As a child riding in the back seat of my moms car I was choking on a bottlecp candy that had covered my whole airway My mom pulled over and hit my back called police, attempted to give me water, I can still remember seeing dizzy and couldn't close my throat or open it.I WAS DYING then my mom couldn't wait and did the hemlick move she had seen on tv for the 1st time that week. SHE SAVED MY LIFE. by the time the ambulance arrive the candy was out and my color returned. Tell peter hemlick I'm here alive today for the positive moves his father brought to people and Peter sounds like an unappreciated spoiled rich kid/adult who should hang out with nicole richy who has contributed nothing to society. I want to personlly tht dr.hemlick I went to medical school because of him and think he is wanting to save people .

The article clearly states that Peter believes in the Heimlich maneuver for choking people. I don't think he's a "spoiled rich kid/adult." He's trying to keep people safe! His father is giving unsound advice that could possibly kill people that is ENTIRELY unrelated to his development of a technique to save choking victims. Wouldn't it be nice if people read the whole article before spouting off about it?

There are accepted scientific methods with which to test potential cures, none of which jeopardizes the lives of humans. If there is any chance of success, then why not divert some of those millions on AIDS research and pursue it? My suspicion of Western doctors pooh-poohing something because it is radical is that their industry is based upon the concept of treatment, not cure (i.e., "cancer treatment", "AIDS treatment"). Diseases are "managed", not resolved. Thanks to pharmaceutical lobbyists keeping prices high in the US, this is a trillion dollar industry. So although there is plenty of noble rhetoric espousing a race for a cure for this or that illness, there is little financial incentive today to do so. A person, once cured, is no longer a customer.

Okay, how did this go from Malaria treating AIDS to everyone criticizing someone's post? I think the point here is being missed. . . .

I agree with Bob. The treatment method should be tried/tested/examined - how ever you want to put it - before the world simply washes its hands of the idea. Imagine if we would have done that when stem cell research was first proposed. Imagine if we would have done that with new cancer treatments that have just recently been introduced and are already saving lives. Where would we be now?

This is the most flipin awesome artical evvvvverrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm scared

Lots of times people who are a genius in one area latch onto fringe theories in another. Linus Pauling is considered the greatest chemist of the 20th century but his later work with orthomolecular psychiatry and vitamin C therapy for cancer was quackery.

Very likely Dr. Heimlich malaria treatment for AIDS falls into the same category.`

Danielle said:

"The treatment method should be tried/tested/examined - how ever you want to put it - before the world simply washes its hands of the idea"

Danielle, the continent of Africa is riddled with AIDS and, incidentally, malaria. I think the "treatment method" (roll eyes) has been tried/tested/examined and FAILED. We don't need to kill off a million of HIV positive individuals by infecting them with malaria to prove what's been proven by circumstance already!

Yes, we can just simply wash our "hands of the idea."

(This is exactly why you have kids dying of curable cancers - illogical and gullible individuals who schlep their kids off to receive Vitamin C infusions in lieu of chemotherapy, radiation and other studied and tested methods)

While I appreciate the personal integrity of Dr. Heimlich's son, Peter, I also feel that the man may be on to something important. It is well known that several blood mutations may be adaptations to Malaria. (Thallasemia for one) Perhaps a GM version of Malaria could be utilized to provoke human blood to adapt and become resistant to the effects of HIV infection at some point in the future. Evolution of this sort might prove useful in fighting this disease.

no incentive to cure diseases? this is insane. ever heard of an HMO? there's no way an HMO would sustain the costs needed to treat diseases if they could get patients flocking to them to be cured - they would all make fortunes.

what about non-profit foundations (who spend all kinds of money to fund cures.) and what about socialized medical systems? (which i opposed, but that does not matter.) are you claiming that they are all in on the conspiracy too?

get real. if there were the potential for a quick cure, it would be out there.

Malaria and HIV are two unrelated organisms (if you can even call HIV an organism). One is a eukaryotic organism (a cell with a nucleus more or less), and the other is a virus. They have different avenues of pathogenesis and infection and it is difficult to see how a Malaria infection can make someone more resistant to HIV.
Malaria tends to be attacked by antibodies, while HIV how been shown to be controlled primarily through a type of cell called a cytotoxic lymphocyte.
It is important to note that not all immune responses are created equal, and so there is not a good rationale suggested as to why Malaria infection could help.

"It is well known that several blood mutations may be adaptations to Malaria. (Thallasemia for one) Perhaps a GM version of Malaria could be utilized to provoke human blood to adapt and become resistant to the effects of HIV infection at some point in the future."
There are many, many more paths that would be more likely to succeed than something like that. A GM version of another virus such as adenovirus is a more plausible suggestion than using an evolutionarily distant organism like Plasmodium (malaria).

A suggestion does not a merited argument make. I can suggest that a full-moon protects me from tigers just because I have never been attacked by a tiger on a full moon. My argument can be dismissed on factual and logical grounds before any kind of testing need be taken.

That is not unlike what is going on with Dr. Heimlich and the medical community. First it would be extremely difficult getting ethics approval to conduct a study like that, and second it would be downright impossible to get anyone to fund that kind of study when they could be funding something with more promise like topical microbicides or vaccines. This study would be a complete waste of time and money - it should barely even be humoured with discussion.

Peter Heimlich has a lot of courage to speak out so rigourously against his father, but he is making a good point and should be praised.

Barbra: I don't think anything has been "proven" by circumstance. Granted it's likely that a number of AIDs cases are also Malaria cases in Africa. But do these two viruses coexist in enough cases to make a dent in the general population? Do you have figures to show that? If so then it's science, not circumstance, that proves it. Using just pure circumstance to come to a medical conclusion is even more dangerous than what Dr. Heimlick is proposing, and I suggest you leave the investigation techniques to the professionals.

I think what needs to be kept in mind is that there are certain protocols that must be followed when testing out medical "theories." One does not spring immediately from concept to testing on human subjects, especially if there is questionable, or absent, informed consent from those undergoing experimental treatments.

I am familar with Dr. Heimlich's work and with his apparent fondness for testing out his theories on human subjects who in many instances--as was the case of using the maneuver for reviving a drowning victim--never knew they were in fact taking part in what amounted to an experiment, and a medically-unsupported one at that.

I wonder how informed those patients who were infected with malaria were? I wonder if they fully knew that this approach has received scant medical support from AIDS/HIV experts?

BTW: No need to burn Dr. Heimlich at the stake. Using a curable infection to kill off a more dangerous one is not an unheard-of technique. I would definitely rather have some reasonably curable strain of Malaria (assuming that the term "reasonably curable" can at all be applied to Malaria - but I gather that's the idea) than AIDS, which is pretty much a death sentance. Though of course I'd much rather avoid both if possible! I think it's worth at least considering although there are far less dangerous approaches out there which may be more promising.

Pamela - I missed your post and you make a good point. The idea, though radical, isn't the most alarming issue IF Dr. Heimlich is indeed jumping to human testing too early or without proper consent. In re-reading the article though, it seems clear that it is the very idea, not the methodology, that is being denounced.

Actually, Dr. Heimlich did test his malaria theory on human subjects, repeatedly. Press reports show that he was experimenting on cancer patients in Mexico in the mid 1980's. By the early 1990's, US lyme disease patients were infected with malaria in Mexico and elsewhere south of the border in more of Heimlich's "trials". Some of these US lyme patients then returned to the US, carrying live malaria parasites. That's when the CDC got involved, and if I recall correctly, issued a warning on this "treatment" and denounced it as unsafe. Apparently, Heimlich next moved on to giving malaria to Chinese AIDS patients. That made international news a number of years ago. Now he's moved to African AIDS patients.

As for the idea of treating AIDS with malaria, Dr. James Kublin, the leading expert on the interaction of malaria and AIDS published a landmark study a year or so ago. It made headline news all over the world. He'd collected thousands of cases in Malawi of people with both diseases in a study that spanned something like 30 years. He said each disease worsens the morbidity of the other. That pretty much punctures Dr. Heimlich's "theory".

Harold, you wasted a good amount of space with senseless diatribe!! Tsk, tsk, tsk, too bad.....

Thanks Jonathan, for adding a little "meat" to this story! Google returns a lot of hits on Dr. James Kublin, so this should be easy enough to verify. Of course it would help if news reports would be just a little more informative rather than just playing off the controversy for ratings. Yes, I now have to agree that Heimlich has gone more than a little over the edge on this.

Great info from Harold as well. It sounds like Dr. Kublin is proving out what Harold is talking about.

I have met Dr. Heimlich and He is truely and wonderful Dr. my son would not be alive it were not for the Heimlich manuver. Clearly, peter is jealous of the success that his father and brother have achieved. Get a life Peter!

Why did the son have to resort to such underminded tactics if his Dad is so "unscrupulous"????

Yeah, the Heimlich maneuver is great.

But "Malaria Therapy"?!?!?!

And basing it off of someone who won the Nobel Prize in 1927? They should commit this man into a home. He's obviously demented.