We are not and never have been clients of Campaign Solutions. They proposed working with us to develop online fundraising for our non-profit, but we decided not to engage in a business relationship with them.
I'm doing follow-ups in order to attempt to determine why, per this screenshot, Campaign Solutions claims her organization is a client of CS staffer Anthony Bellotti.
###
Campaign Solutions, arguably the country's leading conservative political consulting firm, counts among its clients brand name anti-gay politicos and spearheads big-money ballot initiatives to deny equal rights to gay Americans.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Alexandria, VA-based company also carries the ball for high-profile animal rights groups like the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a DC organization that touts its relationships with prominent members of the gay community including Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) and Ellen DeGeneres.
PCRM is one of three pro-animal organizations that Campaign Solutions names as clients. The others are Animal Protection of New Mexico, based in Albuquerque, and the American Anti-Vivisection Society of Jenkintown, PA, whose website states:
Founded in 1883, the American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) is the first non-profit animal advocacy and educational organization in the United States dedicated to ending experimentation on animals in research, testing, and education. AAVS also opposes and works to end other forms of cruelty to animals.
Per George Orwell, some animals are more equal than others. Especially political animals.
According to their website, "Campaign Solutions invented online fundraising for political and public affairs campaigns. We've raised more online money for Republican candidates, ballot initiatives, non-profit organizations, and public affairs clients than any consulting firm in history."
I guess some agendas are more equal than others. They definitely pay better.
And when it comes to the agenda of attracting clients from the animal rights community, if this ain't Campaign Solutions' boy wonder, then I'm a monkey's uncle:
PCRM, the Anti-Vivisection Society (which, speaking of Orwell, sounds like something from 1984), and Animal Protection of New Mexico must be paying Campaign Solutions a pretty penny. Are we to believe these established, savvy nonprofits are unaware of the company's political profile? "Well, we never looked at their brochures, client list, or website..."
What about supporters of these organizations? Would they pleased to learn that their donations are paying Mr. Bellotti's salary?
And what would high-profile gay public figures think about being one degree of separation away from Mr. Bellotti and his agenda?
Marlon Reis and his partner, Rep. Jared Polis (source)
Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., has just agreed to sponsor our bill to include vegetarian options and a dairy alternative beverage in school lunch programs.
What about Ellen DeGeneres, shown here accepting PCRM's "Voice of Compassion" award from the organization's founder/president, Neal Barnard MD?
For a possible follow-up, here's my agenda.
I'll send this item with requests for comment to some of the above players and see what kind of responses I get.
Last month I was contacted by a chum who has followed my efforts to bring to public attention the Heimlich Institute's illicit (and apparently illegal) human experiments on AIDS patients in Africa.
My chum told me about an internet dust-up that had been going on at blogs and websites that follow nutrition science, a subject about which I have no expertise or interest. (Full disclosure: I consume food.)
According to said chum, a researcher at the University of Washington named Stephan Guyenet was planning a human study looking into what causes obesity, but it was apparently terminated for unknown reasons.
"Well," I responded. "If you want to learn more, since the school's a public institution, why not submit a public records request?"
The chum then presented the following reasoned response.
"I don't want to. Would you do it?"
Not a surprise. Chum has a history of trying to persuade me to do tasks. I usually don't bite, but this was a simple chore that might result in an easy blog item.
So I asked the U of W to provide "any and all related records including but not limited to the proposed study."
Here's what I received:
For ease of comprehension (there are a lot of duplicate e-mails), I copied and re-formatted them in chronological order. Some didn't have complete headers, but they were all dated so here's what I came up with. (I don't think I made any goofs, but if I did, send me an e-mail and I'll repair. Want copies with the full headers? Submit your own $%#@& records request. To download a pdf of both versions, click here.)
Long story short, on September 5, someone by the name of Francis Pomeroy e-mailed Wendy S. Brown RN, Assistant Director of U-Dub's Human Subjects Division.
Over the next few days, Ms. Brown engaged in a cordial e-mail exchange with Dr. Guyenet and Noella A. Rawlings who, according to this web page, is an attorney who represents the school in matters that include human subjects research.
On September 8, Dr. Guyenet informed Ms. Brown:
I have decided to end my participation in this study and advise my collaborators not to undertake it. There is no way for me to obtain IRB approval without my mentor, who understandably is not interested in doing this study. In retrospect, there are a number of problems with this idea that I didn't understand at the time. As I said before, I am 100% committed to upholding my responsibilities to the UW and to the NIH. I appreciate you helping me with this.
Based on the e-mails, my understanding is that Dr. Guyenet's mentor is professor of medicine Michael W. Schwartz MD.
So who is Francis Pomeroy? A quick Google of his name and e-mail address didn't yield any clues, so it may be a pseudonym.
No, it's not me. Years ago I used a pseud to drop a dime to UCLA's Office of Human Subjects Protection about the Heimlich AIDS experiments in China which resulted in a bunch of news reports, but I had nothing to do with this.
Anyway, in search of an easy follow-up, I'm e-mailing this item to Francis Pomeroy. If anything interesting comes back, I'll post an update.
In June I reported about an inquiry from Michael P. Goldenberg of Ann Arbor, MI, to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. Goldenberg had questions about a $174,000 contract Duncan arranged when he ran the Chicago Public Schools (CPS).
One of Illinois' highest profile charities teaches the Heimlich maneuver to children while maneuvering the truth to get money from government and big business.
It's called the Save-A-Life Foundation and is known across Illinois as an organization that teaches schoolchildren how to respond in emergencies. For the past few years, Save-A-Life has received millions of dollars in government funds and corporate donations. An ABC7 I-Team investigation has uncovered a series of misleading claims and deceptive credentials that raise doubts about Save-A-Life's integrity, funding and training.
Save-A-Life officials say they have taught the Heimlich maneuver and other first aid techniques to more than 1 million schoolchildren since 1995. They claim to have taught nearly 70,000 children how to save a life in the Chicago Public Schools this year alone.
On the Save-A-Life website, the organization promotes itself with a cartoon character of Schools' CEO Arne Duncan, who acts as an animated pitchman.
...Schools CEO Arne Duncan says it seems unlikely that (the) organization could have taught the number of students they claim.
With a developing mess that may involve President Obama - the Huffington Post reported that he was "close" to SALF, an allegation for which a White House press officer has promised me a response - you might think Duncan would provide a prompt and unequivocal denial.
But four months after Goldenberg's letter, the Ed Sec hasn't made a peep.
Gerald W. Bracey, 1940-2009
Instead, evasive, play-dumb e-mails from a Department of Education Communications Director seem to bolster concerns raised two years ago by the late education critic Jerry Bracey in his final column, The Skeleton in Arne Duncan's Closet.
Halloween season is an appropriate time to talk about rattling skeletons in the closet. US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan appears to have a noisy one dating from his years running the Chicago Public Schools.
Her name is Carol J. Spizzirri.
A little background. Spizzirri is a convicted shoplifter. According to a sworn affidavit by her ex-husband, a court ordered psychological evaluation diagnosed her as a paranoid schizophrenic and pathological liar. Spizzirri claimed to be a registered nurse and a renal specialist. Her alma mater, now defunct, denied giving her an RN and reportedly she has never been a registered nurse in either Wisconsin or Illinois, as she had claimed. One of her daughters filed a protective order against her because of alleged abuse.
Arne Duncan, then the chief executive officer of the Chicago Public Schools, now United States Secretary of Education, had lauded what the foundation was doing for the schools and effused, "Carol [Spizzirri] is one of my heroes."
Here's his hero storming out mid-interview when ABC7 I-Team reporter Chuck Goudie challenged claims made in SALF's fundraising and promotional materials about the Labor Day 1992 death of her 18-year-old daughter, Christina Pratt:
(SALF founder/president Carol) Spizzirri launched a nonprofit organization dedicated to teaching children emergency response techniques, raising at least $8.6 million in federal and state grants for her Save-A-Life Foundation...(Spizzirri) estimates 2 million children took the classes, many of them from the Chicago Public Schools.
However, in response to a federal court subpoena and public records requests, CPS can't produce any training records.
Duncan arranged a two-year contract with Spizzirri in which her organization was supposed to provide first aid training for 18,000 students during school years 2004/05 and 2005/06. Duncan signed off on $49,000 from the CPS coffers and Ronald McDonald House Charities kicked in another $125,000, a total of $174,000 handed to SALF.
Arne Duncan, Carol J. Spizzirri, and you-know-who (circa 2005)
But like I said, CPS has no records for the program. Further, in response to a public records request I filed for all training records associated with SALF's phantom CPS/McDonald's program, CPS handed the dirty diaper to Duncan:
The Chicago Public Schools does not have any responsive documents to your April 29, 2011 request. The schools who received training from the Save A Life Foundation were selected by members of the former CPS Chief Education Officer’s Office.
Which brings us back to Michael Goldenberg's inquiry.
Goldenberg wanted to know if the former Chief Education Officer of the Chicago Schools thought the current Inspector General of the Chicago Schools should investigate the $174,000 contract Duncan arranged for SALF. In a follow-up, Goldenberg asked if Duncan had a financial relationship with SALF.
Answering those questions should be easy dunks for a White House cabinet member and a former basketball pro.
Apparently not. After months of promises and foot-dragging by Duncan's office, Goldenberg received this non-answer:
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:35:49 -0500
From: "Dorfman, Cynthia" <Cynthia.Dorfman@ed.gov>
Subject: Your letter to Secretary Duncan
To: "mikegold@umich.edu" <mikegold@umich.edu>
Dear Mr. Goldenberg,
We received your letter to Secretary Duncan regarding the SALF program in Chicago Public Schools. Since the Secretary is no longer affiliated with the school system in Chicago, your best source of information is the school system itself. They would have all the records and data.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Dorfman Director of Regional Communications and Outreach
Goldenberg copied me on his correspondence and since he was being sandbagged, I thought I'd give it a go. From the e-mail I sent last week to Ms. Dorfman:
(On my blog) I intend to report that Mr. Duncan and you would not answer any of Mr. Goldenberg's questions including whether or not Mr. Duncan had a financial relationship with SALF. If you wish to dispute that characterization and/or provide further information or clarification, please get back to me no later than Wednesday, October 5.
It took a couple of phone messages and follow-up e-mails for her to finally send me this piffle:
Mr. Heimlich, I was (sic) responding to your emails and voice mail to let you know that I don't have any information about this issue.
But I don't fault Ms. Dorfman.
She's just stuck with the crummy task of having to cover for a boss who apparently doesn't want anyone going into his basement where - if you listen - you might hear a $174,000 skeleton moaning and rattling its chains.
My father (seated) inspects lymphocytes involved in developing new cellular
therapy for transplant patients. Deaconess Assns. Foundation and the
Heimlich Institute donated $115,000 to the Hoxworth Blood Center to
complete a $615,000 award for the study. From left are Hoxworth
researchers Jose Cancelas, MD, Ph.D.; Tom Leemhuis, Ph.D.; and Naseem
Almezel.
Last month I reported that Cincinnati's Heimlich Institute had awarded $343,000* to the University of Cincinnati's Hoxworth Blood Center for a research study using animals. (1/20/11 update: Per the responses to FOIAs I submitted to the university, mice were used in the research.)
What made this interesting is that a high-profile Washington, DC-based animal rights advocacy group called the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) had long included the Heimlich Institute on their list of approved charities that "(do) not fund or conduct animal experiments."
Not any more.
The Heimlich Institute is now MIA from PCRM's list.
UPDATE: From Hoxworth receives donationby Zohair Hussain, The News Record (University of Cincinnati student newspaper), September 21, 2011
Heimlich personally decided to help fund the research being done at Hoxworth. When Heimlich decided to make such a donation in the name of research at Hoxworth, Deaconess decided to contribute to Heimlich's donation.
"Doctor Heimlich personally saw the potential in the research of Dr. Leemhuis and Dr. Cancelas," said Patrick Ward, executive director of Deaconess Associations Foundation said.
But the Heimlich tag team has another heavyweight in their corner: US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. From the same article:*
All that's missing is a referee. How about the medical profession?
Or how about the media? Presumably the press wants to provide the public with the best available first aid information. Also, controversy sells newspapers and this one's got that base covered, plus two world-famous doctors are in the mix.
*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." (source)
My father and Dr. Neal Barnard at a PCRM 25th Anniversary gala, West Hollywood, CA, April 11, 2010; click here for video in which my father appears at timestamp 1:45
For decades, animal rights advocates have counted my father among their most prominent supporters.
For example, in her book, One Can Make a Difference, PETA founder/president Ingrid Newkirk wrote,"(Dr. Heimlich) is staunchly opposed to animal experiments."
So what happens when like-minded members of the animal rights community find out that last year my father awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund medical research using animals?
One of PCRM's principal objectives is to eliminate the use of animals in medical research. According to their website, my father has been an important part of those efforts:
Our video, Advances in Medical Education with Henry Heimlich M.D., which shows Harvard Medical School's outstanding alternative to old-fashioned medical school dog labs, won the Silver Plaque at the 1997 International Film and Video Competition. Produced by Steven Ragland and directed by Mark Schimmel, it was released to all medical schools and medical libraries in the U.S. and Canada.
Our second video, Innovations in Trauma Training with Henry Heimlich, M.D., along with Human Anatomy-Based Trauma Training: An Implementation Guide, shows instructors exactly how to teach trauma care without using animals. Currently, trauma courses kill an estimated 5,000 dogs every year. PCRM's video was distributed to every Advanced Trauma Life Support instructor in North America.
According to this 1996 article, PCRM founder/president Neal Barnard MD recommends donating money to my father's nonprofit because "(the Heimlich Institute) never sponsor(s) any animal experiments."
Charities that qualify are licensed to use the Humane Seal graphic on their educational and fundraising materials; the Seal's simple design quickly conveys the message: This charity is cruelty-free. PCRM administers the program on behalf of the Council on Humane Giving, a coalition of physicians and animal protection organizations. Charities wishing to apply for certification must sign a statement of assurance that they do not fund or conduct animal experiments.
...Thirty-some charities, including the Heimlich Institute...have received certification to date.
So how does the Heimlich Institute spend the money it receives from donors?
Last year, per this press release and media reports, the Heimlich Institute gave $500,000 to the University of Cincinnati's Hoxworth Blood Center.
Here's a photo from a January 28, 2010 press conference at which my father and E. Anthony Woods (chairman of the Heimlich Institute) presented the half-million dollar check to Hoxworth's director, Ronald Sacher MD (left):
Jose Cancelas, MD, PhD, and Thomas Leemhuis, PhD, researchers at the blood center, will use the $500,000 gift to fund two projects: one looking at ways to eliminate cell damage in chemotherapy patients and the other aimed at creating cell therapies for immune-compromised pediatric patients.
Last week I obtained some interesting related documents.
Here's an October 16, 2009 e-mail submitted by Hoxworth to the Heimlich Institute's longtime vice president, my brother Phil Heimlich. Per the e-mail, grant applications for the two projects were attached. (Page down for the complete paperwork.):
Two weeks later, on behalf of the board, Phil wrote back that $343,000 was approved for the chemotherapy project.
These are screenshots from the grant application for the chemotherapy study.
Among other questions, will PCRM remove the Heimlich Institute from their list of approved charities?
In many countries, the combination of back blows and abdominal thrusts has been used since the 2005 guidelines. In North America, using only abdominal thrusts was decided upon as it was easier for the lay rescuer to remember, not due to supporting evidence. Evidence now supports the combination of techniques as more successful than using only one method.
Airway obstruction – for adults and children (one year or older), if the person shows signs of mild airway obstruction, encourage continued coughing but do nothing else. If he or she shows signs of severe airway obstruction and is conscious, apply up to five back blows. If this fails, give up to five abdominal thrusts. If the obstruction is still not relieved, continue alternating five back blows with five abdominal thrusts.
So why is Canada late to the dance? I don't know, but for decades, most of the world's first aid organizations have recommended backblows as the first treatment response.
Here's another question. Why did the CRC decide to continue to teach abdominal thrusts (a/k/a the Heimlich maneuver) rather than chest thrusts, the preferred treatment in Australia and New Zealand?
The Aussies have a straightforward explanation for their position:
That argument certainly seems to be backed up this information:
For conscious (choking) victims, case reports have shown success in relieving FBAO (Foreign Body Airway Obstruction) with any one of several techniques, including back blows/slaps, abdominal thrusts and chest thrusts. Frequently, more than one technique is needed to relieve the obstruction. However, there have been reported life-threatening complications associated with the use of abdominal thrusts.
...Severe complications from the use of this technique have been cited in the medical literature. Desaiet al. reported a case of traumatic dissection and rupture of the abdominal aorta after a forceful Heimlich maneuver. In addition to this complication, these authors cite reports of other complications occurring with the use of the Heimlich maneuver. These injuries include retinal detachment, rib fractures, and ruptures of abdominal organs. Additional injuries included rupture of the diaphragm, jejunum, liver, esophagus and stomach. Other reported injuries of vascular structures consisted of aortic stent graft displacement, rupture of the aortic valve, acute aortic regurgitation, laceration of a mesenteric vessel, and acute aortic thrombosis in both an aneurysmal and non-aneurysmal aorta.
Now take another look at this sentence from the CRC statement posted at the top of this item:
In North America, using only abdominal thrusts was decided upon as it was easier for the lay rescuer to remember, not due to supporting evidence.
Am I missing something or is this a rationale for continuing to teach a potentially life-threatening procedure simply because they don't want to take on the job of re-training the population?
An enterprising reporter could certainly ask the CRC to provide the supporting evidence that persuaded them to continue recommending abdominal thrusts rather than switching to chest thrusts.
