Monday, June 25, 2012

The Natasha Stuckey case, Cincinnati, June 25, 1993, Part III: 19 years after claimed drowning rescue, the Stuckeys don't want me writing about it and won't provide minimal supporting documentation


Natasha and Tyronne Stuckey (via Facebook)
According to a July 18, 1993 Cincinnati Enquirer opinion column by business reporter John Eckberg:

(Todd) Schebor, president of Schebor Landscaping Services, and (Jack) Baker, an employee, were working at the Kugler Mill Square Apartments on Beech Street in Bond Hill at 2 p.m. on June 25 when (eight-year-old Natasha Stuckey) nearly drowned.

...(The) two men were mowing the front lawn...when a crowd of adults and children gathered and began to scream for help at the pool...(Schebor) hurried to the water and found a lifeless Natasha. She had bluish skin and wasn't breathing.

Schebor ran to call 911. He returned and within seconds began to perform the Heimlich maneuver...On the third try, vomit and water completely cleared from the girl's airway, and she started breathing again. She regained consciousness immediately.


Paramedics arrived, administered oxygen and took her to the hospital. She was released the next day - fully recovered.


In a previous item, I discussed a variety of questions regarding Eckberg's column and a July 16, 1993 CBS This Morning feature by medical correspondent Howard Torman MD.

Recent e-mails I exchanged with Natasha Stuckey - now 27 and still living in Cincinnati - and her father, Tyronne "Ty" Stuckey, only raised more questions.

Before getting to those, the fundamental problem with the Enquirer column and the CBS feature is that they appear to be the only media coverage of the events that supposedly took place 19 years ago today.

That is, it appears there weren't any straight news reports about this very dramatic, unquestionably newsworthy drowning rescue and subsequent hospitalization.

If there were no news reports, where did Eckberg and CBS obtain the information?

Read both stories and you'll see that landscapers Todd Schebor and Jack Baker are the only sources of the information about the event. 

Missing from both is any original source verification that Natasha Stuckey did, in fact, receive medical care.

Eckberg mentions unnamed paramedics showing up and administering oxygen, an ambulance run, and an unnamed hospital. (And who provided him with that information? He doesn't say.)

There's also no indication in either story that any medical personnel - EMTs, attending physicians, nurses - or a hospital spokesperson were contacted.

What about records for Schebor's 911 call, the ambulance run sheet, and a likely police report? Nothing about those either.

Per the following unedited correspondence, I provided Natasha Stuckey and her father the opportunity to provide minimal documentation that would quickly verify that the near-drowning and subsequent events occurred.

Natasha refused.

I didn't receive a reply from her father.

Screenshot via PeekYou.com

At the end of last month, I received this unsolicited e-mail:

Subject: website
From: Natasha Stuckey (xxxxxxxx@yahoo.com)
Date: 5/31/2012
To: Peter M. Heimlich

I am Natasha Stuckey that nearly drowned 20 years ago, and had been saved by your father's technique. I will need for you to remove my name off of your webiste [sic]. I was in shock to run across this on your website, I take this matter very seriously. This has opened a new wound for me.

Here's what she was referring to, her name listed among dozens of other subjects of interest on my website:


I couldn't comprehend why such a minor notation would elicit such an anxious response, especially almost two decades after the fact. Why the "shock" and the demand to remove her name from my site?

Plus her life was saved by the Heimlich, right? Wouldn't she want to share the good news?  

Naturally I was curious, so I responded straightaway.

From: Peter M. Heimlich
To: Natasha Stuckey
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012
Subject: Re: website

Dear Natasha,

Thanks for your e-mail and I'd be happy to discuss this with you.

Before moving forward, however, I need to verify you are who you say you are. I have no reason to doubt you, but at the moment all I have from you is a Yahoo e-mail address.

Thanks for your understanding and I look forward to your reply.

Cordially,

Peter

Peter M. Heimlich
Atlanta
ph: (208)474-7283
website: Medfraud

A short while later, I received this:

Subject: Re: website
From: Natasha Stuckey
Date: 5/31/2012
To: Peter M. Heimlich

Peter,

I am the girl that nearly drowned in July 1993. The landscapers that removed me from the pool that summer administered the Hemlich [sic] which cleared my lungs. I woke up in Jewish Hospital and then had been moved to Children's for observation. Last night I just happened to google [sic] my name and came across your website. I was shocked when I looked at the website, and did go through a variety of the articles that had been linked to it. I have always dodged publicity from the incident because this is still a fresh open wound. I am not comfortable about this situation at all, and I do not discuss this with anyone. My family knows because I was 8 at the time and this was almost 20 years ago.

Huh?

From: Peter M. Heimlich
To: Natasha Stuckey
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012
Subject: Re: website

Sorry, I don't understand. Why would you be uncomfortable?

Peter

Her explanation:

Subject: Re: website
From: Natasha Stuckey
Date: 5/31/2012
To: Peter M. Heimlich

This was a tough situation, and I am still sensitive about pools and being around water. Even after taking multiple swim lessons, I have not been able to get into the pool comfortably. This made me reflect on that incident and find my article from the Cincinnati Enquirer from July 18, 1993. I understand your purpose for trying to prove your cause. Yet, I am not substantial support. I do exist, this situation did happen and the Heimlich Manuever [sic] did save my life. I do not want to be associated with your claim for medical fraud, and want to be removed from the site. I do not want my name linked to this at all.

None of this made sense to me.

Even if she's "sensitive about pools and being around water," why should she care if I or anyone else was interested in the case?

My father certainly was. In 1994, he published this in a peer-reviewed journal:

From The Heimlich Maneuver in Infants and Children by Henry Heimlich MD, Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, April 1994

I don't welcome being told what I may or may not write about. Nevertheless, if she had a legitimate psychological problem as a result of being rescued from drowning almost 20 years ago, I had no desire to contribute to that.

So I presented her with what I considered to be a reasonable offer:

Subject: Re: website
From: Peter M. Heimlich
Date: 5/31/2012
To: Natasha Stuckey

Natasha,

I'll seriously consider removing your name from my website after you provide me with letters from representatives of Jewish and Children's Hospitals confirming the dates you were hospitalized.

Peter

If she was acting in good faith, why should she have a problem with that?

Turns out that was a big problem for her.

Subject: Re: website
From: Natasha Stuckey
Date: 5/31/2012
To: Peter M. Heimlich

I will not give you my personal information. Especially when the Cincinnati Enquirer has it documented. Your site has false claims, using my name. My lawyer will be in touch with you.

Simply obtaining confirmation of the dates is "personal information"? And why would any of this compel her to play the lawyer card?

One more polite approach from me, including a clarification:

From: Peter M. Heimlich
To: Natasha Stuckey
Sent: 5/31/12
Subject: Re: website

Natasha,

I haven't asked you for any personal information, just verification from the hospitals of your dates of hospitalization. In any event, I'm planning to report about your case on my blog next week, so if you wish to add anything else or to discuss further before then, please let me know.

By the way, were you aware that your case was reported by CBS network news?

Cordially,

Peter

Here's her final e-mail (to which I didn't reply):

Subject: Re: website
From: Natasha Stuckey
Date: 5/31/2012
To: Peter M. Heimlich

Peter,

You asked for my hospital release records, there are HIPAA laws against that. I have asked you to remove my name off of your website. I do not need to be mentioned on any blog, website or new story. I never talk to reporters and do not need to be in the news. I wanted to be civilized and email you about this. This situation did not "allegedly" happen. My "case" needs not to be discussed. You have no facts, only "suspicions". My lawyer will be in touch, you are violating my civil rights, which are not protected by the first amendment.

I'm not sure where she got that information about HIPAA (and about the First Amendment), but I hope she didn't pay her attorney for it.

In fact, the law provides patients with easier access to obtain and to share their medical records. From HIPAA Basics: Medical Privacy in the Electronic Age:


Therefore the decision to withhold verification of the dates of her hospitalization belongs to Ms. Stuckey.

Tyronne "Ty" Stuckey

The next week, as I informed her, I posted my first item in this series.

For a follow-up, I had questions for Natasha's father, Tyronne "Ty" Stuckey, a prominent Cincinnati businessman, spoken word poet, and philanthropist who lends his time to a variety of nonprofits.

For example, according to Lori Fovel, Communications Director at the Cincinnati chapter of the American Heart Association, since 2002 he's been on the board of that organization.

In response to my e-mail inquiry, that evening I received this:

Subject: Re: media inquiry
From: Tyronne Stuckey
Date: 6/5/2012
To: Peter M. Heimlich

Peter, my concern it [sic] that of my daughter. You have open up [sic] old wounds in her life. She told me she wanted no part or association with what you are doing on that website and or blog. Peter, she ask you and I am asking that you remove her name from any current or actions or plans you have with your website or blog. I do expect an answer as to which actions you plan to take.

Thank You in advance

Tyronne Stuckey

Sent from my iPhone

Here's my reply to his request:

Subject: Re: media inquiry
From: Peter M. Heimlich
Date: 6/6/2012
To: Tyronne Stuckey

Tyronne,

I've decided to make you an offer that I've never made before.

In an unsolicited e-mail I received last week from Natasha about the reported near-drowning from June 25, 1993, she wrote, "I woke up in Jewish Hospital and then had been moved to Children's (Hospital) for observation."

All you need do is to arrange for representatives of those two hospitals to mail me letters confirming the dates she was a patient. I'm not asking for any personal or medical information - just confirmation of the dates of her stay.

Immediately upon receiving the letters, I'll delete Natasha's name from my website, delete my blog item from yesterday, and I'll never write about or discuss the case again. I also promise to immediately destroy the letters from the hospitals and to never disclose the contents.

Based on the paternal sentiment expressed in your e-mail, presumably you'll jump at this opportunity.

In any event, please let me know by end of the day Monday, June 11, if you accept my offer so I may know how to proceed.

Cheers, Peter

Peter M. Heimlich
Atlanta
ph: (208)474-7283
website: Medfraud

I haven't received a reply, but my offer's still on the table.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Florida college paper: Cincinnati's Heimlich Institute has dumped my father's dangerous drowning claims


"O" is for Oracle. And Orlowski.

From USF professor fights Heimlich maneuver’s use in drowning by Margarita Abramova, just published by the University of South Florida Oracle:
The Heimlich Institute has stopped advocating on their website for the Heimlich maneuver to be used as a first aid measure for drowning victims.

...Patrick Ward, executive director of Deaconess Associations, the parent company of the Heimlich Institute, said the Institute doesn’t take a position on the Heimlich maneuver for drowning. The Institute’s main function, he said, is teaching the Heimlich maneuver for choking.

“We’ve cleaned out a lot of stuff on that site because all we’re going to do is focus on the (education initiatives),” he said. “We’re not talking about anything else.”

But Peter Heimlich, whose website has long been dedicated to disproving his father’s theory in relation to drowning and called his father’s work on the subject “dangerous quackery,” said the removal of the information had more significance. It happened shortly after he sent an email to Ward and the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

“I expressed my concern that the Institute was putting the public at risk by promoting my father’s crackpot medical claims,” he said. “The next day I visited the website and discovered that dozens of pages had been scrubbed. Virtually every mention of drowning...had disappeared.”
...(Peter) Heimlich and (USF professor James P.) Orlowski consider the institute’s dismissal of the Heimlich maneuver for drowning as an important step in making it completely obsolete.

“They finally stopped pushing it,” Orlowski said. “For years, Heimlich used his institute to push his maneuver, especially to lifeguards and lifesavers, despite the scientific evidence.“


...Orlowski said the original premise of using the Heimlich maneuver as a first aid technique for drowning victims is that it would get water out of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory system.

But, he said, water doesn’t get into or block the airway of a drowning victim.

“The entire explanation that he gave was scientifically unsound and illogical,” he said. “Water’s quickly absorbed from the airway into the bloodstream,” he said. “You don’t have water obstructing the airway at all.”

James P. Orlowski MD (source)

Today's story caps a September 30, 2007 Oracle report, Doctors choke on other use for Heimlich maneuver by reporter Natalie Gagliordi:
Dr. James Orlowski, chief of pediatrics at University Community Hospital (UCH), has been one of Heimlich's most prominent critics since he began to promote the Heimlich maneuver as a first response for drowning victims. 

Orlowski first noticed Heimlich's actions 19 years ago as a resident at the Cleveland Clinic.
"I started doing drowning research in high school, when I wrote my first abstract paper on the subject," Orlowski said. "I had always respected Dr. Heimlich for his work on choking, but his explanations for drowning defied scientific knowledge."

In 1987 Orlowski published an article in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) documenting the case of a young drowning victim. The boy was submerged under water for one to two minutes and then given the Heimlich maneuver as a first response rather than CPR.

"This should have been a routine resuscitation," Orlowski said. "But instead the boy aspirated on his own vomit, fell into a coma and died seven years later."

Orlowski said he collected more than 30 cases that showed the Heimlich maneuver to be a hindrance to drowning rescue. 

Much of the controversy that has evolved out of Heimlich's claims has thickened since 2002, when his son, Peter Heimlich, said he began to unearth years of medical fraud.
For the recent article, I provided the following quotes that didn't make it into print. I don't know when or if a reporter will provide me with another opportunity to say this, so I'm posting 'em here:
Many medical professionals were intimidated by my father: he was famous, he had access to the media, and he regularly tried to ruin people's careers simply because they disagreed with his theories. So it was easier to just stay out of his way.
In contrast, Dr. Orlowski was courageous and principled. He knew my father didn't even understand the physiology of drowning and, from the beginning, he challenged my father's junk science in the medical journals and in the media.

Since 1974, my father relentlessly hyped the Heimlich for drowning based on evidence ranging from flimsy to fraudulent. Now the Heimlich Institute has finally waved the white flag. There's no question that Dr. Orlowski deserves much of the credit for that victory.

Sunday, June 17, 2012

Fargo daily publishes my letter re: Dr. Neal Barnard's history of hyping the Heimlich for drowning rescue & turning a blind eye to "malariotherapy"

My father and Dr. Neal Barnard at a 25th Anniversary gala of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), West Hollywood, CA, April 11, 2010; click here for video in which my father appears at timestamp 1:45

HERE IS THE REST OF THE STORY REGARDING DR. NEAL BARNARD AND DR. HEIMLICH, Letter to the Editor, The Forum, Fargo, North Dakota, June 16, 2012 

The paper published a slightly edited version of my letter. Here's the original, including links to supporting documents:
 
Based on my experience, the headline The full Neal deal: Fargo-born nutrition advocate doesn’t avoid controversy for Tammy Swift's May 20, 2012 feature about Neal Barnard MD got it wrong.

Dr. Barnard has repeatedly avoided discussing his controversial relationship with my father, the physician famous for “the Heimlich maneuver.”

For example, the LA Weekly reported that in its mission statement and IRS filings, “PCRM says it is 'strongly opposed to unethical human research.' (But they) hand out a major award named after Dr. Henry Heimlich, who has been condemned by mainstream medical organizations around the world for his 20-year program of trying to cure cancer and AIDS by injecting people with malaria-infected blood...(Dr.) Barnard wouldn't come to the phone in his D.C. office to defend Heimlich, who has remained on PCRM's medical advisory board since 1986.”

Then there's my father's controversial four-decade crusade to promote the use of the Heimlich maneuver (abdominal thrusts) to revive drowning victims.

Last year the Washington Post reported that the “American Red Cross; the United States Lifesaving Association; the American Heart Association; the Institute of Medicine; the International Life Saving Federation and many experienced doctors and academics have strongly inveighed against doing 'abdominal thrusts' for drowning victims...Dr. James Orlowski (chief of pediatrics at University Community Hospital in Tampa) said he has documented nearly 40 cases where rescuers performing the Heimlich maneuver have caused complications for the victim.”

Nevertheless, for decades Dr. Barnard has enthusiastically hyped the Heimlich for drowning in letters to the editor, in newspaper articles, and on ABC 20/20. His organization even produced a TV spot and issued a press release recommending the treatment.

After reading your profile - which identifies Dr. Barnard as “a psychiatrist by training” - I wrote him and asked if he and his organization continue to recommend performing the Heimlich maneuver on drowning victims.

Despite multiple e-mails and faxes, I haven't received a reply.

Peter M. Heimlich
Duluth, GA


This item has been updated.

Thursday, June 14, 2012

The Natasha Stuckey case, Cincinnati, June 25, 1993, Part II: Where are the news reports? And where's my father's missing desk?



Part I of this series consisted of a review of all known articles about the Natasha Stuckey case: an opinion column in the Cincinnati Enquirer, a CBS This Morning TV feature, and some passing references in articles by my father and by my mother.

To my knowledge, the Enquirer and CBS stories are the only original reporting about the case. This installment is my analysis of those two stories and resulting questions.

I usually blog short items, but this one's long and requires your concentration and time, probably about fifteen minutes worth. I didn't want to split this into segments, so readers with short attention spans: consider yourselves warned.

Before going further, in order to better grasp the material, I recommend you first read both stories and keep them open on your desktop for easy reference.

Click here for the July 18, 1993 Enquirer column by business reporter John Eckberg, Rescue Supports Heimlich as First Maneuver.

Click here for a transcript of the July 16, 1993 CBS This Morning story by medical correspondent Howard Torman MD.

Eckberg's column provides the most detail:
(Todd) Schebor, president of Schebor Landscaping Services, and (Jack) Baker, an employee, were working at the Kugler Mill Square Apartments on Beech Street in Bond Hill at 2 p.m. on June 25 when Natasha nearly drowned.

It was a Friday, the two men were mowing the front lawn - looking forward to the weekend - when a crowd of adults and children gathered and began to scream for help at the pool.


Schebor and Baker, a Goshen resident, hurried to the water and found a lifeless Natasha. She had bluish skin and wasn't breathing.


Schebor ran to call 911.


He returned and within seconds began to perform the Heimlich maneuver.


Schebor, a Symmes Township resident, had seen a television public service announcement six months before from the Heimlich Institute about the value of the Heimlich maneuver for drowning.


"She wasn't breathing, and I knew that CPR would not get any air in her," said the 30-year-old Schebor. "My wife and I were discussing it one evening about what we would do. And after watching television, we decided that the Heimlich maneuver was the right way.
 

"As soon as I saw that girl (Natasha) and the stuff coming out of her nose and mouth, I said the best way to get the water out of her was the Heimlich."
 

He pressed against the girl's abdomen with his fist, which pushed her diaphragm upward and compressed the lungs - forcing out water. On the third try, vomit and water completely cleared from the girl's airway, and she started breathing again.

She regained consciousness immediately.


Paramedics arrived, administered oxygen and took her to the hospital. She was released the next day - fully recovered.
Here's what I consider to be a fundamental concern re: the two stories.
 
Database and library microfiche searches of the Enquirer, the Cincinnati Post, and other Cincinnati and national news media failed to produce any news reports about the event.

In other words, it appears that the only published stories are Eckberg's column and the CBS feature.

Screenshot via the Hamilton County Public Library's Newsdex article search
In my opinion, the apparent absence of news reports about such a dramatic series of events is conspicuous.

It's no secret that drowning and drowning rescues are a staple subject of broadcast and print news, especially during swimming season, of course.

For example, click here for a Google News search with the keywords "drowning" and "lifeguard."

Cincinnati has a string of TV news stations and in 1993 the Queen City still had two daily newspapers, the Enquirer and the (now defunct) Post.

Only weeks before June 25, 1993 - the date Eckberg ascribes to the Stuckey rescue - both papers had closely reported a high-profile campaign by my father.

In fact, Eckberg hung his column on that hook:
It's a good thing that Todd Schebor and Jack Baker, who recently saved a Bond Hill girl's life at a swimming pool, aren't members of Cincinnati City Council's law and public safety committee.
That panel - after hearing evidence that indicates the Heimlich maneuver should be used on drowning victims before mouth-to-mouth resuscitation - refused last month to overturn a Dark Ages dictum from the Red Cross that rescue workers must try mouth-to-mouth first before any other treatment.
If I've got it right and there weren't any news articles about the Stuckey case, that means Cincinnati reporters were asleep at the wheel.

It also raises this question: where did John Eckberg and CBS obtain the information? For example, what was Eckberg's source for the date, time, location, and other facts he provided about the case?

Re: the CBS story, it's common for "good news" rescue stories like this to include video of the child and her grateful family. But Natasha Stuckey's name isn't even mentioned in the CBS story (which consists entirely of interviews with my father, Todd Schebor, Jack Baker, and a representative of the American Red Cross).

Eckberg, a business reporter, had Natasha's name, of course. He didn't, however, mention either of her parents, Cheryl and Tyronne Stuckey, a prominent business owner and philanthropist in Cincinnati.

Tyronne Stuckey
Also, how did the two stories end up appearing in mid-July, about three weeks after the rescue date (per Eckberg) of June 25, 1993?

Of course, this line of inquiry relies on the assumption that no other stories were reported. I've done my best to be thorough, but I could have missed something. If so, I invite readers - including John Eckberg and the Stuckey family - to steer me towards any additional information. If warranted, I'll do a follow-up.

But in my opinion there's more about the situation that doesn't jell.

David Letterman gets Heimlich-ed by my father on The Late Show, November 20, 1984
My father's no slouch when it comes to generating media attention. Since introducing the Heimlich maneuver in 1974, he's done scores of photo ops and TV appearances, including as a guest on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson and Late Night with David Letterman. A Newsbank article search of "Dr. Henry Heimlich maneuver" resulted in almost 1100 hits. Click here for for a tiny sampling on the Heimlich Institute's website.

Ever wonder how my last name became a household word? As I told the LA Weekly a couple years ago: 
"My father is such a brilliant promoter, he could teach P.T. Barnum a few tricks." 
That's why I can't understand why he didn't capitalize on the Stuckey case.

It was heaven-sent for his crusade to promote the Heimlich for drowning, especially right after council gave him the bum's rush on his city lifeguard push.
 
Better yet, it reportedly happened in his home town. What could be more convenient for Dr. Barnum? 

Where are the print and TV stories with the Stuckeys thanking my father and the rescuers for saving their daughter's life? Where are the photos of my father and young Natasha? Where are the stories about my father presenting a Heimlich Institute "Save-A-Life Award" to Todd Schebor and Jack Baker?

To my knowledge, the only place my father ever mentioned the case was this brief paragraph in a peer-reviewed journal article promoting his drowning claims. It was published in 1994, just a year after the reported rescue:


"This is a report from eyewitnesses and rescuers"? That's a problem for me.

Here's why.

The case reportedly happened in Cincinnati - a detail that's missing from the above paragraph, by the way - where my father is an icon:


My father has carte blance access there. Wouldn't he have interviewed the paramedics and physicians  who treated Natasha and been given the opportunity to review her medical report? Wouldn't he have interviewed Schebor, Baker, and eyewitnesses on the scene?

I'm unaware of any indication that he did any follow-up on the Stuckey case. If he didn't, why not?

There are some other interesting questions raised by the details in the Eckberg and CBS stories.

Eckberg first.

(Todd) Schebor, president of Schebor Landscaping Services, and (Jack) Baker, an employee, were working at the Kugler Mill Square Apartments on Beech Street in Bond Hill....

Here's a satellite photo screenshot of the Kugler Mill Square Apartment complex at 8481 Beech Avenue. To see for yourself, click here and then click on bird's eye:


"(The) two men were mowing the front lawn...a crowd of adults and children gathered and began to scream for help at the pool."

Over the sound of their lawn mowers, at such a distance, and separated by a building, how did Schebor and Baker hear the screams from the front lawn? 

(They) hurried to the water and found a lifeless Natasha. 

Were the "crowd of adults and children" just standing around the pool, screaming and gawking at the floating body? In the photo, the pool appears rather small and probably not too deep. Why didn't the bystanders jump in and pull her out? 

Schebor ran to call 911.

Ran where? What phone did he use? According to this web page, in 1993 here's how many cell phone subscribers there were in the United States:


Was Schebor among those 16 million? It's possible.

But if so, why would he need to run to make the call?

Because his phone was in his truck? If so, that means he'd have to run from the pool, back across the field, around the building, then to the parking lot. How much time would have been required to reach his vehicle and make the call?

If he didn't have a cellular, he used a phone belonging to someone living in the apartment or found a pay phone.

The first option doesn't make sense. If he found someone with a phone, why would he make the call himself? He'd instruct them to make the call so he could race back to the pool, right? 

If he used a pay phone, there may have been one at the apartment complex. Otherwise, based on this photo, the closest commercial areas where he might have found one are a pretty fair distance on foot.

Long story short, how long did it take to find a phone, make the call, and get back to the pool?

And why didn't he pull her out of the pool before dashing off to make the call?


(Schebor) returned and within seconds began to perform the Heimlich maneuver.

Why the Heimlich and not CPR? 

Schebor, a Symmes Township resident, had seen a television public service announcement six months before from the Heimlich Institute about the value of the Heimlich maneuver for drowning.

"She wasn't breathing, and I knew that CPR would not get any air in her," said the 30-year-old Schebor. "My wife and I were discussing it one evening about what we would do. And after watching television, we decided that the Heimlich maneuver was the right way.


"As soon as I saw that girl (Natasha) and the stuff coming out of her nose and mouth, I said the best way to get the water out of her was the Heimlich."


Those who might not expect a landscaper to have such a keen interest in the subject of resuscitation clearly need to adjust their expectations.  

More of same from the CBS report:

Mr. SCHEBOR: You can blow as much air as you want, but I—I suspected that seeing the amount of vomit in her mouth and her nose, I knew that she had water in her lungs, and CPR don't go through water.

It's not known how Schebor arrived at this erroneous conclusion, but its one he shares with my father.

From Heimlich's Maneuver by Thomas Francis, an August 11, 2004 cover story in the Cleveland Scene that included my father's attempt to persuade a committee convened in 1994 by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review his drowning claims:
Dr. Linda Quan, who made a presentation to the same committee, remembers the looks on the faces of oncologists who heard Heimlich...describe the impossibility of ventilating through fluid, a feat doctors accomplished with newborn babies every day.
Here's another detail about the that committee. According to the report, here's when it took place:


That's five months after the reported date of the Stuckey case, plenty of time for my father to interview all the parties and to present it along with other cases he submitted.

But there's no mention of it in the 30-page report issued by the IOM.

Back to the CBS story:

TORMAN: To convince others, Heimlich has made a public service announcement encouraging folks to use the Heimlich maneuver first, an announcement Todd paid attention to.

Mr. SCHEBOR: It was a gut instinct, and it was also just like a flashback of seeing Dr. Heimlich behind his desk saying do the Heimlich in a drowning case first.


Schebor must have had a different flashback.

Here's the PSA from which he claimed to have obtained his inspiration. It takes place entirely in a swimming pool.


Therefore, if Schebor heard my father "behind his desk saying do the Heimlich in a drowning case first," it must have been on another occasion.

NEXT:  19 years after claimed drowning rescue, the Stuckeys don't want me writing about it and won't provide minimal supporting documentation

Recent photo of Todd Schebor (via Facebook)

This item has been slightly updated.

Monday, June 11, 2012

Jane Brody at the New York Times (again) warns against performing the Heimlich on drowning victims -- and my question for the news media

Jane Brody (source)

In a column today about water safety, well-known New York Times reporter and author Jane Brody included this:


This is the second column in which Ms. Brody explicitly warned against the treatment. From her July 4, 2006 column:


Per last year's Washington Post


Except for the Heart Association, all of the above organizations have published reports about the Heimlich for drowning, all reaching the same conclusion: there's no legitimate evidence supporting its use and if you Heimlich a drowning victim, it wastes precious rescue time and may induce vomiting leading to aspiration.

The Heart Association didn't issue a report, but the organization's most recent published guidelines say as much:

If you think about it, singling out and warning against performing the Heimlich on drowning victims is a testament to my father's success at circulating his bogus claims.

And how did he manage to get as far as he did?

Per this recent blog item from the Houston Press (emphasis and links added):
(Peter Heimlich) reports, the Heimlich Institute "has finally quit circulating my father's dangerous, thoroughly discredited medical claims."

The institute's Web site has, he says, "deleted its main pages recommending the Heimlich maneuver as an effective treatment for drowning rescue."
..."His claims were based on nothing but a handful of skimpy cases in which near-dead drowning victims were 'miraculously revived' by the maneuver," (Peter) says. "Despite such thin evidence, for decades The New York Times, CBS News, Inside Edition and scores of other media outlets gave him a platform to urge the public to perform the Heimlich on people who were drowning."
Here's a fair question.

Will any of those media outlets report that after 40 years, the Heimlich Institute has now stopped promoting the treatment?

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

The Natasha Stuckey case, Cincinnati, June 25, 1993, Part I: "CPR don't go through water"

From Rescue Supports Heimlich as First Maneuver by John Eckberg, Cincinnati Enquirer, July 18, 1993

Last week via the Houston Press:
(Peter Heimlich) reports, the Heimlich Institute "has finally quit circulating my father's dangerous, thoroughly discredited medical claims."

The institute's Web site has, he says, "deleted its main pages recommending the Heimlich maneuver as an effective treatment for drowning rescue...(My father's claims) were based on nothing but a handful of skimpy cases in which near-dead drowning victims were 'miraculously revived' by the maneuver," he says. "Despite such thin evidence, for decades The New York Times, CBS News, Inside Edition and scores of other media outlets gave him a platform to urge the public to perform the Heimlich on people who were drowning."
From Dangerous Maneuvers by Kendra Kozen, a Special Report published in the most recent issue of Aquatics International magazine:
“For 30 years, my father endlessly trumpeted the cases in the media and in medical journals as proof of his claims,” Peter says. “I fact-checked all the cases and discovered that they ranged from dubious to outright fraud.”
From an April 1994 article by my father, published in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society:


My father doesn't mention that the case reportedly happened in his hometown of Cincinnati on June 25, 1993, at a time when he was making a big local push to promote the treatment.

The case also turns up in Save Someone From Drowning, an emotional article by my mother, Jane Heimlich, published in her newsletter:


I've always had questions about the case, so on my website I included Natasha Stuckey's name on a list of topics about which I invite readers to send me information.


Out of the blue last week I received an unsolicited e-mail from a woman claiming to be* Natasha Stuckey, who at the time of the reported rescue was eight years old.
 
A brief exchange of e-mails with her resulted in more questions than answers and motivated me to blog about the case.

* Update: On June 5, I received an e-mail from Natasha's father, Tyronne Stuckey of Cincinnati, confirming that his daughter, who also lives in Cincinnati, was the person who contacted me.

John Eckberg (source)

I first learned about it in Rescue Supports Heimlich as First Maneuver, an opinion column by business reporter John Eckberg published by the Cincinnati Enquirer on July 18, 1993.


A month earlier, per a June 16 Enquirer news report, my father had suffered a stinging public defeat which Eckberg used to frame his column:
It's a good thing that Todd Schebor and Jack Baker, who recently saved a Bond Hill girl's life at a swimming pool, aren't members of Cincinnati City Council's law and public safety committee.

That panel - after hearing evidence that indicates the Heimlich maneuver should be used on drowning victims before mouth-to-mouth resuscitation - refused last month to overturn a Dark Ages dictum from the Red Cross that rescue workers must try mouth-to-mouth first before any other treatment.

That's one council action Schebor and Baker missed. They were able to save the life of 8-year-old Natasha Stuckey anyhow.
Here's Eckberg description of events:
(Todd) Schebor, president of Schebor Landscaping Services, and Baker, an employee, were working at the Kugler Mill Square Apartments on Beech Street in Bond Hill at 2 p.m. on June 25 when Natasha nearly drowned.

It was a Friday, the two men were mowing the front lawn - looking forward to the weekend - when a crowd of adults and children gathered and began to scream for help at the pool.

Schebor and Baker, a Goshen resident, hurried to the water and found a lifeless Natasha. She had bluish skin and wasn't breathing.

Schebor ran to call 911.

He returned and within seconds began to perform the Heimlich maneuver.

Schebor, a Symmes Township resident, had seen a television public service announcement six months before from the Heimlich Institute about the value of the Heimlich maneuver for drowning.

"She wasn't breathing, and I knew that CPR would not get any air in her," said the 30-year-old Schebor. "My wife and I were discussing it one evening about what we would do. And after watching television, we decided that the Heimlich maneuver was the right way.

"As soon as I saw that girl (Natasha) and the stuff coming out of her nose and mouth, I said the best way to get the water out of her was the Heimlich."

He pressed against the girl's abdomen with his fist, which pushed her diaphragm upward and compressed the lungs – forcing out water. On the third try, vomit and water completely cleared from the girl's airway, and she started breathing again.

She regained consciousness immediately.

Paramedics arrived, administered oxygen and took her to the hospital. She was released the next day - fully recovered.
Here's the PSA that Schebor claimed inspired him to perform the Heimlich, produced by a DC nonprofit, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. (According to the LA Weekly, my father's been on PCRM's board since 1986. Per my website, PCRM and the group's founder/president Neal Barnard MD, are longtime advocates of the Heimlich for drowning.)


On July 16, two days before Eckberg's column, Dr. Howard Torman reported the story on CBS This Morning. (The transcript misspells Schebor as “Shebor” - I've corrected that here.)
TORMAN: Landscapes Jack Baker and Todd Schebor never thought about being heroes when they pulled a drowning 8-year-old girl out of a Cincinnati pool.

Mr. TODD SCHEBOR: The first thing I did is I asked Jack, I said, "I should give her the Heimlich.' And he says, 'Do anything, she-she's dying. She can't breath.' So I picked her up. On the third try, I told myself I'm either going to break this poor little girl's ribs or-or she's going to cough something up. And I gave her the third jolt.
Howard Torman MD (source)

Here's my second favorite part of Torman's report:
Mr. BAKER: You could hear the-the gush. Yeah, just like a gush of water when you turn on the faucet.

TORMAN: It just came out that much.

Mr. BAKER: It came out that much, and, bingo, she was breathing.
Here's my favorite part:
TORMAN: So why not CPR?

Mr. SCHEBOR: You can blow as much air as you want, but I - I suspected that seeing the amount of vomit in her mouth and her nose, I knew that she had water in her lungs, and CPR don't go through water.
TORMAN: (It's) exactly what Dr. Henry Heimlich has been saying lately. The Heimlich maneuver isn't just for choking, it's for drowning, too.

NEXT: Where are the news reports? And where's my father's missing desk?

Recent photo of Todd Schebor (via Facebook)