior. Back blows are not merely ineffective, they can force blockages down the throat and toward the larynx - exactly the wrong direction, the researchers concluded.

"Choking: The Heimlich Abdominal Thrust vs Back Blows: An Approach to Measurement of Inertial and Aerodynamic Forces," by Day, Crelin and DuBois, could well have been the final word.

Except that in acknowledgements at the end of the paper, the authors credit support from the "Dysphagia Foundation Inc. of Cincinnati Inc."

And records from the Ohio Secretary of State's office show that the Dysphagia Foundation was renamed "The Heimlich Institute" Aug. 30, 1982.

In other words, the Yale experts studying the Heimlich maneuver were apparently assisted by Dr. Henry J. Heimlich, developer and tireless promoter of the Heimlich maneuver. He referred to back blows as "death blows."

The connection between Heimlich and the Yale scientists appears to pose at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Richard L. Day MD (source)

Via a remembrance article about Dr. Day by Edwin Kiester Jr. published in the August 2005 University of Pittsburgh medical school magazine (emphasis added):

(Before his death in 1989, Dr. Day) questioned the accepted advice for sharp back blows to dislodge food particles jammed in the airway. So he designed a series of models to simulate the throat and used them to test the effectiveness of back blows against Henry Heimlich’s recommended method of squeezing the midsection. With a colleague at Yale, Arthur DuBois, he documented the inertial and aerodynamic forces at work in each method. They showed the Heimlich maneuver was more effective, and that back blows had the potential to move obstructions deeper into the throat. Their findings persuaded the American Heart Association to stop recommending back blows for dealing with choking. (The research was partially funded by Heimlich’s own foundation.)

From Choking: The Heimlich Abdominal Thrust vs Back Blows: An Approach to Measurement ofInertial and Aerodynamic Forces by Richard L. Day, MD, Edmund S. Crelin, PhD, DSc, and
Arthur B. DuBois, MD From the Departments of Pediatrics and Anatomy (Surgery), Yale University School at Medicine, and John B. Pierce Foundation, New Haven, Connecticut published in Pediatrics, July 1982:


From the website of the Ohio Secretary of State:


Note that the name change is dated a month after the publication of the Pediatrics article.

Via Heimlich's Maneuvers, here's what my father wrote (and Prometheus published), leaving out the fact that he paid for the study:



Finally, via the Yale Archives:

(Based on some quick Googling, I think this a scoop. But if you know of a previous media report, e-mail it to me and I'll give credit where it's due.) 

After years of lagging behind the rest of the world, the Canadian Red Cross (CRC) is finally updating their choking rescue guidelines.

Hey, I didn't say it - they did:

In many countries, the combination of back blows and abdominal thrusts has been used since the 2005 guidelines. In North America, using only abdominal thrusts was decided upon as it was easier for the lay rescuer to remember, not due to supporting evidence. Evidence now supports the combination of techniques as more successful than using only one method.

More from a CRC statement published last October:

Airway obstruction – for adults and children (one year or older), if the person shows signs of mild airway obstruction, encourage continued coughing but do nothing else. If he or she shows signs of severe airway obstruction and is conscious, apply up to five back blows. If this fails, give up to five abdominal thrusts. If the obstruction is still not relieved, continue alternating five back blows with five abdominal thrusts.

So why is Canada late to the dance? I don't know, but for decades, most of the world's first aid organizations have recommended backblows as the first treatment response.

Here's another question. Why did the CRC decide to continue to teach abdominal thrusts (a/k/a the Heimlich maneuver) rather than chest thrusts, the preferred treatment in Australia and New Zealand?

The Aussies have a straightforward explanation for their position:

Stephen Dean, Assistant CEO, St John Ambulance Australia's Queensland branch: "In the US, they still advocate the Heimlich Manoeuvre for choking but in Australia, we believe the evidence shows it is dangerous and so our guidelines don't promote it."

That argument certainly seems to be backed up this information: 

For conscious (choking) victims, case reports have shown success in relieving FBAO (Foreign Body Airway Obstruction) with any one of several techniques, including back blows/slaps, abdominal thrusts and chest thrusts. Frequently, more than one technique is needed to relieve the obstruction. However, there have been reported life-threatening complications associated with the use of abdominal thrusts.

...Severe complications from the use of this technique have been cited in the medical literature. Desaiet al. reported a case of traumatic dissection and rupture of the abdominal aorta after a forceful Heimlich maneuver. In addition to this complication, these authors cite reports of other complications occurring with the use of the Heimlich maneuver. These injuries include retinal detachment, rib fractures, and ruptures of abdominal organs. Additional injuries included rupture of the diaphragm, jejunum, liver, esophagus and stomach. Other reported injuries of vascular structures consisted of aortic stent graft displacement, rupture of the aortic valve, acute aortic regurgitation, laceration of a mesenteric vessel, and acute aortic thrombosis in both an aneurysmal and non-aneurysmal aorta.

The above is from the 2011 international first aid and resuscitation guidelines of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

Now take another look at this sentence from the CRC statement posted at the top of this item:

In North America, using only abdominal thrusts was decided upon as it was easier for the lay rescuer to remember, not due to supporting evidence.

Am I missing something or is this a rationale for continuing to teach a potentially life-threatening procedure simply because they don't want to take on the job of re-training the population? 

An enterprising reporter could certainly ask the CRC to provide the supporting evidence that persuaded them to continue recommending abdominal thrusts rather than switching to chest thrusts.