The Sidebar

Natasha and Tyronne Stuckey (via Facebook)

According to a July 18, 1993 Cincinnati Enquirer opinion column by business reporter John Eckberg:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Natasha refused.

I didn't receive a reply from her father.

Screenshot via PeekYou.com

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


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


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

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

Naturally I was curious, so I responded straightaway.


A short while later, I received this:


Huh?


Her explanation:

None of this made sense to me.

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

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

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

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

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


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

Turns out that was a big problem for her.

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

One more polite approach from me, including a clarification:


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

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

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


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

Tyronne "Ty" Stuckey

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

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

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

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



Here's my reply to his request:


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

"O" is for Oracle. And Orlowski.

The Heimlich Institute has stopped advocating on their website for the Heimlich maneuver to be used as a first aid measure for drowning victims.

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

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

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

“I expressed my concern that the Institute was putting the public at risk by promoting my father’s crackpot medical claims,” he said. “The next day I visited the website and discovered that dozens of pages had been scrubbed. Virtually every mention of drowning...had disappeared.”

...(Peter) Heimlich and (USF professor James P.) Orlowski consider the institute’s dismissal of the Heimlich maneuver for drowning as an important step in making it completely obsolete.

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

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

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

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

James P. Orlowski MD (source)

Today's story caps a September 30, 2007 Oracle report, Doctors choke on other use for Heimlich maneuver by reporter Natalie Gagliordi:

Dr. James Orlowski, chief of pediatrics at University Community Hospital (UCH), has been one of Heimlich's most prominent critics since he began to promote the Heimlich maneuver as a first response for drowning victims. 

Orlowski first noticed Heimlich's actions 19 years ago as a resident at the Cleveland Clinic.

"I started doing drowning research in high school, when I wrote my first abstract paper on the subject," Orlowski said. "I had always respected Dr. Heimlich for his work on choking, but his explanations for drowning defied scientific knowledge."

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

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

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

Much of the controversy that has evolved out of Heimlich's claims has thickened since 2002, when his son, Peter Heimlich, said he began to unearth years of medical fraud.

For the recent article, I provided the following quotes that didn't make it into print. I don't know when or if a reporter will provide me with another opportunity to say this, so I'm posting 'em here:

Many medical professionals were intimidated by my father: he was famous, he had access to the media, and he regularly tried to ruin people's careers simply because they disagreed with his theories. So it was easier to just stay out of his way.

In contrast, Dr. Orlowski was courageous and principled. He knew my father didn't even understand the physiology of drowning and, from the beginning, he challenged my father's junk science in the medical journals and in the media.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eckberg's column provides the most detail:

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

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

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

Schebor ran to call 911.

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

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

"She wasn't breathing, and I knew that CPR would not get any air in her," said the 30-year-old Schebor. "My wife and I were discussing it one evening about what we would do. And after watching television, we decided that the Heimlich maneuver was the right way.
 
"As soon as I saw that girl (Natasha) and the stuff coming out of her nose and mouth, I said the best way to get the water out of her was the Heimlich."
 
He pressed against the girl's abdomen with his fist, which pushed her diaphragm upward and compressed the lungs - forcing out water. On the third try, vomit and water completely cleared from the girl's airway, and she started breathing again.

She regained consciousness immediately.

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

Here's what I consider to be a fundamental concern re: the two stories.
 
Database and library microfiche searches of the Enquirer, the Cincinnati Post, and other Cincinnati and national news media failed to produce any news reports about the event.

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

Screenshot via the Hamilton County Public Library's Newsdex article search

In my opinion, the apparent absence of news reports about such a dramatic series of events is conspicuous.

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

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

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

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

In fact, Eckberg hung his column on that hook:

It's a good thing that Todd Schebor and Jack Baker, who recently saved a Bond Hill girl's life at a swimming pool, aren't members of Cincinnati City Council's law and public safety committee.

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

If I've got it right and there weren't any news articles about the Stuckey case, that means Cincinnati reporters were asleep at the wheel.

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

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

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

Tyronne Stuckey

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

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

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

David Letterman gets Heimlich-ed by my father on The Late Show, November 20, 1984

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

Ever wonder how my last name became a household word? As I told the LA Weekly a couple years ago: 

"My father is such a brilliant promoter, he could teach P.T. Barnum a few tricks." 

That's why I can't understand why he didn't capitalize on the Stuckey case.

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

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

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


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

Here's why.

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


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

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


This item has been slightly updated.

Jane Brody (source)

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


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


Per last year's Washington Post: 


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

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

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

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

Per this recent blog item from the Houston Press (emphasis and links added):

(Peter Heimlich) reports, the Heimlich Institute "has finally quit circulating my father's dangerous, thoroughly discredited medical claims."

The institute's Web site has, he says, "deleted its main pages recommending the Heimlich maneuver as an effective treatment for drowning rescue."

..."His claims were based on nothing but a handful of skimpy cases in which near-dead drowning victims were 'miraculously revived' by the maneuver," (Peter) says. "Despite such thin evidence, for decades The New York Times, CBS News, Inside Edition and scores of other media outlets gave him a platform to urge the public to perform the Heimlich on people who were drowning."

Here's a fair question.

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

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

Last week via the Houston Press:

(Peter Heimlich) reports, the Heimlich Institute "has finally quit circulating my father's dangerous, thoroughly discredited medical claims."

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

“For 30 years, my father endlessly trumpeted the cases in the media and in medical journals as proof of his claims,” Peter says. “I fact-checked all the cases and discovered that they ranged from dubious to outright fraud.”

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

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

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

Schebor ran to call 911.

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

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

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

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

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

She regained consciousness immediately.

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

TORMAN: Landscapes Jack Baker and Todd Schebor never thought about being heroes when they pulled a drowning 8-year-old girl out of a Cincinnati pool.

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

Howard Torman MD (source)

Mr. BAKER: You could hear the-the gush. Yeah, just like a gush of water when you turn on the faucet.

TORMAN: It just came out that much.

Mr. BAKER: It came out that much, and, bingo, she was breathing.

TORMAN: So why not CPR?

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