The Sidebar

UPDATE, 11/10/16: Via Management of Airway Obstruction by Michael R. Sayre MD, Contemporary Cardiology: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, Humana Press (2005)

Despite widespread education on the use of the Heimlich maneuver and other techniques for treatment of acute airway obstruction, the (US) death rate remains stable.

Here's an interesting question for statistics experts.

How many people have been saved from choking to death by the Heimlich maneuver? 

Via At 96, Dr. Heimlich Uses His Own Maneuver on Choking Victim by Christine Hauser, New York Times, May 27, 2016:

In 1974, (Dr. Henry Heimlich) developed the method that compresses the lungs, causing a flow of air that carries the stuck object out of the airway and then the mouth. More than 100,000 people owe their lives to the technique, by some estimates.

I've come across that "100,000 lives saved" number many times. I've also seen 50,000.

To the best of my knowledge, both numbers originated with the Heimlich Institute, a Cincinnati nonprofit whose sole activity appears to be running Heimlich Heroes, a program that teaches young people how to perform the Heimlich maneuver.

Via the Heimlich Heroes website

Via the Heimlich Heroes website

Ever since my wife and I started researching my father's unusual career, I've wondered if there was a way to determine how many choking deaths have been prevented by his namesake treatment.

My math skills are challenged when I have to balance my checkbook, but the only approach that made sense to me was to look at choking death statistics.

That is, if the deaths of 100,000 or 50,000 choking victims had been prevented, presumably there would be a statistical decrease in the number of choking deaths since my father introduced the treatment.

And to adjust for population growth, it seemed to me that the only useful numbers would be choking deaths per capita.

The National Safety Council (NSC) compiles statistics on various unintentional injury-related deaths: motor vehicles, falls, drowning, fires, firearms, poisonings, etc.

According to the organization's 2016 Injury Facts, the NSC has been compiling choking death statistics from 1943 to the present.

That's three decades before my father introduced the treatment and four decades since, which seems like a reasonable and perhaps useful date range.

I first reported about the NSC's choking death statistics in an October 21, 2013 item about a problematic audio documentary about my father produced by Radiolab, a syndicated NPR program.

At the time, here's what Radiolab reporter/producer Pat Walters (who has since left the program) e-mailed me:

I checked my NSC stats, and it looks like I was wrong. I’d had an intern run the numbers for me initially, with the intention of checking them later, which I always do. Here’s what I’ve found: I only have data up to 2009 (from the 2011 report), which I believe you said you have, too. I’m waiting on the 2012 report from the com people at NSC so I can avoid paying 90 bucks for it. But anyway, according to that data and my back of the envelope calculations using population estimates from the US Census, in 1973 (pre-Heimlich manuever [sic]), choking was listed as the cause for 1.42 deaths per 100,000 people in the US. In 2009? The rate was 1.49 per 100,000.

So, if anything, the rate has gone up a bit. But just a bit. Not even significant, if you ask me. My take on this is that, essentially, almost nothing has changed.

Interesting.

But Mr. Walters isn't a statistics expert, so I'm hoping this item finds its way onto the screens of some capable number crunchers who might be able to shed some light on the subject.

Page down for the NSC's most recent (2016) per capita choking deaths per 100,000 population. Click here to download a copy.

I'm going to forward this to Nate Silver's crew at FiveThirtyEight.com, but if you know any other stats experts who might want to chime in, I'd welcome any thoughtful analysis for a future item.

Click here for my contact info.

This item has been revised for simplicity. 

Jad Abumrad & Robert Krulwich, Radiolab co-hosts and co-investigators on the $1.5m NSF grant (source)

In his May 1st CityBeat column, veteran reporter/journalism professor/media critic Ben Kaufman addressed some serious reportorial problems in an audio  documentary about my father produced by Radiolab, a widely-syndicated NPR show that's based at WNYC.

As documented in an investigation request letter I sent today to the National Science Foundation, those problems were just the tip of the iceberg.

NSF Award #1114623, Radiolab: What Curiosity Sounds Like; Discovering, Challenging, And Sharing Scientific Ideas

From my letter, addressed to Richard Duschl PhD, director of the NSF division that oversees the grant:

I'm troubled that this program is supported by tax dollars. Based on the following information, Radiolab's brand of journalism includes: failing to correct provably false information; reporting information known to be false; reporting fabricated information; cutting unethical deals to obtain interviews; obtaining interviews and information under false pretenses; and censorship.

Astoundingly, all that malfeasance occurred in the reporting of a single story, The Man Behind the Maneuver, a 25-minute documentary about my father, Henry J. Heimlich MD, known for "the Heimlich maneuver."

...(This) is to request that the NSF conduct a thorough review of Radiolab's editorial policies and NSF's oversight of the grant, and that further funding be frozen until the review is completed.

For details, click here to download a copy or page down to view my letter, an eight-page shopping list of the story's junk reporting.

[10/28/13 UPDATE: This morning I sent a near-identical investigation request to Dean Cappello, Chief Content Officer and Senior Vice President of Programming at WNYC Radio, the NPR flagship station that produces Radiolab. Click here to view, click here to download.]

Even if you don't want to go into those weeds, check out this go-round I had with Pat Walters, who reported and produced the story because it leads to information that may surprise you: 

(During a two-hour interview he conducted with me last December, Mr. Walters) asked me whether I thought that “the good my father had accomplished outweighed the bad.” I asked him to clarify – that is, what “good” and “bad” was he referring to? He replied that regardless of the harm for which my father may be responsible, “the Heimlich maneuver has saved the lives of many thousands of choking victims.”

I then asked him for the source of that number. He replied that it came from choking death statistics published by the National Safety Council. (I'm familiar with those statistics, so I realized he didn't know what he was talking about.) I replied that I'd answer his question after he reviewed those figures and got back to me.

About a week later, I received this in a December 27, 2012 e-mail from Mr. Walters:

I checked my NSC stats, and it looks like I was wrong. I’d had an intern run the numbers for me initially, with the intention of checking them later, which I always do. Here’s what I’ve found: I only have data up to 2009 (from the 2011 report), which I believe you said you have, too. I’m waiting on the 2012 report from the com people at NSC so I can avoid paying 90 bucks for it. But anyway, according to that data and my back of the envelope calculations using population estimates from the US Census, in 1973 (pre-Heimlich manuever [sic]), choking was listed as the cause for 1.42 deaths per 100,000 people in the US. In 2009? The rate was 1.49 per 100,000.

So, if anything, the rate has gone up a bit. But just a bit. Not even significant, if you ask me. My take on this is that, essentially, almost nothing has changed.

Interesting.

...But here's what Mr. Walters reported:

(Thousands) and thousands – maybe even millions – have been rescued by the Heimlich maneuver.

In an e-mail to Mr. Walters shortly after his story aired, I asked how he arrived at the “thousands and thousands – maybe even millions” figure? From his March 8 reply:

The maneuver has been around for 38 years. If 52 people have been saved by it in each year of its existence, it has saved “thousands” of lives over the course of its existence.

In other words, he ignored his own conclusion about the NSC data, and chose to make up and report his own.

My highlighting (source)

Squiffy reporting aside, take another look at what he wrote:

(Since the introduction of the Heimlich maneuver in 1974) the rate (of choking deaths) has gone up a bit. But just a bit. Not even significant, if you ask me. My take on this is that, essentially, almost nothing has changed.

Click here for the NSC's 2011 edition of Injury Facts. Choking deaths per capita, collected from 1943-2009, are on pages 55-56.

I have no expertise in statistics, but that's how the numbers look to me, too. 

But according to Cincinnati's Heimlich Institute:

Since its introduction, the Heimlich Maneuver has saved over 50,000 people in the United States alone.

Any statistics experts want to chime in?
 



This item has been slightly revised.

10/21/13 update via The Sidebar: Radiolab's junk reporting: my investigation requests to the National Science Foundation & WNYC -- and some surprising statistics about choking deaths

5/1/13 update: Today veteran reporter turned journalism professor Ben Kaufman racked up Radiolab's "Heimlich censorship deal" in his media criticism column published by the Cincinnati CityBeat newsweekly.


As I reported, last month the Cincinnati Business Courier disappeared a staff reporter's article, apparently because it included critical information about my father.

Now, courtesy of a popular National Public Radio program, it's my turn to go down the memory hole.

Via Radiolab's website:


Based at WNYC, New York City's "flagship public radio station," Radiolab is hosted by the show's creator, Jad Abumbrad, and veteran reporter Robert Krulwich.

source

On March 5, Radiolab aired The Man Behind the Maneuver, a 25-minute story about my father's career by staff producer Pat Walters.

source

The show included part of a two-hour recorded interview I gave to Walters on December 18, 2012.

About a week ago, this appeared on Radiolab's website:


From the show's updated podcast, here's the segment in which Walters explains the deal Radiolab cut with my brother to censor my voice from the story so they could gain access to my father:

source

Here are the first few paragraphs:


Atlantic reporter Lindsay Abrams's article -- a concise, thorough round-up of my father's bizarre career -- could just as well have been titled, "What was left out of Radiolab's Heimlich story." (More about that in a future item.)

But this sentence didn't ring true:


Although I doubt that my father invented what came to be known as the Heimlich Valve...

"I don't think my father invented anything," Peter said, "but his own mythology." (source)

...I can't recall any published information that supported Ms. Abrams's statement, so in a March 11 e-mail, I asked her:

Would you please provide your source(s) for that statement? That is, who has claimed my father may not have invented the Heimlich Valve?

To which she promptly replied:

I thought I had saw [sic] it on your site, but if that's not the case I'm going to have to go back through my notes to find exactly where this was. In the meantime, I've temporarily removed that claim until I can be sure I can accurately source it.

Here's the updated paragraph as of then:


Over a week later, the article was the same, so I e-mailed Ms. Abrams re: the status of the correction, to which she promptly replied:

I have not been able to locate the original source of that claim. I believe that it was originally intended to be a reference to this story from Radar Magazine, which refers to a different controversy concerning the Heimlich valve: http://medfraud.info/Radar_Outmaneuvered_11-05.html

The correction, once again, has been appended to the piece -- thank you again for bringing it to my attention.

That's when things started gettin' jiggy.

Contrary to her "once again" claim, this was the first I'd heard about an "appended correction."

But jiggier still?

There was no appended correction on the article.

Assuming she'd erred and simply neglected to post the correction, I replied:

Not sure if it's my browser's cache pulling up an older version (of your article), but I don't see the noted correction on the story. Can you send me a screenshot of that, please?

No reply, so the next day I wrote her:

Not to be a nag, but I first brought this to your attention on March 11 (see e-mails below my signature), so I'd like to wrap this up, preferably by the end of today. 

Via your previous e-mail: 

The correction, once again, has been appended to the piece...

My eyesight isn't what it used to be, but this morning I viewed your article in three different web browsers and I couldn't find an appended correction. I've attached a time-stamped copy of the print version from this morning which doesn't include it.

Still no reply.

Quick sidetrack via her article:


Tired of playing dodge ball with Ms. Abrams -- who, based on her resume, should know better -- I took it upstairs to Atlantic editor James Bennet and to Natalie Raape, the magazine's Communications Director.

Voila!


And yesterday afternoon, this appended correction did finally appear:


But wait, there's more!

Today I noticed that this part of her article was expanded from this:


To this:


I thought that was interesting and that Ms. Abrams might be interested in learning more. So about an hour ago, I phoned her, but she said she wasn't interested in receiving more information.

Oh, and the appended correction has also been expanded:

 
Incidentally, about that photo used in the article, here's the cutline:


Click here to see the entire photo.

Isn't that the late actress/dancer Gwen Verdon? I'll try to find out.

If so, maybe I can score yet another update on Ms. Abrams's article!

3/27/13 UPDATE: Not Gwen Verdon or even close! In response to my inquiry, Paul Colford, Director of Media Relations at the Associated Press, replied, "The woman is Dorothy Allen of Halifax, Mass."

Screen capture from Bing.com News search showing now-scrubbed article

Via Dr. Henry Heimlich's reputation hangs in the balance by staff reporter James Ritchie, a March 14 item published on the website of the Cincinnati Business Courier, one of the papers owned by American City Business Journals:

The name of Dr. Henry Heimlich, for whom the choking first-aid maneuver is named, is known worldwide.

But recent news coverage questions what his legacy will be. 

The Atlantic notes that the world "may not remember him at all, as 'abdominal thrust' is now the term of choice of the Red Cross and the American Heart Association for the life-saving response to choking victims."

...As the Atlantic reported, Heimlich "wasn't content just to be a household name" after he introduced the Heimlich Maneuver in 1974. He began promoting it for asthma attacks and drowning victims. Then he began running experiments in developing countries to see if inducing malaria in AIDS patients could cure them.

Radiolab's Pat Walters recently devoted a podcast to Heimlich, whose move once saved his life.

Though he was once a big fan of Heimlich, he didn't like what he found.

"When I think about my kids...when they learn this thing, it won't be called the Heimlich maneuver," he said. "And based on what I know now, I really don't think that I would tell them to call it that."

Sometime over the next few days, the story was completely scrubbed from the site without any published explanation.

And the paper's long-time editor -- and part-time journalism teacher at Ohio's Miami University -- Rob Daumeyer, is refusing to answer questions.


Here's what the original article looked like -- click here to download a full-size version:


Via the original URL, http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2013/03/dr-henry-heimlichs-reputation-hangs.html, here's what replaced it:


At the time of publication, reporter James Ritchie, the paper's managing editor, Lisa Benson, and the Business Courier thought the story was worth chirping about:

source

source

So why did Ritchie's story get censored and who gave the order?

Having some previous experience with how Daumeyer runs the paper -- more about that in a future item -- I had a pretty good guess, so yesterday I sent these questions to the paper:

1) I'd like a yes or no answer re: whether anyone from Deaconess* or the Heimlich Institute or anyone representing my father contacted the paper about your item.

2) If yes, may I please be provided with the name(s)?

3) I'd like to know the precise time your item was taken offline, which Business Courier employee was responsible for the decision to take it offline, and why it was taken down.

I'd welcome any additional information the Business Courier wishes to provide.

The response?

From: "Robert Daumeyer" <rdaumeyer@bizjournals.com>
Date: 3/18/2013 2:49 PM
To: <peter.heimlich@gmail.com>
CC: "Lisa Benson" <lisabenson@bizjournals.com>, "James Ritchie" <jritchie@bizjournals.com>

Peter ... This is Rob Daumeyer, I'm editor at the Business Courier ... I don't have any additional information to add for you.

Thanks

Rob

Sent from my iPhone

* In June 1998, The Heimlich Institute became a member of Deaconess Associations Inc., to help advance and promote the mission and vision of The Heimlich Institute in perpetuity. (source)

More to come....

Update: via On Second Thought by Ben Kaufman, Cincinnati CityBeat, March 19, 2012

Why did Cincinnati Business Courier take down its online story about Henry Heimlich’s attempts to save his reputation and that of his Heimlich Maneuver? Granted, it wasn’t flattering, but it didn’t go beyond what Curmudgeon has reported. Reporter James Ritchie forwarded my request for an explanation and editor Rob Daumeyer responded, “Thanks for asking, but we don't have anything to add for you.”

Hat tip to Bwannah Bob. This item has been slightly revised and updated.

I reported about this last year, but a new radio report about my father's career gives me an excuse for a re-visit.

The Man Behind the Maneuver, produced and reported by Pat Walters, aired last week on a program called Radiolab.

Via their website:


You want boundary-blurring? Read on....

From An Illustrated History of Heimlich, a graphic timeline that accompanied the Radiolab story:

Graphic by Larry Buchanan

Here's an audio snip from the show describing how my father "laid the dog down on the operating table and then he jams this piece of meat down the dog's throat":

Four beagles, weighing 17 kg (38 lb) each, were anesthetized with thiamylal (Surital) sodium given intravenously. A cuffed, No. 32 endotracheal tube, the lumen plugged by a rubber stopper, was inserted under direct vision through the mouth into the larynx. The cuff was distended with 3 to 4 ml of air, causing total obstruction of the trachea, simulating a bolus of food caught in the human larynx. The animal immediately went into respiratory distress, as evidenced by spasmodic paradoxical respiratory movements of the chest and diaphragm.

...Subsequently, I pressed the palm of my hand deeply and firmly upward into the abdomen of the animal a short distance below the rib cage, thereby pushing against the diaphragm. The endotracheal tube (bolus) popped out of the trachea. After several labored respirations, the dog resumed breathing. The experiment was repeated more than 20 times on each animal with the same result. The clinical situation was then simulated by inserting a bolus of raw hamburger into the dog's larynx until the respiratory passage was totally occluded. The abdominal pressure maneuver was repeated and, in each instance, after one or two compressions, the bolus was ejected from the larynx and normal respiratory exchange was established.

Incidentally, there's no mention of string being tied to the meat and it's unclear how a piece of string could be tied to "a bolus of raw hamburger."

What makes this more interesting is that, according to the LA Weekly, since 1986 my father's been on the medical advisory board of the Washington, DC-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and every couple of years PCRM presents the Henry J. Heimlich Award for Innovative Medicine.

Via an article last year in the Wayne State University student newspaper:

Dr. John Pippin, director of academic affairs for PCRM, said the group’s interest is scientifically and medically based.

 ...PCRM is opposed to and seeks to ban the use of animals in medical research in all forms, Pippin said, because such research is “a fraud.”

Since his 1974 research using the beagles, my father has claimed to have seen the errors of his ways and has represented himself as an advocate against the use of animals in medical research.

For example, from a May 1990 speech he gave at the Animal Experimentation Alternatives Conference in Tel Aviv:

This useless sacrificial research can be stopped if we take time, and use the press, which is very friendly.

However, only a couple of years ago, my father's Heimlich Institute donated $615,000 to the University of Cincinnati for cancer research using mice. As I reported, PCRM then quietly scrubbed the Heimlich Institute from their list of approved charities.

Here's a good question that animal activists may wish to ask Dr. Pippin and PCRM founder/president Neal Barnard MD.

Why is my father still on their organization's board?

Source (screenshot from today)

A request to Sidebar readers: Over the years, I've sent a number of courteous inquiries to Drs. Pippin and Barnard and PCRM's media representatives, but I've never received a single reply. If anyone wishes to ask PCRM for an explanation why my father is still on their board, I'd welcome copies of any correspondence.

Click here for PCRM's contact information. Click here for mine.


This item has been slightly revised.