Wednesday, December 27, 2017

The woman accused by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of taking her airline seat “because I was an African American woman” is a renowned human rights activist [UPDATE: Washington Times & Daily Caller report the story]

source
Texas Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee said Tuesday she felt she was targeted by a passenger accusing her of taking her first-class seat on a United Airlines flight “because I was an African American woman” as the airline said she was not given the seat because she is a congresswoman.

Passenger Jean-Marie Simon accused the airline of giving up her first-class seat on a flight earlier this month from Houston to Washington, D.C., to Jackson Lee, a Democrat, in a report in the Houston Chronicle.
Unreported to my knowledge -- and worth considering re: Rep. Lee's allegation that she was the victim of racism -- via Jean-Marie Simon: A foreign witness to Guatemala’s war, November 27, 2012, Amnesty International:
Jean-Marie Simon lived and worked in Guatemala as a photojournalist between 1980 and 1988, a period of extreme violence and brutality in the country. Recently, Jean-Marie donated 1,000 copies of her book Guatemala: Eternal Spring Eternal Tyranny to schools and universities in Guatemala, to keep the truth of what happened alive.  
Via A Testament From Guatemala’s War Years by
Guatemala endured a 36-year civil war that ended in 1996, but it still suffers from organized criminal violence and impunity. At a time when the country is confronting its past, Ms. Simon wants to make sure that young people there will be able to learn what their nation endured under military regimes.

...Few were telling Guatemala’s story when Ms. Simon first traveled to the country.

...Some of her contacts introduced her to others who helped her gain access to people caught up in the conflict. During this time, for example, workers at the Coca-Cola plant had been singled out for assassination. An official with their union gave her a written introduction to one of the guerrilla groups, the Guatemalan Workers Party, whose members took her out with them for a day.
...On one trip, she joined with Allan Nairn and a documentary crew as they traveled to Nebaj and interviewed commanders and troops. In a nearby town, soldiers – who thought they had the blessing of their commander – described how they tortured prisoners. In other places, she and the film crew saw how the military was forcibly moving indigenous people into “model villages” while pressing the men into civil patrols.

...In later years, she prepared reports for international human rights groups and connected visitors with local advocates who were demanding answers from the military regime. It was a sinister time, when activists would be murdered alongside their infant children. She recalls meeting one woman who told her that she had been raped by soldiers every night for a month – sometimes in front of her father. When the commander decided that she was not a guerrilla, he gave her a bar of soap, five pounds of beans and advice to start a new life.

By the time her book was first published, she had decided to go to law school. She practiced for 10 years, then switched to teaching high school Spanish. Now living in Washington, she has returned often to Guatemala in recent years.
I've reached out to Rep. Lee's office for comment.

source

UPDATE, 12/27/17, 4:00PM

Via Woman accused of racism by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee is human-rights activist by Bradford Richardson, Washington Times, December 27, 2017, which, according to Google's cached version was posted about an hour ago:



I just had a good phone call with Mr. Richardson who informed me that he hadn't seen my item and got on the story after seeing this comment posted on LegalInsurrection.com.


I took the opportunity to inform him that this morning I sent these questions to Rep. Lee's office, but that I don't anticipate receiving answers, so would he be willing to follow up?

Via Rep. Lee's December 22 Facebook statement:
I noted that this individual [Ms. Simon] came toward me and took a picture. I heard later that she might have said “I know who she is.” Since this was not any fault of mine, the way the individual continued to act appeared to be, upon reflection, because I was an African American woman, seemingly an easy target along with the African American flight attendant who was very, very nice.
1) On what basis did Rep. Lee conclude that Ms. Simon's actions had anything to do with Rep. Lee being "an African American woman" or the flight attendant being African American?

2) If Rep. Lee can't provide a reason, it's an unfounded allegation that may be harmful to Ms. Simon's reputation. If that's the case, doesn't Rep. Lee owe Ms. Simon an apology?

Mr. Richardson agreed to take a look.

UPDATE 12/27/17, 4:55PM

Just spotted this via The Daily Caller -- based on the time stamp,  I still own the scoop.

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Why did the NuVal nutrition scoring system fail? A post mortem compendium of published opinions



The Rise and Fall of NuVal® Nutritional Guidance by David L. Katz MD MPH, Huffington Post, November 17, 2017:

There are two reasons the nutrient profiling system known as NuVal®, which assigned a score from 1 to 100, the higher the number the more nutritious the food, has disappeared from the shelves of the nearly 2,000 U.S. supermarkets it populated at its peak. The first reason is that the business model didn’t work; and the second is that the science of the system worked a bit too well.

You will get a very different impression if you read articles with titles such as “goodbye and good riddance.” But if you Google “NuVal” and read the more prominent disparagements of the system, you would readily find a theme if you looked. Identify the authors, or sources of derogatory comments- and Google them. Generally you will find they make and market highly processed junk food (which, of course, garners the low scores it deserves), or have ties to the beef industry- or they are personal trolls of mine.

...The main source of NuVal criticism is so-called “CPG,” or consumer packaged good companies- otherwise known as food manufacturers. Another is the “National Consumers League,” which sounds virtuous, but is actually a shell organization founded by those CPGs. This tactic is, apparently, standard operating procedure in propaganda wars. When the giants in the beverage industry wanted to oppose a soda tax in New York, for example, they created a new organization called “New Yorkers Against Unfair Taxes.” You had to dig to discover that soda companies were the exclusive sponsors and organizers.

...As for the science of NuVal, it has mostly failed because it works too well. The algorithm underlying the program was developed by a dozen diverse luminaries in nutrition- including past and current chairs of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health; the inventor of the glycemic index; the inventor of the volumetrics concept; and so on. I was privileged to lead the group, but every decision ran the gauntlet of consensus.

NCL welcomes nationwide removal of misleading nutritional scoring system from grocery shelves, National Consumers League press release, November 9, 2017:

The National Consumers League (NCL) has welcomed news that a supermarket-based nutritional scoring system of food products called NuVal, which at its peak was used in 1,600 grocery stores nationwide, has been discontinued. For the last five years, NCL has been a vocal critic of NuVal’s controversial ratings system. In a letter to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012, NCL called NuVal “fatally flawed,” pointed out that it gave some junk foods higher nutritional ratings than canned fruit, and called for its investigation and removal from grocery stores.

NuVal scored food on a scale of 1-100, with printed labels appearing on shelves next to price labels in stores that used the system. NuVal claimed to help consumers compare products by simplifying their nutritional value; the higher the number, the “better the nutrition.”

“The NuVal rating system was fatally flawed, and its removal from grocery store shelves is a win for consumers,” said National Consumers League Executive Director Sally Greenberg. “Its proprietary algorithmic formula – which was not made transparent to consumers or the scientific community – resulted in snack chips, soft drinks, and desserts being given as high or higher nutritional scores than some canned fruits and vegetables. We welcome the news that NuVal has been discontinued nationally.”

The consumer group criticized NuVal’s nutritional ratings as confusing - not helpful - to consumers trying to make healthy decisions for their families and called on the FDA to step in and set industry-wide standards to govern such systems so that they truly benefit nutrition-minded consumers. Other critics questioned conflicts of interest behind NuVal’s research and food manufacturers.

The Yale Daily News reported that, according to NuVal’s creator, Director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center David Katz, “Hershey’s paid him more than $731,000 for research, and Quaker Oats had paid him more than $633,000. He has also received funds from Kind Bar and Chobani.”

Goodbye NuVal...and good riddance? by Elaine Watson, Food Navigator, November 13, 2017:

The NuVal shelf tag program – which assigned products a score of 1-100 based on their nutritional value – has been phased out. Good riddance, or do we need a system that attempts to provides consumers with at-a-glance information that helps them rapidly compare products and identify healthier options?

NuVal - which at its peak featured in 1600+ stores in 31 states including Tops Friendly (Markets) in New York, Raley's in California and Big Y in Massachusetts, factored in positive nutritional attributes as well as negative ones, with nutrients with generally favorable effects on health (eg. vitamins) increasing the score, while nutrients with generally unfavorable effects (trans fat, excess sodium) decreasing the score.

As with any system attempting to apply a standardized approach to thousands of foods across multiple categories, however, it threw up some strange results (read more here at USA Today and Yale Daily News), and attracted criticism from some big CPG brands and the National Consumers League (NCL) due to its refusal to publish the algorithms underpinning its scores.

...(What) do dieticians think of NuVal's demise?

...Andy Bellatti, Las Vegas-based RD, told FoodNavigator-USA that "Nutrition scoring systems can potentially help consumers, but there are some problematic issues at play, too."

"First, each scoring system has its own formula (which is usually proprietary and kept hidden from consumers). If a formula is based on outdated or murky science (i.e.: any high-fat food, regardless of type of fat, is penalized), it isn't necessarily promoting the healthiest foods out there.

"Second, many of these systems do not take into account ingredients. Nowadays, food manufacturers can use all sorts of nutritionally-empty or even potentially harmful ingredients to tweak values that appear on the Nutrition Facts label to make a product score well.

"Third, this doesn't actually teach consumers anything. Once the scoring system is discontinued, or if a consumer goes to a store where the scoring system isn't used, they don't necessarily have the knowledge to determine what makes a healthful product.

"At the end of the day, I just can't behind the idea that we need complex mathematical equations to determine that lentils are healthful and a high-sugar protein bar isn't a very healthful choice."

Tops to scrap NuVal nutrition ratings criticized as 'fatally flawed' by Samantha Christmann, Buffalo News, October 17, 2016:

Tops Markets is getting rid of a controversial nutrition ratings system it has used to help customers make food purchasing decisions. The system rates brownie mix and ice cream as healthier than some canned fruits and vegetables.

...Leonard H. Epstein, a distinguished professor and chief of behavioral medicine at the University at Buffalo medical school, served on NuVal's scientific advisory board. He said he didn't always agree with the creators' decisions, the system's creators didn't always take the board's advice and that, if he had been one of the system's makers, he "would have done things very differently."

Consumers may find NuVal helpful if their diet is based on general USDA guidelines, Epstein said, but not if they prefer other diets, such as ones high in protein and low in carbohydrates, for example.

..."If you don’t believe in the criteria that NuVal uses, then the algorithm would not work to guide you to healthier eating," he said.

In order to be useful, algorithms have to change to reflect changing science, he said. A shift in emphasis from fat to added sugar in the diet is one example.

Tops said its decision to drop the NuVal system wasn't based on criticism or controversy surrounding NuVal but on customer feedback. As part of an annual evaluation to make sure its programs are relevant, it found there was no increase in customer participation with the program, so the company made the "hard decision" to bring the program to an end.

Raley’s phasing out nutritional scoring system, will develop own program by Mark Glover, Sacramento Bee, October 11, 2016:

West Sacramento-based Raley’s is phasing out a nationally utilized nutrition scoring system by the end of the year and is developing its own program to replace it in 2017.

...Raley’s spokeswoman Chelsea Minor said some customers have found it confusing.

Coborn's replaces NuVal scoring system with in-house nutrition rating program by Matt Perkins, St. Cloud (MN) Times, Oct. 25, 2017:

Coborn's, Inc. has introduced a new nutrition rating program which identifies for customers more than 5,500 products that "support their overall health."

...Endorsed by CentraCare Health, the in-house program replaces the NuVal Nutritional Scoring System, which was recently discontinued nationwide.

..."So what Nuval did was they looked at the overall nutrition and they gave it a score based on that," Kibutha said. "They scored everything. So even if something wasn't healthy, they still gave it a score, whereas we're just putting dietitian-approved on just the items we would endorse for the general public."

..."We have a lot of integrity behind this. It's science-based, 100 percent."

Yale researcher’s ratings service discontinued by Amy Xiong, Yale Daily News, November 3, 2017:

According to (David) Katz, his new company DQPN* is entirely unrelated to NuVal or nutrient profiling.

“DQPN is not at all prone to any kind of conflict, since it is not a scoring system of any kind,” Katz said.

However, four members of DQPN’s team have also worked on NuVal: Harvard professors Walter Willett and Frank Hu, University of Toronto professor David Jenkins and California State University, Long Beach professor Gail Frank.

At a lecture given at Jacksonville University on Oct. 25, Katz stated that the company plans to release an app called DIET ID that reinvents dietary intake assessment by identifying individuals’ dietary patterns and quality.

Four of NuVal’s developers, including three who are now involved with DQPN, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

* https://www.dqpn.io/ 

This item has been appended with the Yale Daily News report.

Friday, September 22, 2017

Crowd sourcing APB: Three major news outlets reported that a top Hollywood agent saved the life of an unidentified woman in a dramatic in-flight choking rescue on a Delta flight from Telluride to LA. The agent, his agency & the three reporters won't answer my questions, so did the incident really happen? If you were on the flight, please contact me! [UPDATE: Thanking me for my efforts, the IBT agrees to do "more reporting" on the story]

UPDATE (10:15AM ET, 9/22/17): Yesterday I had a productive e-mail exchange with an unnamed representative in the media relations department at the International Business Times UK office.

Today at 9:20AM ET I posted the story below the hash marks, but I did not send it to the IBT rep. Ten minutes after posting my item I received the following e-mail, so undoubtedly my story had nothing to do with IBT's decision.
Peter,

Thank you once again for bringing this to our attention. We have raised your points with our colleagues in the U.S. and an IBT journalist will do more reporting on this story. Should there be any additional findings, IBT US will publish them. In the meantime, thank you for bringing this to our attention and for holding The International Business Times to a high standard.

Regards,

IBT UK Communications
communications@ibt.co.uk

#######

Ian Mohr at the NY Post's Page Six was the first journalist to report the dramatic "high-flying Heimlich" choking rescue in a September 5 article based on information from unnamed sources. When I informed him that my reporting raised questions about the veracity of his story, he didn't respond to multiple phone messages and e-mails. (source)

Via Top talent agent saves woman’s life on flight by Ian Mohr in the September 5, 2017 N.Y. Post's Page Six:
Top UTA agent Jeremy Barber saved a woman from choking to death during a flight headed back to LA from the Telluride Film Festival, sources told Page Six.
Barber -- a partner in the agency with clients including Anthony Hopkins, Don Cheadle, Sigourney Weaver, Noah Baumbach and Julian Fellowes -- was on the same Delta shuttle that’s been transporting stars such as Christian Bale and Natalie Portman to and from the remote Colorado town.

As Barber boarded the starry flight, he helped a woman stow her overhead bag, spies told Page Six.

But there was trouble later when “the same woman, who was sitting directly in front of him, started choking,” said a spy.

“She was about to die. It was not good. People were freaking out . . . he really saved her life.”

Barber jumped into action and employed the Heimlich maneuver, which he hadn’t attempted since learning the first-aid move in high school.

“After five or six tries, it came up,” said the impressed source. When the relieved woman was OK, she asked Barber, “Aren’t you the person who helped me with my bag?” He confirmed he was then joked, “That’s the last thing I’m doing for you on this flight!”

Writer David Seidler, producer Harvey Weinstein and agent Jeremy Barber attend a dinner hosted by Ann Barish for the Hamptons International Film Festival screening of "The King's Speech" at 75 Main Restaurant on October 8, 2010 in Southampton, New York. (source)

The dramatic lifesaving tale was promptly repeated by reporters Catie Keck at the International Business Times and Charlie Moore at the Daily Mail.



Putting aside the "chocking" spelling error, here's what's missing from all three stories.

If Jeremy Barber, the talent agent/reported rescuer, was interviewed by any of the three reporters, he inevitably would have been quoted. He's not.

There's nothing in any of the stories about the alleged choking victim. No name, no background, no photo -- and what she was choking on?

Inevitably Delta personnel would have been involved in a life-threatening medical emergency. But there's nothing in any of the stories about that and no Delta representative is quoted verifying the accuracy of the story. None of the three articles provide readers with even the date of the alleged incident and the flight number. (More about that below.)

And how did the unidentified "spy" who peddled the story to Ian Mohr at Page Six know that Barber hadn't "attempted (the Heimlich maneuver) since learning the first-aid move in high school." If that's accurate, it could only have come from Barber or someone he told.

A couple days after the story was published, in a friendly phone call with Mr. Mohr, he told me he didn't have any more information and urged me to contact United Talent Agency's (UTA) LA office.

He also asked me to get back to him with the results of my reporting because he might do a follow up. (I got the impression that he thought having the son of the doctor known for the Heimlich maneuver in the mix might add some news value.)

Over the past two weeks via multiple phone calls and e-mails, I've made best efforts to verify the story with Jeremy Barber, two of his assistants (Dominque and Becca), Jenna Price and Seth Oster in UTA's communications department, and a few Delta representatives.

No one would would confirm the veracity of the story.

Per Jake Gittes, the dogged private detective played by Jack Nicholson in Chinatown, that runs contrary to my experience.

In the course of fact-checking various choking rescue stories over the years as well as personal experiences, without exception, participants in choking emergencies involving my dad's namesake treatment have been thrilled to learn that I'm Dr. Henry Heimlich's son and they love to tell me their stories.

Invariably they ask me to thank my father for inventing the treatment and some people are so moved by their own experiences in choking rescues that they've thanked me for the Heimlich maneuver! (I always explain that I'm delighted "the Heimlich" was effective in their cases, but I had nothing to do with developing it.)

Per countless daily news reports about choking rescues, being part of an emergency lifesaving situation as victim or rescuer is an emotional, intimate, life-changing experience -- and it's human nature to want to share the details, especially when there's a good outcome like the reported story about Jeremy Barber.

In contrast, the behavior of everyone I contacted at UTA seemed evasive and almost hostile, cutting off conversations to get off the phone with me. And several employees promised to get back to me with answers to my questions, but never did.

Further, if the rescue really happened, UTA might even issue a press release to praise Mr. Barber for his heroism. In an industry driven by ballyhoo, that could generate a million bucks of "good news" publicity.

And where are the eyewitnesses to the dramatic, in-flight rescue? Where are the inevitable camera phone videos and post-rescue selfies of Mr. Barber, the unidentified woman, family, friends, etc?

Per Jake Gittes...

source and source

I don't have the swat to compel Jeremy Barber to fill in the blanks, so I turned to the three reporters who ran with this ball: Ian Mohr at the NY Post, Catie Keck at the IBT, and Charlie Moore at the Daily Mail.

In my opinion I'd accumulated enough reasonable doubt to merit them taking a second look, especially Mr. Mohr who had asked me to get back to him with the results of my reporting in anticipation of a potential follow-up.

Wednesday (two days ago) and yesterday I left Mr. Mohr detailed voice messages and I e-mailed him and the other two journalists the results of my reporting with a request that they answer this simple yes/no question:
Would you please discuss this with your editors and let me know if you intend to attempt to fact-check your stories?
Despite multiple attempts, except for confirmations of receipt, I haven't received responses from any of them.

Here's a good question. If, as it appears, Mr. Mohr, Ms. Ceck, and Mr. Moore don't care about providing accurate information to their readers, why should anyone believe anything under their bylines?

Further, the jury may still be out re: the veracity of the choking rescue story they reported, but if their publications won't fact-check it, some might consider that an insult to the professionals who contend with real life-threatening choking incidents -- EMTs and other medical professionals, police, firefighters, etc. -- and to ordinary people who step in to try to help others in distress.



Since everyone seems to be playing ostrich, I'm trying to locate passengers on the Delta flight.

According to the Telluride Film Festival website, this year the event was held from September 1-4 and Mr. Mohr's article ran on September 5.

Therefore the flight was within that time window. So I asked Ashton Morrow, a Delta media relations representative, for a list of all flights from Telluride to LA during that period.

He wrote me that there was but one: Delta flight DL 8877 on September 4th.

Therefore, unless I'm missing something or the three reporters-in-hiding got it wrong, that's the only flight Mr. Barber could have taken and, of course, the only flight on which the reported choking rescue could have occurred.

If you were on that flight or you can provide any related information, I'd welcome hearing from you. Please click here for my contact information.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Dept. of Irony: The Heimlich Institute resuscitates itself after I informed them Ohio had terminated their corporate status

About a week ago I reported Ohio Secretary of State (again) cancels existence of Cincinnati's Heimlich Institute; is the organization finally down for the count?

Ironically, as a result of me posing that question to Deaconess Associations (the Cincinnati corporation that wholly owns the Institute), they re-upped with the state.

source

Here's the August 3 response I got from Jackie Wiesman, assistant to Deaconess chairman Anthony Woods, a Queen City tycoon who who arranged the acquisition of the Institute in 1998:
Peter: Our office address changed and the recertification request that was sent this past month was not forwarded to the new address. It is being reinstated as we speak. Jackie
Per my previous item, the recertification notice from the state was dated March 22, not this past month -- so Ms. Wiesman got that wrong.

On the other hand, the Institute -- a 501(c)(3) nonprofit -- hasn't had any employees since 2005 when it became nothing but a website.

And as of 2015 the organization had zero assets, so presumably no one's minding the store.

Via the Heimlich Institute's most recent annual IRS filing (2015)

In flusher years, the Institute was the focus of investigations by the CDC, FDA, and the Justice Department for overseeing and funding notorious offshore experiments in which US and foreign patients suffering from Lyme Disease and AIDS were infected with malaria.

The "research" was paid for by hundreds of thousands of dollars from funders including director Ron Howard, actors Jack Nicholson and Bette Midler -- and even Muhammad Ali..

During those years, Woods and my brother Phil Heimlich (a former elected official who was tossed from office in 2006 after a bi-partisan landslide) served on the board of the Institute.

As of 2015, they still did.


Despite considerable related reporting (much of it based on research by my wife Karen and me), to my knowledge, neither Woods nor Phil have ever been asked by reporters about their knowledge and roles in the abusive experiments which bioethics experts have called medical "atrocities."

Moving right along, I sent Ms. Wiesman at Deaconess these follow up questions:
1) Are you able to provide me with the current assets of the Heimlich Institute (HI)? Per my blog item, the most recent IRS 990 (2015) shows bupkis.

2) Who are the current members of the HI board?

3) My understanding is that the HI has no employees. Is that accurate? If so, in what year did the organization last have employees?

4) My understanding is that the HI is currently an IRS-approved 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Is that accurate? 
Her reply:
Peter: Not at liberty to disclose this information.
Here's another question.

Now that it's a shell of an organization, should the Heimlich Institute still be entitled to 501(c)(3) nonprofit status?

I'll ask the IRS and will report the results.

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

Ohio Secretary of State (again) cancels existence of Cincinnati's Heimlich Institute; is the organization finally down for the count? [UPDATED]

UPDATE: August 13, 2017, Dept. of Irony: The Heimlich Institute resuscitates itself after I informed them Ohio had terminated their corporate status.

######


Via A Letter from Henry J. Heimlich, M.D., The Heimlich Institute's Caring World newsletter, Vol. One, Issue One, Winter 1998:
The mission of The Heimlich Institute is "Benefiting Humanity Through Health and Peace." When Deaconess Associations Inc. invited the Institute to become affiliated and to move into the Deaconess Hospital complex, it brought together two organizations with the same goal – saving lives. Most meaningful for me is that the creativity of The Heimlich Institute research will now continue in perpetuity. Some say it will be for Cincinnati what the Pasteur Institute is for Paris.
If this letter dated yesterday (with a misspelling of my last name in the address) is any indication, "perpetuity" lasted about 19 years:




Per this 2006 ABC Chicago expose by investigative reporter Chuck Goudie, for over a decade the Institute has been a shell organization without any employees:




Per this screenshot from the Secretary of State's website, this isn't the first time the organization's corporate status has been cancelled and revived, so perhaps it's premature to cast the final shovelful of grave dirt:



On the other hand, from the Institute's most recent -- and perhaps final -- IRS filing (2015), the organization's paltry assets have been zeroed out:



From the same filing, here are the most recent officers of the corporation. As widely reported, my dad died in December, but I'll follow up with my brother Phil and perhaps the others and will report the results.

Friday, July 21, 2017

Prominent nutrition researcher who helped develop and researched failed NuVal nutrition scoring system: "I would have done things very differently"

Leonard H. Epstein PhD, SUNY Buffalo (source)
Via a November 19, 2014 press release, Eatingwell Magazine Partners With Nuval®:
The NuVal Nutritional Scoring System is a unique food labeling system which ranks all foods between 1 and 100; the higher the score, the better the nutrition. NuVal scores can be found in nearly 2,000 supermarkets, as well as in schools, hospitals and other health facilities. The NuVal System is endorsed by the American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM), and a recent Harvard School of Public Health study showed that those who ate food with more favorable NuVal Scores had a lower risk of chronic disease and had a better chance of living a longer, healthier life. NuVal LLC is a joint venture formed in 2008 by Topco Associates, LLC, and Griffin Hospital. To learn more about NuVal, visit www.nuval.com | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NuVal | Twitter: @NuVal.
Per a story I broke last week, the director of NuVal LLC in Quincy, MA, wrote me that the company has terminated its supermarket scoring system, so presumably the "nearly 2,000 supermarkets" that once used it are making other plans.

Click the links in the above press release and you'll get the picture.

Per Tops to scrap NuVal nutrition ratings criticized as 'fatally flawed,'
Tops Markets is getting rid of a controversial nutrition ratings system it has used to help customers make food purchasing decisions...Two other grocery chains have dropped NuVal recently, including California-based Raley's and Massachusetts-based Big Y, which told the Yale Daily News the system was "out of date."
...Leonard H. Epstein, a distinguished professor and chief of behavioral medicine at the University at Buffalo medical school, served on NuVal's scientific advisory board. He said he didn't always agree with the creators'  decisions, the system's creators didn't always take the board's advice and that, if he had been one of the system's makers, he "would have done things very differently...If you don’t believe in the criteria that NuVal uses, then the algorithm would not work to guide you to healthier eating," he said.
Presumably Dr. Epstein speaks from authority because from 2012-2014 NuVal-related research provided him with NIH grants totaling $1,670,444:

 

Via a public records request, here's Ms. Christmann's complete Q&A with Dr. Epstein; page down for a copy of the original correspondence. 

Hi Samantha:

I am not one of the creators of NuVal, but rather was a member of their scientific advisory board. As with any of the scientific advisory boards, sometimes the leadership takes your advice and sometimes the leadership does not take your advice. David Katz from Yale created the system, not me or any other members of the advisory board. I'm sure each of us agrees with some aspects of NuVal and not with others.

1) How do you respond to people who say the NuVal system is outdated and "fatally flawed"?

NuVal is one among many nutrient profiling systems. The idea of a nutrient profiling system became popular because most consumers have a very difficult time making sense of information on the nutrition label when purchasing food, so different groups attempted to simplify decision making by using numbers (either continuous or categorical) or color-based systems. There is still quite a lot of activity in this area.

Each nutrient profiling system uses different criteria for rating foods. NuVal does not publish the full algorithm but does indicate what characteristics of foods increase the rating, and what characteristics of foods decrease the ratings. The secret, that no one outside of NuVal knows, is the specific weights given to characteristics of foods. If you don't believe in the criteria that NuVal uses, then the algorithm would not work to guide you to healthier eating. The criteria they use is based on the general USDA recommendations, but if you were eating a paleo diet NuVal would not be useful, for example. Guidelines for healthy eating and what types of foods to avoid evolve as new research is published. I have not been involved on the scientific board of NuVal for many years, but it is my impression that the algorithm has been changing to keep track of the science, but that's something you would have to check with NuVal.

2) How is it that brownies and ice cream can be scored higher than canned fruits and vegetables?

There are two ways to use any nutrient profiling system, whether it is NuVal or another system. First, these systems can help you choose among foods within a class of foods. For example, if you were going to buy cereal, NuVal might be helpful in identifying a low-fat, low-sugar cereal that is nutrient dense. Similarly, if you were going to buy yogurt, or ice cream, NuVal could help you identify the healthiest option based on the criteria they use to rate foods within that class of foods. In terms of your question, can NuVal help identify the healthiest ice cream, or the healthiest fruit or vegetables. Once again, if you believe the criteria they are using is correct, then the NuVal rating would be helpful.

In addition, NuVal could help consumers make decisions about whether they wanted to increase purchasing of a class of foods versus another class. For example, if you wanted animal protein as the centerpiece of a meal, NuVal could help decide whether fish, fowl or red meat were better choices. Even within one category, like fish, NuVal could help you decide what type of fish is the healthiest.

Since NuVal scores many foods, there may be some brownies or ice cream that score higher than some canned fruits or vegetables, but that does not mean that as a category brownies or ice cream are healthier than canned fruits or vegetables. The backlash in 2012 against NuVal was for brownie mix, but not brownies. There are also variations of low-fat, low-sugar ice milks that are better choices than standard ice cream, and could have higher scores than canned vegetables in syrup that has a lot of sugar, or canned vegetables that have a lot of salt. There are also many canned fruits not in syrup or canned vegetables with low amounts of sodium that would have higher scores.

When comparing brownie mix with NuVal score of 22 and mandarin oranges in syrup with score of 7, neither of these are very healthy choices for dessert or a snack, and trying to make distinctions between them will not lead to a healthier diet. A much better choice than mandarin oranges in syrup would be an actual mandarin orange, or an orange. You would see large differences in NuVal or any nutrient profile score for that, more relevant, comparison.

3) Do you still stand behind the system you helped create?

Once again, I was on the scientific advisory board, and provided advice to Katz and his group, some of which they took and some of which they did not take. I did not agree with all of their decisions. If it had been my creation, I would have done things (very) differently.

A more relevant question is whether I think nutrient profiling systems are useful. I do, but only when I agree with the assumptions of the algorithm. Nutrition science is continually evolving, and nutrient profiling systems need to evolve with the science. A good example is the shift in emphasis from fat in the diet to added sugar in the diet.

I don't think any nutrient profiling system is perfect, and you will find anomalies of the type you noted above in any system (how can this food rate higher than that food - not in my book). They were designed to help consumer make healthier choices, and that should be the final arbiter of whether they are useful. Do consumers who use a specific nutrient profiling system purchase healthier foods that consumers who just use the nutrition label? These systems can help, but they can also be improved.


Friday, July 14, 2017

Widely-promoted NuVal nutrition scoring system discontinues its supermarket shelf tag system [UPDATED]

7/21/17 UPDATE: Prominent nutrition researcher who helped develop and researched failed NuVal nutrition scoring system: "I would have done things very differently"

#####

Yesterday I blogged an item attempting to crowdsource information about which supermarkets continued to use NuVal, a widely-promoted nutrition scoring system that was developed by some of the most prominent names in nutrition science:


What sparked my interest was that the website of NuVal LLC, the Quincy, MA, company that markets the system, had gone bare bones, and the company's Facebook and Twitter accounts were MIA.

This afternoon I got this e-mail from NuVal LLC director, Anne Bernier -- emphasis added.
Peter,

As you well know, the health and wellness space has evolved significantly since the Nuval Shelf Tag program was introduced, and the choices for consumers to obtain health and nutrition information online has grown exponentially.

In light of these insights and feedback from our customers, we have discontinued the Nuval Shelf Tag Program. NuVal will continue to support the popular NuVal Attributes system and will continue to work to find new and innovative ways to help consumers make informed choices about the foods they purchase and consume.

The image from the cached page you submitted is out of date and is consequently no longer posted on our website. In response to your inquiry regarding current participants, please know that we no longer publish this information.
Regards, Anne Bernier
Here's the cached page:





Thursday, July 13, 2017

Crowdsourcing re: NuVal nutrition rating system -- if you shop at these supermarkets, I can use your help [UPDATED]

UPDATE, July 14, 2017: Widely-promoted NuVal nutrition scoring system discontinues its supermarket shelf tag system
#####

Not including the three lilac-shaded logos, do you shop at any of these supermarkets?


If so, would you help me report a story? I'm trying to find out if they still use a nutrition rating system called NuVal.

Based on my experience, when it comes to getting information from supermarket corporations, they're like Fort Knox. Perhaps not surprisingly, I'm having trouble getting answers from the media relations reps of these companies.

It occurred to me they might be more likely to respond to customers, hence this outreach. If you're game, just write and ask if they're still using NuVal and forward the results to me at peter.heimlich@gmail.com

For more background, read on, but if you want to cut to the chase, here are the e-mail addresses and website contact forms.

Alexander's Highland Market: http://alexandersmkt.com/contact
Cash Wise: https://www.cashwise.com/contact-us
Coborn's: https://www.coborns.com/contact-us
Festival Foods: mealtimementors@festfoods.com
Food City:https://www.foodcity.com/contactus/
Hy-Vee: ProductInquiry@hy-vee.com
Lund &Byerlys: Contact@LundsandByerlys.com
Nojaim Bros: http://nojaimbrosmarcellus.com/contact  
Price Cutter: https://www.pricecutteronline.com/contact-us/question-or-comment
Reasor's: https://reasorscontactus.survey.marketforce.com/
Scolari's and Sak'n Save: http://www.scolaristores.com/contactus

Why is this of interest?

Via a July 29, 2016 Huffington Post column by celebrity doctor David L. Katz:
Perhaps the single, proudest achievement to date of my 25-or-so-year career in public health was leading the development of the Overall Nutritional Quality Index algorithm, or the ONQI®. That effort, which was completed in 2006, involved an illustrious team of colleagues from throughout North America, who worked closely with my staff and me for two years.
He wasn't kidding about an illustrious team:



Back to Dr. Katz's column:
When we were done, we had a sophisticated formula that incorporated more than 30 nutrient properties of a food (including glycemic load), weighted each one for its health effects, and generated a number on a continuous scale, the higher that number, the higher the overall nutritional quality of the food. My original intent had been to give the system to the FDA. When that didn’t work out, because the system went beyond what the agency was willing to do at the time (and perhaps even now), a private company called NuVal, LLC was formed to license the program into supermarkets. The NuVal® system uses the ONQI to rate all foods on a scale from 1 (least nutritious) to 100 (most nutritious). The ONQI has been providing nutrition guidance to shoppers in nearly 2,000 supermarkets throughout the U.S...
Here's the deal.

Click on the links in his column and you'll discover that they lead to dead pages on the website of NuVal LLC (based in Quincy, MA).

Further, at this writing NuVal LLC's Facebook and Twitter accounts are MIA and the company's last blog post was on December 21, 2016.

There have been other problems at the company. According to a Buffalo News article last year about three supermarket chains that dropped NuVal -- Topps, Big Y, and Raley's -- the system has been criticized as "fatally flawed."

source

This week I sent e-mails to NuVal LLC director (and self-described lemonade maker) Anne Bernier and left her a voice message. (When I phoned the company, my call was routed to her voice mail by a recording. If there's a human being now working at the company, I haven't spoken to them.) I haven't gotten any response.

The graphic of the logos at the top of this item above is a screenshot from a recent (now missing) page listing NuVal LLC's client supermarkets. I've sent inquiries to the media relations department of a number of them and only one has affirmed (the lilac-highlighted Price Chopper group) that they're still using the NuVal system.

In an attempt to get the other companies to respond, I thought I'd try this crowdsource approach. (It could also be a fun journalism experience.)

Any/all help is appreciated. Questions? Just ask.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Via NBC Bay Area, another chest thrusts choking rescue wrongly attributed to "the Heimlich" -- will they publish a correction? [UPDATED]


In a June 18, 2017 Sunday Times media watchdog column, John Burns at the paper's at the paper's Dublin bureau reported about my successful journalistic odyssey to obtain published corrections to numerous factual errors in obituaries about my dad, for example:
(The) headline (in the Irish Sunday Independent's obit) was wrong. “Henry Heimlich — surgeon who invented chest thrust,” it said.
(The) Heimlich manoeuvre is an abdominal thrust, performed below the rib cage. Big deal? “As it happens, there’s an ongoing debate in the medical community about whether chest thrusts are more effective and safer than the Heimlich,” Peter (Heimlich) says. “Also, my father went to considerable effort to discredit the use of chest thrusts when someone’s choking."
Speaking of chest thrusts, based on a dashcam video of a choking rescue in Rochester, NY that went viral, a couple days ago I posted an item that raised this question.

How many choking rescues in which the rescuer used chest thrusts have been wrongly attributed to "the Heimlich"?

Coincidentally, via an NBC Bay Area story that aired the same day, 12-year-old Rylie Palfalvi of Pleasanton, CA, described how she successfully performed chest thrusts on her bushy-haired younger brother Max who was choking on popcorn.

But newsman Garvin Thomas incorrectly reported that Max's intrepid sis "did the Heimlich."



I certainly don't expect most people, including general assignment reporters [see update below], to be aware of the distinction, but as I told the Sunday Times, why not get it right?

Plus why not give Ms. Palfalvia credit for perhaps being on the cutting edge of lifesaving first aid?

With that in mind, I'll send a request for a published correction to NBC Bay Area and will report the results here. [Page down for the results.]

For more information on the topic of chest thrusts vs. "the Heimlich," click here.

Finally, re: my dad's obit in the Irish Sunday Independent -- aka The Sindo -- here's the headline before my corrections request...


...and here's the current version:


UPDATE (6/24/17):

A few days ago I e-mailed my item and supporting information to Garvin Thomas at NBC Bay Area which resulted in a friendly, productive correspondence and the addition of this paragraph at the beginning of his story:


source

Also, he set me straight about this: 
And since we're having fun with accuracy, I'm not a general assignment reporter. I produce a feature segment (Bay Area Proud) that highlights stories of kindness, generosity, and success. And, yes, it's as great a job as it sounds.
Thank you, Garvin -- and regret the error!

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

Choking first aid: Are New Zealand, Australia, and a guy in Rochester, NY, ahead of the curve?

As Sidebar readers know, medical authorities in New Zealand and Australia don't recommend the Heimlich maneuver (aka abdominal thrusts) for responding to a choking emergency.

Per Aviva Ziegler's 2009 documentary, in the Land Down Under my dad's namesake treatment is considered unproven and potentially harmful.

That opinion was echoed in the American Heart Association's 2005 guidelines which state, "Life-threatening complications have been associated with the use of abdominal thrusts."

Instead Kiwi and Oz first aid experts recommend back blows and chest thrusts.

The latter treatment was first proposed in a 1976 study by my friend Dr. Chuck Guildner of Everett, Washington. Click here for more about that and related information.

Yesterday, Radio Live New Zealand aired Do you know what to do when a child is choking? which included this clip of first aid instructor Billy Doyle explaining the back blows followed by chest thrusts protocol. To my knowledge it's the first time the chest thrusts treatment has been described in a video.



As it happens, "the Heimlich" has been credited with saving choking victims when, in fact, the rescuer performed -- yep -- back blows and chest thrusts.

For example, in January a dashcam video of a dramatic choking rescue in Rochester, NY, was picked up by numerous news outlets.

Via the original YouTube video, here's the description:

source

Here's the video:


Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Business Insider story deals death blow to my dad's hokum about back blows -- and opens the door to further expose "the Koop maneuver"

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.)


What's the right way to save a choking victim's life? It turns out, the Heimlich maneuver is not the only approach – and it may not even be the best one.

Repeated blows to the back could be equally useful in a dangerous situation. You might be thinking that back blows will only lodge the food deeper into a person's trachea. But this is a myth perpetuated by Dr. Henry Heimlich.

According to reports from Dr. Heimlich's youngest son, Peter Heimlich, the founder of the Heimlich maneuver spent years trying to discredit back blows, publicly denouncing them as "death blows."
The story also tagged this 1982 research study by three Yale physicians which my father clandestinely funded. My wife Karen and I uncovered that scam which we helped bring to public attention via a first-rate 2006 New Haven Register expose by veteran medical journalist Abram Katz.

(Dr. Heimlich) even funded a study in the '80s that showed back blows could do more harm to a choking victim than good. But in truth, there is no valid scientific evidence to prove that back blows are any better, or worse, than the Heimlich maneuver.
Even after being busted for that mess, dad kept slinging his anti-back blows hokum, but the only reporter still willing to provide him with a platform was Cliff Radel at the Cincinnati Enquirer.

The Business Insider story also opens the door for more reporting about "the Koop maneuver."

Via a press release describing an influential 1985 Public Health Statement:
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop today endorsed the Heimlich manuever [sic], not as the preferred, but as the only method that should be used for the treatment of choking from foreign body airway obstruction.

Dr. Koop also urged the American Red Cross and the American Heart Association to teach only the Heimlich Manuever [sic] in their first aid classes. Dr. Koop urged both organizations to withdraw from circulation manuals, posters and other materials that recommend treating choking victims with back slaps and blows to the chest.

..."Millions of Americans have been taught to treat persons who are choking with back blows, chest thrusts and abdominal thrusts," Dr. Koop said. "Now, they must be advised...and I ask for the participation of the Red Cross, the American Heart Association and public health authorities everywhere...that these methods are hazardous, even lethal."

A back slap, the surgeon general said, can drive a foreign object even deeper into the throat.
Click here for Koop's two-part published statement which, like the press release, repeatedly misspells the word maneuver.

Per the Business Insider, there has never been any evidence that back blows are ineffective or dangerous.

Same goes for chest thrusts. In fact two studies concluded that they were more effective than "the Heimlich."

So why did Koop use his bully pulpit to circulate false information?
 
Via Maneuvering Over Heimlich, a 2007 Creators Syndicate column by the redoubtable Lenore Skenazy:
Back blows are "death blows," Dr. Heimlich declared long and loud as he lobbied for his maneuver's acceptance 30 years ago. In 1985, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop endorsed this view, dubbing backslaps "hazardous." After that, only the Heimlich Maneuver was considered kosher.

What most people don't realize, Dr. Heimlich's son, Peter Heimlich, said, is that "Koop was an old friend of my father's, and he did it as a buddy favor."
More about Dr. Koop's misleading statement via Heimlich Maneuver Endorsed by Cristine Russell, Washington Post, October 2, 1985.

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

UK tabloid claims actor Halle Berry's life was saved by "the Heimlich" -- but she debunked that years ago; here's what happened when I requested a published correction

Halle Berry (source)

In his 2014 memoir, my dad claimed that actor Halle Berry was saved from choking by "the Heimlich."

But via an award-winning Hollywood Reporter article, she denied the claim.

December obituaries for my father in the New York Times and BuzzFeed included the false "Halle was Heimlich-ed" claim, but, in response to my requests, both news outlets published thorough corrections.

At the same time, the UK's Daily Express tabloid published the bogus claim, but the paper ignored my corrections requests.

So I filed a complaint with UK's Independent Press Standards Organization.

source

This seemed so straightforward, I assumed it would be a slam dunk.

Plus I was motivated because it would add to my tally of successful, possibly record-making corrections requests as reported in January by Erik Wemple at the Washington Post.

But in a determination that reads like something out of Lewis Carroll, yesterday IPSO wrote me that the factual error published by the Express wasn't "significantly misleading."

Huh?

It was significantly misleading enough to Ms. Berry.

She told the Hollywood Reporter it was baloney.

In response to the determination, a representative from the Express's legal office thanked IPSO and left the lie uncorrected.

In other words, the paper has made clear that they are intentionally providing false information to readers.

Some skeptics may claim that's not unusual, but how often do you get an empirically provable example like this?

Further, by failing to correct the error, the Express has tacitly admitted that its editorial standards are below the New York Times and BuzzFeed.

Perhaps no surprise there, but how often do you get a bulletproof example?

As for IPSO, based on their determination, apparently they hold their member organizations to a lower editorial standard than the New York Times and BuzzFeed.

Those are just some of the points I raised in my appeal today to IPSO which includes links and screenshots documenting my trip down this UK journalism rabbit hole. Click here to download a copy.




This item has revised.

Monday, May 8, 2017

My father's being inducted into the New Rochelle, NY, "Walk of Fame" -- today I wrote to the city about his 50-year history of fraud [UPDATED]

UPDATE: Son of famed New Rochelle doctor asks for Walk of Fame reconsideration by Lisa Reyes, Local12 TV News (Westchester, NY), May 8, 2017:
The son of a New Rochelle doctor credited with creating the Heimlich maneuver says inducting his father into the New Rochelle Walk of Fame would be a mistake.

Dr. Henry Heimlich, part of the New Rochelle High School class of 1937, is world-famous for developing the anti-choking method that bears his name. This year, the city is honoring him by inducting him into its Walk of Fame.

Dr. Heimlich's son, Peter, sent a letter to the city urging officials to reconsider the designation.

"My father was involved most of his career promoting a bunch of crackpot medical ideas that resulted in the significant loss of life," he says.
Click here to direct download a copy of my letter.

Sunday, May 7, 2017

Part IV of "Drowning in Funworld" by Pamela Mills-Senn, final segment of the dramatic backstory of the landmark article that was our Rosetta Stone

Pamela Mills-Senn

Here's the fourth and final segment of Drowning in Funworld by Long Beach, CA, journalist Pamela Mills-Senn.

It's the dramatic backstory behind her landmark March 30, 2000 article that became the road map for much of the research by my wife Karen and me, work that resulted in hundreds of mainstream print and broadcast media reports.

Drowning in Funworld was first published 11 years ago this week by the now-defunct Cincinnati Beacon blog. It's my privilege to make it available again -- PMH

P.S. Big thanks to the United States Lifesaving Association and the organization's president, Chris Brewster, for posting Pamela's article on their website which is where Karen and I found it in 2002.


--------------------------------------------------

Part IV: It's a Fun World After All

And so the writing began. The editor and I were concerned that - since it appeared Ellis & Associates had made a questionable decision in changing their drowning rescue protocol to the Heimlich maneuver - the article would be buried if we focused too much attention on them. We decided instead to concentrate on Heimlich and his research and hoped that interested parties (the waterparks, public pools, lakes, and amusement parks that had hired Ellis to provide lifeguard training) would put two and two together and ask some hard questions of the company. This is why you'll notice, if you look at the Funworld article, there is just one section related to Ellis, although they are mentioned towards the end of the piece as well.

In total, I wrote three drafts. The first was sent to the editor so he could weed down the word count, which approached 10,000 words. The second, based on his revisions, was then sent out to everyone that was interviewed or provided information (with the exception of Dr. Henry Heimlich). No one received the full article, just sections with their input except in those cases where I also asked sources to review my comments on research methodology, general drowning information, etc. Ellis received only his section and comments.

The third draft incorporated their comments, revisions and corrections and was sent to the editor. In turn, he sent the entire article out to Heimlich to give him a last chance to comment.

During my research, I would ask Heimlich to explain the discrepancies I was encountering.

For example, I asked him why he incorrectly extrapolated Dr. Linda Quan's data, why he didn't tell people this was a regional study? He responded that he did make people aware of its regional nature. But this was only occasionally true. He very often failed to mention the regional nature of this study and that consequently, data from this study was restricted in its applications. Unless you were educated in statistics, you would not appreciate the study's limits.

And when I asked him why he falsely stated that the lifeguards in Quan's study had been trained in CPR, he accused Quan of lying. He wrote:
Mouth-to-mouth was adopted for drowning in 1961 and was spread by the (American Red Cross) to lifeguards and the public very quickly. I find it hard to believe that 23 years later [Quan’s study covered 10 years beginning in 1974] they were not yet teaching CPR to lifeguards in Seattle. I’d like to see written proof from Quan. There is certainly no published statement in any of Quan's writing indicating that she improved outcomes by adding CPR to the lifeguard’s protocol for the first time [remember that I mentioned a later study conducted by Quan demonstrated this very thing]. How could she leave that out if it were possibly true? It sounds like something she thought of belatedly, after I quoted her findings of 42% mortality.
Interestingly - referring to Heimlich’s contention that by 1974 the majority of lifeguards were well aware of and well-trained in CPR - as I was researching the Funworld article I attended an industry trade show in Atlanta, which gave me the opportunity to sit in on an Ellis presentation about their aquatic services. At this presentation, they showed a video of a kid that had drowned in a public pool (the video was shot by a bystander). The trade show was in early 2000, I believe and the video was recent. The guards at that pool pulled the kid out and then did essentially nothing. They acted completely baffled, something that would never happen to Ellis-trained guards - or so the message was.

The presenter said these guards had received CPR training, although he wouldn’t say from whom. The point is that while Heimlich appears disbelieving that any guard could be untrained (or poorly-trained) in CPR, decades later, Ellis was willing to state this was the case.

This is how it went with Heimlich. He would start out by appearing to answer questions about his research, etc. but then in a weird sort of circular approach, sidestep the question either by referencing the very studies I was asking him about, or refer me back to his own chapters, writings and correspondence. It smacked of a sort of "because I say so," logic.

He would also refer to Ellis' adoption of his maneuver as evidence of its merit, not addressing the fact that this adoption was, in fact, based on his questionable science and misused data.

Throughout, he accused researchers of outright fraud, or of not understanding their own data. He also believed that the Institute of Medicine misinterpreted their findings and had made deliberate omissions around his work. At times, Heimlich almost sounded like a conspiracy theorist.

The third and final copy, the one sent to Heimlich after all the others had reviewed it, stood unchanged, in spite of his rebuttals. It was time to show the report in its entirety to Ellis.

I believe the editor showed it to Ellis and others who were attending a meeting of the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions safety committee. [Funworld is published by IAAPA.] I can't recall whether this committee was focused entirely on waterpark safety or also concerned itself with amusement parks.

The report's impact was immediate. The committee was upset and concerned that the news media, which routinely reads the trade publications of major industries, would get wind of the report. Although the article was to have run in the magazine, and later when it grew longer, to be included with the magazine as a supplemental report, ultimately it was kept out of the publication altogether. Instead, a month or so later, it was mailed out to IAAPA members as a "Special Report," effectively keeping it out of the public eye — although whether this, or costs, was the motivating factor, only the publisher knows. [Editor's note: The privately-distributed Funworld article was dated March 30, 2000. A few months later, the Los Angeles Times reported the story.]

One drowning authority I relied heavily on during my research was Jerome Modell M.D., at the time a professor in the Department of Anesthesiology at the University of Florida's College of Medicine. As I said in the Funworld article, Modell's work in drowning is internationally known and referenced. As of that writing, he had also acted as an expert witness in drowning litigation on approximately 150 occasions.

When Modell heard that the article was not going to be published in the magazine, he fired off a letter to John Graff, the president and CEO of IAAPA. In it he said:
For you now to deny the printing of this material indicates to me that…the report did not result in a manuscript that fit your personal prejudices. I can tell you that as a scientist, on many occasions, experiments that I and my colleagues have performed have produced results that did not meet our pretesting biases, but in the end, resulted in an even more significant contribution that had our predetermined biases been true.

For the above reasons, I believe that your censorship of this article was inappropriate; some have even expressed the opinion to me that external pressure, or perhaps a vested interest in a different outcome, may have influenced your judgment in this matter. I personally chose not to believe this, but I urge you, in the interest of safety for all of us who are interested in water sports, to publish this article in Funworld magazine at the earliest possible date.
Graff was unmoved.

Within days of receiving the article, Ellis quietly changed their protocol back to CPR, claiming they had decided to do so partly because of the Institute of Medicine's findings and decision not to endorse the maneuver for drowning or revisit the issue. (The first IOM committee reviewed the issue in 1991 and the second IOM committed reviewed this again in 1994. This was not a recent decision and Ellis should have been well aware of it).

Another reason Ellis gave was their submersion data. They started collecting data on the maneuver in 1995, when they changed their protocol. They also had older data, going back to 1985 when Ellis-trained guards were still responding with CPR. They had been touting their data as demonstrating the maneuver was superior to CPR, but the problem was, as Ellis representative Larry Newell admitted, the two sets of data were not comparable, so no meaningful comparison between the two protocols was possible. In fact, it was impossible.

But they had to have known this before receiving the article.

Funworld's editor was fired, forced to resign, however you want to spin it, because of this article and because he backed it. All along, I had been thinking only of how I might be impacted. I had no idea the heat he was taking and had been taking for months. And yet, when he had the chance to kill the article, he didn't take it. I can’t tell you how much I admired him and still do.

In Part Three I mentioned the Save A Life Foundation and that they were the only organization outside of Ellis to endorse and teach the maneuver for drowning. At the time, Heimlich sat on that organization's medical advisory board, as did CPR developer Dr. Peter Safar. The medical director then was Stanley Zydlo, M.D.

He told me during an interview, that they initially advised folks to use CPR, but decided to switch to the maneuver based on the 42% fatality rate from Quan's study (and supplied to him by Heimlich) and also on CPR’s "median mortality rate of 40%" another figure supplied by Heimlich. Zydlo contrasted this to Ellis' stated mortality rate, attributed to the maneuver protocol, of just 3% and decided this was proof enough the maneuver worked far better than CPR.

But, said those whom I interviewed for this article, Ellis' low mortality rate is more likely the result of the very short submersion times (remember, Ellis says their average submersion time is 29 seconds) rather than the maneuver.

As far as I know, although I haven’t investigated, the Save A Life Foundation is still recommending the maneuver as a first response to drowning/near-drowning, in spite of receiving a copy of the article and in spite of Ellis’ reversal. [Editor's note: In the wake of dozens of media exposes alleging fraud, the Save A Life Foundation went out of business in 2009 and the organization's founder/president Carol J. Spizzirri is a defendant in a wide-ranging federal civil rights lawsuit brought by a former SALF employee.]

After fulfilling a contract for another article, established when the editor was still in place, I never wrote for Funworld again. The editor found another job, and we kept in touch. We felt like we were the only ones in the world, except for a handful of others, who knew what we knew and we had weathered it together. But the knowledge of what people are willing to do to advance their agendas remains with you and changes you, and it changed me.

I remember the mixed feelings I had when Ellis reversed their decision. On the one hand, it confirmed that my research had uncovered real problems. Otherwise, I believe Jeff Ellis would have stood his ground and presented evidence favorable to his decision. He had every opportunity to do that.

But the quick reversal made it appear, in my mind anyway, that these problems were known all along, and this was troubling. Because it seemed to me that what had really taken place in the waterparks were the very human studies experiments that the IOM had said should not be approved. And it seemed like admission prices were high enough without tossing this into the mix.

We'd like to think we can count on the gatekeepers, like Ellis, to protect us from people like Dr. Heimlich, that would use us to their own purposes. I guess what I learned from this experience is that the gatekeepers need watching too.

Postscript: Several years after the publishing of the article, reports of Dr. Heimlich's "malariotherapy" experiments began appearing in the Los Angeles Times and other news outlets. Around that time, I was contacted by Peter Heimlich, Dr. Heimlich's youngest son. Peter and his wife Karen have worked tirelessly to expose problems surrounding Dr. Heimlich's research and claims.

Suddenly, the editor and I were not so alone.