The Sidebar

Per Part I, on Monday I sent Cincinnati Enquirer news executive Peter Bhatia a list of what I considered seven reportorial errors in veteran Cincinnati reporter Cliff Radel's December 17, 2016 obituary of my father. I also asked him to provide me with the name of the supervising editor on the article.

Also in part I, on Tuesday I fact-checked what appeared to be these factual errors.

Radel claimed that the American Red Cross (ARC) did not use the term "Heimlich maneuver" in their first aid literature because my father demanded that they remove his name. In an e-mail in which I copied Bhatia, I asked the ARC if that was accurate.

Radel also reported that the Wright Brothers and George Washington Carver received the Lasker Award. I e-mailed the Lasker Foundation and got a prompt, courteous reply from David Keegan, the organization's Awards Program Director who confirmed Radel got that wrong.

I promptly forwarded Keegan's reply to Bhatia and to Brent Jones, Standards and Ethics Editor at USA Today, which had same-day published a shorter version of Radel's article (which included the Lasker error).

That's when things got interesting.

From: pbhatia@CINCINNA.GANNETT.COM 
To: peter.heimlich@gmail.com 
Subject: Re: request for published corrections
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 19:29:29 +0000

Peter: We will run a correction on the Lasker awards. I would note it was correct that your father won the award. We already fixed the bad headline. Otherwise, we leave you to your blog.

Peter Bhatia
Editor and Vice President, The Cincinnati Enquirer, and Ohio editor for the USA TODAY Network 


Subject: Re: request for published corrections
To: pbhatia@CINCINNA.GANNETT.COM
From: peter.heimlich@gmail.com
Cc: jlipman@gannett.com, dkeegan@laskerfoundation.org, Ben Kaufman/Cincinnati CityBeat

Peter:

Thank you for the heads-up and for the fixes, although I didn't appreciate your snide remark. Why blame me for catching reportorial errors when a lightweight like Cliff was assigned to write an obituary for someone as newsworthy and important as my father? 

In any event, just to confirm re: my Monday inquiry to you.

Based on your recent e-mail, my understanding is that the Enquirer has no intention of correcting the Belle Jacobson error; no interest in addressing Fred Webster's contradiction of my father's dubious tale about the Chinese soldier; and no interest in including anything about my father falsely claiming credit for inventing the esophagus operation.

I also asked you for the name of Cliff's editor on the obit. Can you share that, please?

Finally, re: this from Cliff's article:

The Red Cross’ inclusion of the back slaps offended Heimlich. So, in 1976, he asked the organization to remove his name from their first-aid literature for choking. That’s why the term "abdominal thrusts" is used.

Per my Monday inquiry to you, that last sentence is contradicted by information from the American Red Cross. I have an inquiry to the ARC and will let you know the result.

Cheers, Peter 


From: pbhatia@CINCINNA.GANNETT.COM
To: peter.heimlich@gmail.com
Subject: Re: request for published corrections
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 20:48:09 +0000

Not sure what was snide. If you took what I said that way there was no intent. In any case, yes, our correspondence is completed.


That tore it.

I don't care how many Pulitzers Bhatia has been associated with.

A journalist and reader's representative doesn't care whether or not his newspaper is providing readers with accurate information and also refuses to disclose the name of a supervising editor?

I should add that last summer a lengthy Enquirer article revisted a 15-year-old story hyping the use of the Heimlich maneuver for drowning rescue, a thoroughly-discredited treatment that has reportedly been associated with dozens of poor outcomes, including kids.

Whose idea was it to revisit this obscure story? I wanted to learn how it got into the paper, who was the supervising editor, and shouldn't the article be appended with a note informing readers that the treatment was unapproved and might injure or perhaps kill someone?

Bhatia and other Enquirer news staff refused to provide me with the name of the supervising editor or to append the article.

Back to Radel's article, you'll recall I copied Bhatia on my fact-checking inquiry to the ARC and clearly Bhatia didn't give a fig how they responded.

A few minutes after I got his "our correspondence is completed" e-mail, I received the ARC's reply on which Bhatia was copied.

I included it in the following e-mail.

Subject: complaint 
To: jlipman@gannett.com 
From: peter.heimlich@gmail.com 
Cc: mkilian@gannett.com, mawillia@usatoday.com 
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 18:23:46 -0500

Joanne Lipman
Senior Vice President, Chief Content Officer
Gannett Inc.

Dear Ms. Lipman:

This is a complaint against Peter Bhattia of the Cincinnati Enquirer for professional misconduct. Would you please review the following and forward this e-mail to the responsible human resources managers at Gannett and the Enquirer? I would appreciate being copied on those e-mails.

1) In an e-mail two days ago (which I posted on my blog) I brought to Mr. Bhatia's attention a number of reportorial concerns in Cliff Radel's December 17, 2016 obituary of my father, including what appeared to be a string of factual errors.

Per the e-mails below my signature, today I fact-checked and tagged one of those errors -- Mr. Radel incorrectly reported that the Wright Brother and George Washington Carver received the Lasker Award. After I shared that information with Mr. Bhatia -- an e-mail to me from an executive at the Lasker Foundation -- he agreed to publish a correction for that error. He also agreed to correct the headline on Mr. Radel's article which erroneously identified my father as a Cincinnati native. (Per my e-mail to Mr. Bhatia, the headline error was tagged and reported by former Enquirer reporter Ben Kaufman in his most recent Cincinnati CityBeat media watch column.)

However, for reasons that remain unclear, Mr. Bhatia refused to address the other apparent errors I brought to his attention.

Further -- and considerably more disconcerting -- in an e-mail this afternoon he terminated our correspondence despite the fact that in an e-mail a few minutes earlier, I informed him that I had a fact-checking inquiry in to the American Red Cross (ARC) regarding this questionable information in Mr. Radel's article:

The Red Cross’ inclusion of the back slaps offended (Dr.) Heimlich. So, in 1976, he asked the organization to remove his name from their first-aid literature for choking. That’s why the term “abdominal thrusts” is used.

To reiterate, Mr. Bhatia made it clear he did not care how the ARC might respond to my inquiry. In other words, he did not care whether the information in Radel's article was accurate or not.

Shortly after receiving Mr. Bhatia's e-mail terminating our correspondence, I received the following e-mail. Please note that Mr. Bhatia was copied by Mr. Lauritzen.

From: Don Lauritzen
To: peter.heimlich@gmail.com
CC: pbhatia@CINCINNA.GANNETT.COM
Subject: FW: blogger inquiry
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 21:44:40 +0000

Mr. Peter M. Heimlich:

Please accept our condolences regarding the passing of your father.

Following are responses to your questions.

Throughout history, the American Red Cross has recommended different protocols for removing foreign body obstructions blocking airways based on the most up-to-date science available on First Aid, CPR and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Our current recommendation is using cycles of 5 back blows and 5 abdominal thrusts to treat conscious choking children and adults. For conscious choking infants, the Red Cross recommends using cycles of 5 back blows and 5 chest thrusts.

The American Red Cross uses the term ‘abdominal thrusts’ in our training materials because it describes the action that people are performing. The term represents the correct medical and generic term used in evidence reviews and guidelines documents. We do not have any record of Dr. Heimlich prohibiting us from using the term ‘Heimlich Maneuver’ and are not aware of the use of the term in any American Red Cross training materials including those developed before 1976.

Thank you.

Don Lauritzen
Communications Officer

American Red Cross
National Headquarters
431 18th Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
202.303.4775

Since Mr. Bhatia terminated his correspondence with me, this is to request that you contact a responsible editor at the Enquirer and arrange for a published correction to Mr. Radel's article based on Mr. Lauritzen's e-mail.

2) As you may recall from my correspondence with you last summer, in response to multiple polite requests, without explanation Mr. Bhatia refused to provide me with the name of the supervising editor for this August 18, 2016 Enquirer article, 15 years later: Lifeguard, swimmer recall close call by Brett Milam. 

Today Mr. Bhatia also refused to provide me with name of the editor responsible for Mr. Radel's obituary of my father.

This is to request that you contact a responsible editor at the Enquirer, obtain the names of the supervising editors on those two articles, and that you provide me with those names.

3) In order to determine if Mr. Radel's article requires further correcting, would you also please ask a responsible editor to review the other reportorial concerns about Mr. Radel's article which I brought to Mr. Bhatia's attention and which he refused to address?

4) Finally, this is to request that your office provide me with a determination if Mr. Bhatia's actions are in compliance with Gannett policy.

Thank you for your time/consideration and I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

Peter M. Heimlich
Atlanta
ph: (208)474-7283
website: http://medfraud.info
blog: http://the-sidebar.com
e-mail: peter.heimlich@gmail.com

cc:

Michael Kilian, The Enquirer
Ben Kaufman, Cincinnati CityBeat

Yesterday Ms. Lipman e-mailed me that she'd turned the matter over to Brent Jones.

Here's the original and the revised headline on Radel's article:

 

The article is now appended with:


Even though Bhatia was informed by Don Lauritzen, at this writing the false information about the American Red Cross acceding to my father's demands is still in Radel's article.

At this writing, the USA Today version of the obit still includes this error:

Finally, I sincerely appreciated Don Lauritzen's kind condolence note and I promptly e-mailed him a warm thank-you.

source

According to the organization's website, "The (American) Red Cross has been the go-to source for more than a century for information, skills and confidence to act in an emergency, at home, in school and in the workplace."

Based on the following, sometimes they're "the don't go-to source."

This starts with my March 14 item, Punk'd by my 94-year-old father, Chicago talk radio host tells listeners to "forget the Red Cross" choking rescue guidelines, about a March 12, 2014 segment on an affiliate station of WGN Chicago.

Here's a clip I stitched together in which my father convinces talk show veteran Jonathon "Johnny B" Brandmeier and his second banana to dump on the American Red Cross because they recommend backblows as an effective treatment for choking.

One fact my father failed to mention? Every leading first aid organization in the world recommends backblows as an effective treatment for choking.

As you can hear, Brandmeier and his banana got peeled.



For a follow-up item, I wanted to know if the show intended to invite a Red Cross representative to respond.

Todd Manley (source)

Look what I received Friday morning:

Mr. Heimlich,

I did not realize you hadn't been copied on a response from the Red Cross on this topic. I will forward that to you. Their spokesperson has indicated there is no need for such an interview. Thanks for your concern.

Sincerely,

Todd Manley
VP/Content & Programming
Tribune Radio

Then he sent me this:

From: Don Lauritzen <Don.Lauritzen@redcross.org>
Date: April 11, 2014 at 10:56:17 AM CDT
To: Todd Manley <tmanley@wgnradio.com>;
Cc: Martha Carlos <Martha.Carlos@redcross.org>
Subject: RE: media inquiry-I don't think you were copied on the response

Mr. Manley:

We’re reaching out to you regarding Peter Heimlich’s recent email.

Mr. Heimlich does not represent the Red Cross and has no affiliation with our organization. We have not requested that a Red Cross representative be invited to appear as a guest.

Our American Red Cross Greater Chicago Region communications team (headed by Martha Carlos, chief communications officer) and our national office want to continue the excellent relationship we have with your organization and provide any support that we can.

Please contact us if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Don Lauritzen
Officer, Preparedness and Health and Safety Services Communications

American Red Cross
National Headquarters
431 18th Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
202.303.4775 (p)
202.303.6604 (f)
don.lauritzen@redcross.org
@rockondon1
redcross.org

I never asked Lauritzen or anyone at the Red Cross to get involved.

And give me a stack of bibles on which to place my mitt, I swear I've never represented myself as a representative of his organization.

Unless I'm missing something, here's what this looks like.

1) Without informing me, Lauritzen -- a communications executive at Red Cross national headquarters -- interjected himself and the Red Cross into my media inquiry to WGN.

2) Without being invited by the station, Lauritzen preemptively volunteered that the Red Cross had no interest in any potential opportunity to provide potentially lifesaving first aid information (and to promote his organization) via one of Chicago's prime media outlets.

3) Todd Manley at Tribune Radio used the Red Cross's lack of interest as a fig leaf to not provide accurate, potentially lifesaving first aid information to his station's audience.

If there's any logic here, it zoomed past me.

How does Lauritzen's action benefit his employer? Isn't that Job One for a communications rep?

And how does Manley's decision benefit his station's listeners? 

Logic aside, the Red Cross and Tribune Radio clearly got what they wanted -- to avoid providing accurate, potentially lifesaving information to the public.

As for me, thanks to Manley forwarding me Lauritzen's e-mail, I got the item you're reading.

It looks like the only losers in this exchange are Tribune Radio's audience.

Oh, screw 'em. If they're interested, let 'em get the information somewhere else.

This goes back a couple of months but it bugs me, so I'm documenting it.

On January 21, the Cincinnati Enquirer published IN-DEPTH: Red Cross' recommendations 'horrify' Heimlich, a front page report by staff reporter Cliff Radel about my father's displeasure with the American Red Cross (ARC) for downgrading the Heimlich maneuver to a secondary treatment response for choking. (The original version is archived, but click here to read it via USA Today.)

The ARC now recommends performing a series of backblows; if that fails to remove the obstruction, rescuers should then proceed with "abdominal thrusts."

Here's a clip from an accompanying video interview Radel conducted with my father:



"The Red Cross teaches not the Heimlich maneuver anymore. They call it the abdominal thrust. This is probably the most important thing I have to say. The Heimlich maneuver is putting your fist above the belly button -- you can even save yourself -- but below the rib cage and pressing inward and upward. And what that does is it pushes the diaphragm up which compresses the lung and causes a huge flow of air that we've measured, that simply carries the object out -- it can only go in one direction and it comes completely out. An abdominal thrust -- not only doesn't it save a life because it doesn't push the diaphragm up but it causes deathly injuries -- a ruptured liver or spleen or something of that nature. So it's extremely important that you do the Heimlich maneuver and not the abdominal thrust."

The day it appeared I e-mailed this question to Don Lauritzen, an ARC media rep:

Is there a difference between the "Heimlich maneuver" and abdominal thrusts as taught by the ARC?

His reply?

No.

So I e-mailed Radel and asked if the Enquirer intended to inform its readers he had provided a platform for the erroneous ramblings of an almost 93-year-old man who reportedly lives in a retirement community.

I also asked Radel why his article failed to inform readers that the ARC's "backblows-before-Heimlich" update happened in Spring 2006 and if he asked my father why he'd waited almost seven years to make a fuss.

In other words, why was Radel's front page story newsworthy?

Randy Essex (source)

Radel didn't reply, but I got this in a January 24 e-mail from Enquirer editor Randy Essex:

Cliff isn’t able to do further reporting to answer your questions; he needs to move on to other things.

Essex also wrote me that he joined the Enquirer in June of last year, so he wasn't on board for Radel's previous rah-rah article that ran on April 12, 2012, Young students soon to become Heimlich Heroes.

Here's a fair question.

Why is the Enquirer -- the newspaper that in Spring 2003 ran front page articles exposing my father as a "liar and a thief" and for conducting medical atrocity experiments on Chinese AIDS patients -- now apparently trying to rehabilitate his reputation?


This item has been slightly updated.

Rotary International, Bay City, MI, 2006: incoming president Gena Gates (left), source

Per the June 3, 2011 Washington Post, the American Red Cross warns that performing the Heimlich maneuver on someone who's drowning is "unnecessary and potentially dangerous."

How dangerous? From the same article, this body count:

In Tampa, which has one of the highest drowning rates in the country, Dr. James Orlowski said he has documented nearly 40 cases where rescuers performing the Heimlich maneuver have caused complications for the victim. Orlowski is chief of pediatrics and pediatric intensive care at University Community Hospital in Tampa.

Complications = brain damage or death.

Meanwhile in Bay City, Michigan, as reported by Holly Setter in the Bay City Times:

This year’s recipient of the Teamwork Hero award from the Red Cross “Heroes Among Us” recognition program, (Heather) Irish put her medical training to good use and saved a man who would have drowned without aid...Irish pulled him above water and began administering the Heimlich maneuver to clear his airway. Just as he finished vomiting water, Irish said he went into a grand mal seizure.

 ...While she said she is thankful that she was able to step in and save a life, Irish said she’s a bit befuddled by the Red Cross hero designation.

“I think it’s absolutely ridiculous,” she said.

Absolutely ridiculous indeed. Please read on.

After seeing Ms. Setter's article, I wanted to learn why the American Red Cross (ARC) would present an award to someone who misguidedly performed a discredited medical treatment that their organization warned against.

So I e-mailed these questions to Gena Gates, Executive Director of Michigan's East Shoreline ARC chapter, which presented the award:

1) Based on this description (in the Bay City Times article), it's unclear whether or not Ms. Irish was taught to apply the Heimlich maneuver (a/k/a abdominal thrusts) to clear water from the airway of a near-drowning victim in a Red Cross training class, perhaps via your chapter. Can you clarify?
 
2) Based on the presentation of the award, my understanding is that your chapter endorses the use of the Heimlich maneuver for near-drowning rescue. Is that accurate?
 
3) When Ms. Setter was reporting her article, did any representatives of your organization make her aware of the American Red Cross's position on the use of the Heimlich maneuver for near-drowning per the attached August 2005 ARC "hot topics" memo and per this 2006 policy statement? 

 Her answers:

1. I don’t know whether Ms. Irish was taught to use abdominal thrusts to clear water from the airway of a near-drowning victim. As she is quoted, if she had simply followed her training, she would not have thought to use this method. I do not know what training Ms. Irish has had.
 
2. Our chapter follows the guidelines established by the American National Red Cross for lifesaving skills training, as we are required to do.
 
3. There was no discussion with Ms. Setter or with any of our heroes about the Red Cross position on any lifesaving techniques.

...Ms. Irish did not actually receive an award at our event yesterday. After her initial interview with our staff, she did not respond to phone calls....

In other words, Ms. Gates didn't do her homework and the recipient didn't even want the award.

Assuming she'd want to fix her goof so that Bay City Times readers didn't get the idea that they should perform the Heimlich on a drowning victim and perhaps add more names to Dr. Orlowski's casualty list, I then sent Ms. Gates this modest request:

Under the circumstances, do you or any other Red Cross representatives intend to write a clarification letter to the editor of the Bay City Times or to request a published clarification?

I didn't receive a reply. So I sent her a follow-up.

I didn't receive a reply to that either, so I sent her another follow-up. I didn't receive a reply to that either.

Okay, I thought. Since Ms. Gates is playing ostrich, I'll bring this to Red Cross national in Washington.

Remember their slogan? "Together, We Can Save a Life." Surely they'd encourage her to put pen to paper to correct the record or maybe they'd write to the paper themselves?

Here's what came back: 

Subject: RE: media inquiry
From: LauritzenD@usa.redcross.org
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 17:00:54 -0400
To: pmh@medfraud.info
CC: JantzM@usa.redcross.org, david_markenson@nymc.edu, gatesg@redcross-esc.org

Mr. Peter Heimlich:

After reading your email and reviewing the correspondence you submitted, I spoke with Ms. Gena Gates on the phone. Ms. Gates confirmed that the East Shoreline Chapter will not be submitting a letter to the editor of the Bay City Times regarding this matter.

The intent of the chapter was to recognize Ms. Irish for her selfless, heroic actions of helping someone in need and for saving the gentleman’s life. We do not intend to diminish the efforts of Ms. Irish by asking clarification of exactly what skills she performed that day.

Sincerely,

Don Lauritzen
Officer, Preparedness and Health and Safety Services Communications
American Red Cross National Headquarters
Address: 431 18th Street NW, Washington DC 20006
Phone: 202.303.4775 Fax: 202.303.6604
Email: lauritzend@usa.redcross.org

Unless I'm missing something, the American Red Cross is now on the record supporting the application of dangerous and improper medical treatments if the victim survives.

As for these awards, which the Red Cross hands out endlessly, situations like make it seem like they're less for the benefit of the recipients - remember that Ms. Irish didn't even want hers? - and more of an opportunity to generate positive media coverage and attract donations.

Fine, business is business. But in this case, by failing to clean up their mess, the Red Cross is putting lives at risk. Also, is writing a quick letter to the editor such a challenge, Ms. Gates? Mr. Lauritzen?      

How about the Bay City Times? Surely they'd would want to correct the record with a quick clarification in order to protect the health and welfare of their readers.

How about this? "To our readers: Holly Setter's report about the East Shoreline Red Cross's 'Heroes Among Us' award may have created the impression that the Heimlich maneuver was an acceptable treatment for drowning rescue. In fact, performing the treatment might kill someone. Don't do it, folks."

Or words to that effect.

After all, the Bay City Times claims to be all about helping their community. Says so here on their website:

Holly Setter, Bay City Times

After being fully informed about the issues, including that the ARC warns against the use of the Heimlich maneuver for drowning rescue, how did they repond?

Subject: Re: author inquiry
From: Holly Setter <setter@boothmidmichigan.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 08:36:59 -0400
To: Peter M. Heimlich <pmh@medfraud.info>
 
Mr. Heimlich,
 
I appreciate your follow through on this particular issue. In my article, I did not imply that the Red Cross advocates using the Heimlich maneuver as an effect means of saving someone who has nearly drowned nor did I dispute that. The woman featured in the article described her actions as similar to the Heimlich and that was how it was presented to me by staff at the Red Cross prior to their decision to not give her the award.
 
My editor and I do not feel there is any need for a correction or clarification as the information in the article was accurate to what both the Red Cross and Ms. Irish know to have happened and there is no assertion that it is the proper method for responding to a drowning situation.
 
If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me.
 
-Holly
---
Holly Setter
Booth Mid-Michigan
hsetter@boothmidmichigan.com
(989) 513-6907

So much for the community.

I then asked Ms. Setter for her editor's name so I could include it in the item you're now reading. She told me his name is Rob Clark. I wanted to include a photo, so I Googled his name.

This information that turned up prompts me to take a brief detour into media criticism:


Did the fact that Mr. Clark succeeded Ms. Gates as president of the local Rotary affiliate have any bearing on his decision not to publish a clarification regarding his paper's Heimlich for drowning snafu?

I have no idea. And that's the problem.

Simply by being a Rotary member, Mr. Clark opens the door for readers to accuse him of bias. Does he deep-six critical reporting about other Rotarian's businesses? Is he hustling for ads at Rotary lunches?, etc.

Obviously the smart move for journalists is to circumvent the problem by not joining, let alone heading, such an organization.

By the way, for a possible future item, if you know any other mainstream media journalists who are Rotarians, please e-mail me the details.

End of detour. Back on the main road.

After I publish this item, I'm sending a link to officials at Red Cross national with the following request: 

Would you please send a memo to your chapters asking them to stop honoring people who perform the Heimlich maneuver on near-drowning victims?

Because as much as I thrive on newsworthy stories to blog about, I'd prefer not writing any more about young people who died in drownings after they received the Heimlich maneuver, like the ones posted on my website.

Here's one from Ms. Gates's home state:

Derrick Kelly lay unconscious on the deck of Eastern Michigan University’s Jones Pool, bloody foam oozing from his mouth and nose.

At that moment on the night of Jan. 31, 2003, decades’ worth of effort on the part of Dr. Henry J. Heimlich came into play when the maneuver bearing his name was performed in a desperate attempt to get the 17-year-old Detroit high school student breathing.

As part of an investigation into the incident, one of the lifeguards who tried to revive Kelly provided this written account of her efforts:

“I proceeded to give the victim rescue breaths, the breaths did not go in. The reason being was because the male’s jaw was locked shut and his tongue was swollen and stuck to the roof of his mouth. When I unlocked his jaw and moved his tongue I gave another rescue breath. As soon as I backed away to check his pulse, bloody foam came pouring from his nose and mouth. I then proceeded to do abdominal thrusts to remove the bloody foam, and then rescue breathing after the thrusts.”

She continued the routine for about three minutes. The effort failed. Kelly never drew another breath.