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.

Whoa, whoa. Let's all calm down and live by these seemingly rational comments we are making here. I don't believe, AS YET, for or against Mr. Heimlich's proposal/theory and with that in mind, you people critisize this guy for jumping to unfounded/dangerous conclusions but at the same time exalt what these established medical critics say. They could be wrong as well. You, as most people do, react from pure emotion combined with total technical ignorance, and frankly that applies to those with "M.D." and "P.H.D." after their names many times as well. Heimlich's a crackpot? Irresponsible? Maybe an egotist? Well those descriptors could also well apply to a vast percentage of the ignoramuses within the medical and scientific professions these days. Mr. Fauci? Who the 'el is he? god speaking from the mountain top? Get a grip and stop shooting arrows of condemnation from the bushes, especially when 9 out of 10 of you know nothing yourselves. What's the old saying? Opinions are just like...? There are as many 'O's here as there are 'A's. G'nite.

I know stuff! Well maybe not that much stuff, but you know a couple of things. A person of my standing. Acualy now that I think about it I really don't know anything. Thanks now im sad and sitting in an unconfortable chair.

What really disturbed me the most in this segment was the idea expressed by the commentator that Dr. Heimlich was entitled to kill people with bogus treatments because his past work had saved lives. The complete absence of morality in this suggestion is beyond appalling; perhaps journalism school needs to add an ethics course or two?

The reality is that literally thousands have died because various Third World governments have preferred to try "alternative therapies" for AIDs instead of antivirals for purely political reasons. In South Africa the government refused to give antiviral drugs to people because AIDS was allegedly a result of poverty, and therefore the drugs were considered to be both ineffective and dangerous. In essence, lives were sacrificed in a political effort to obtain more financial aid from other nations.

Lack of confidence in "Western" medicine is an affordable luxury for individuals in wealthy countries; it is devastating when it becomes national policy in any nation. Several African nations happily sacrificed their children to polio when it was decided by various leaders that polio immunizations were a Western plot to chemically sterilize children and prevent their reproducing in the future.

It is worth noting that the only nations that have permitted Heimlich to do human studies with malaria are nations where legal protections for individuals in research are essentially non-existent and governments are quite happy to "volunteer" their citizens for research projects.

What are the actual bio-chemical and physiological processes by which malaria *allegedly* cures AIDS? "Stimulates the immune system" seems impossibly vague to be science.

Excuse me.. this therapy has been known about for years. Back then it was called Malaria therapy. It is well known and proven to work. ABC news gets it all wrong (as usual). The Malaria parasite used is called varax malaria. It is a relatively harmless variant of malaria It can be cured quickly,and does in fact cause an immune system response. It has been used for other aliments with good result. I don't see why it cant be used against AIDS, unless the resulting "cytokine storm" would cause greater problems.I believe Dr. Heimlich is correct (again)

My grandson is 6 years old. 3 years ago I found him floating in our backyard pool. His eyes gray and open, skin felt like rubber and he was not breathing. I immediately begin CPR, it was not working, I did not know about the heimlich maneuever as a tool but something inside me made me take the back of my palm and shove it under his rib cage toward his back at the same time sitting him up quickly, I laid him back down and started CPR, suddenly water started shooting out and he started shallow breathing, paramedics arrived and took over, I know that if I hadn't done what I did, he would not be here today, no brain damage, only thing he has now is activity induced asthma, so back off this man, you don't know what you are talking about. If it wasn't for them heimlich than it was a miracle which I also believe it was.

If Dr Rosen had actually listened during CPR class, he would know that you do not do the Heimlich on an infant or child. As it is referred to now, abdominal thrusts, are only done on larger people. The thrusts are ina completely different area for infants or smaller children. That goes for smaller elderly as well.
They are referred to as abdominal thrusts now in AHA classes, as the good Dr wanted royalties for using his name. I am CPR Faculty member and instructor-trainer. If done within guidelines, there is no danger. This has been studied internationally by people with a whole lot more horsepower than Dr Rosen.
Malaria as a cure for AIDS? Sounds like Heimlich has a disease discovered by another German speaker; Alzheimer's.

All the Malaria talk is good but what this is really about is the destruction of a family by a spoiled brat. Did anyone ask what Peter does for a living? Also missed is the fact that he is being sued by a Chicago not-for-profit that teaches kids first aid because he conspired to trash their reputation for teaching the Heimlich maneuver. And he's "concerned" about the lives of people? Give me a break!!

Peter Heimlich and his wife Karen have a website which includes considerable additional information and links to numerous published articles. Just Google his name.

I don't know how to trust what any medical scientist says anymore. Seems to me most of them get paid to say what ever is going to make the corporations rich. His idea may be the cure for aides or maybe not but how can we really know unless you are a medical scientist yourself who cannot be bought. Lot's of people are are paid big bucks to trash others for the almighty dollar.

In 2006 the American Red Cross stopped teaching the Heimlich maneuver as the first response for choking. They now teach backblows as the first response. If backblows fail, rescuers are taught to proceed to "abdominal thrusts." (The Red Cross no longer uses the term Heimlich maneuver.)

It's interesting to note that early in the 20th century a doctor was called a quack with crackpot ideas for his new research. He even had to experiment on himself because he wasn't allowed to further his studies... Thank God that he ignored all the "scientific" and medical rhetoric against him. Many people are alive today because of his crackpot idea we call insulin.
As well, a renowned news agency recently reported on a pharmaceutical company who developed a cure for a particular type of cancer. They are no longer producing this life saving drug... Why? Not enough money in it. They have enough for 16 people or so to live. The rest will have to die, unless they travel to Canada where crap like that would land the owners in prison. Don't kid yourselves, it's all about the money for the stock holders with the American pharmaceuticals.

Once again, Dr. Heimlich, or in this case, friends of Dr. Heimlich, are putting out a call for anecdotal "evidence" as to the effectiveness of the maneuver for choking--this is how, years ago, Dr. Heimlich managed to, some would say in a way force, the AHA years ago to advise using the maneuver rather than backblows to assist a choking victim.

He then went on to wage an intense media campaign against backblows, calling them "death blows," when in fact, there was no evidence, other than his data, to support this contention.

The ARC recently changed to a backslaps-first protocol after the most recent internation conference on CPR (choking was also addressed at this conference). There, it was determined, as far as the evidence would allow, that backblows, chest thrusts and the maneuver were equally effective at dislodging an object, but that more than one technique might be needed. And when more than one technique is needed, administering backblows first improved the effectiveness of whatever method followed.

The problem with the maneuver is that is can, and has, caused significant damage to various organs, etc, such as ruptured livers, spleens, aortas, etc. In fact, the AHA guidelines advise that anyone receiving the maneuver be checked out by a doctor to rule out internal damage. They make no such suggestion for those receiving either backblows or chest thrusts.

Cincinnati Magazine ran an article on this very issue. You can find a PDF on Peter's website.

To Mike (Jun 10, 2007 8:47:17 AM) re: your post about the "Chicago not-for-profit that teaches kids first aid."

That organization is called the Save-A-Life Foundation. They and Dr. Henry Heimlich have been the subject of four recent ABC7 Chicago exposes by Chuck Goudie. He's the top investigative reporter in town.

Just Google some keywords like "Save-A-Life" and "Goudie" - you can find the ABC reports which are excellent hard-hitting reporting about the organization's founder claiming fake medical credentials, Dr. Heimlich being asked to resign from the organization, and the group getting millions of dollars in federal and state funding, being hooked up with lots of politicians, etc.

Mike, thanks for bringing this to everybody's attention. Maybe now Brian Ross will want to do the story!

Seems like an argument is being missed on the maleriotheropy idea. What about those with AIDS and Sickle Cell Anemia? They just die? Sickle Cell Anemia is a NATURAL genetic mutation to combat malaria. Thing is, how dangerous is Sickle Cell? Are we saying people who have the sickle hemoglobin are immune to AIDS?

No. So wouldn't it be logical to find a cure that not only doesn't risk the life of the patient or at a minimum doesn't cause those that survive to suffer brain disease or paralysis, but one that can work on everybody, not just those genetically perfect?

Just think: Hanging yourself is the perfect cure all for anything ranging from depression to AIDS and cancer, but is it the right thing to do? I don't see the logic in trading one condition's effects for another. I'd much rather be a person dying of AIDS and waiting for a cure than being a vegitable dying of AIDS waiting for a cure. Think I might appriciate it more knowing that I was cured.

To Second City Steve

Chuck Goudie??

Well it's pretty well known (at least in Chicago) that Chuck Goudie is PART of Save-A-Life's lawsuit because of his role in Peter Heimlich's eforts to destroy his dad. That you can certainly Google.

Good point though, I agree since Chuck is with ABC and is involved in this whole Heimlich Family feud thing, it is odd that wasn't included in the 20/20 story.

Nothing against ABC but I really prefer Dave Savini (CBS)...his stories are not sensational but too many of Chuck Goudie's reports bounce back as false or personal or just contrived. The station has even had to issue retractions.

Anyway the Heimlich maneuver saves lives!! the family on the other hand..in the immortal words of Rodney King Why can't they just all get along?

Phooey out!

Peter has been estranged for years from the Heimlich family. His bitterness has caused him to attack his father's work without cause. Like all scientists, not all his theories will eventually prove to save lives. Peter is obviously attacking his father in an attempt to gain his own "fifteen minutes of fame". Interesting he has waited till now. What's next for Peter- a book deal?

I think Dr. Heimlich should try and use malaria to treat dementia, because that's exactly what he has IMO.

This is plain quackery. Malaria has NOTHING to do with "cure for HIV". The two arise from completely different causative pathogenic agents and if Malaria supposedly stimulates the body to produce more cell-mediated response well there's bad news for you, HIV targets/replicates INSIDE of CD4 cells so there's no point. I appreciate the man for his manuever that's saved many but I think he needs to be re-educated about the body's immune system.

In November 2005, Radar Magazine published an excellent lengthy article about the weird history of Dr. Henry Heimlich including this:

"We go to an epidemic area where there is a lot of malaria and then we look for patients that have HIV, too. We find commercial sex workers or people who play around in that area." Mekbib Wondewossen is an Ethiopian immigrant who makes his living renting out cars in the San Francisco area, but in his spare time he works for Dr. Heimlich, doing everything from "recruiting the patients to working with the doctors here and there and everywhere," Wondewossen says. The two countries he names are Ethiopia and the small equatorial nation of Gabon, on Africa's west coast. "The Heimlich Institute is part of the work there - the main people, actually, in the research," Wondewossen says. "They're the ones who consult with us on everything. They tell us what to do."

###

Google and you can find the entire article.

I agree with Peter that the Heimlich manuveur works with choking victims but I think his dad is taking it a little too far by saying that it helps with this, this, and that. Also I think the whole maleria as the cure for so many things is a little far fetched. Malaria is pretty deadly itself. Also, even if his theories had some validity, isn't it medical ethics to test it on animals before humans.

Dr. Henry Heimlich's famous life-saving maneuver was criticized and ridiculed for many years by his peers and the American Red Cross. Today, his brilliant work is recognized as having saved more lives than the work of all of his critics combined. His new therapy (he has been working on the Malaria/Aids cure for ten years) is based up the work of a 1927 physician who was awarded a Nobel Prize for exposing his patients to short-term high temperatures such as that which results from contracting malaria.

Robert,Why then did the ARC change its choking protocol to one that advises responding first with backslaps?

Robert Cohen, author of "Milk, The Deadly Poison"

Published book review by Jane Heimlich, author of "What Your Doctor Won't Tell You" (Jane Heimlich is the wife of Henry Heimlich, MD, the "Heimlich Maneuver" doctor.)

You may not want to hear this but what you've been told all your life about milk is an outright lie. Your glass of milk, even low fat, is awash in fat (the equivalent of three slices of bacon), cholesterol, antibiotics, bacteria, and - the most distasteful ingredient - pus....Mainstream doctors continue to label chelation therapy, a life-saving treatment for heart disease, as "quackery," despite its over 30 year track record as a safe and effective treatment....Enter Robert Cohen, with rich experience in biological research and a risk taker--one of his pursuits is mountain climbing....Reading this book, you will learn that milk contributes to heart disease and increases your risk of breast cancer. You will learn that milk is a poor source of calcium and why, and that milk is a prime cause of allergies and much more. You will learn that milk can even kill your infant.

Julius Wagner-Jauregg won the Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine in 1927 "for his discovery of the therapeutic value of malaria inoculation in the treatment of dementia paralytica"...In later years it has come to light that Wagner-Jauregg was a national socialist (Nazi) and backed Hitler's program of racial hygiene. This has shocked Austria, where schools, roads and hospitals have been named in his honour.

In his obituary on September 29, 1940, the most extreme of the Nazi newspapers, Völkischer Beobachter, called him an ”upright German”, stating that ”Without his genetics the stock of ideas constituting the national socialist view of society is no longer conceivable” ("Seine Erbforschungen sind heute nicht mehr aus dem Gedankengebäude der nationalsozialistischen Gesellschaftslehre fortzudenken"). On April 21, 1940, shortly before the sterilization law came into force in Austria, Wagner-Jauregg applied a second time for membership in the NSDAP (Nationalsosialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei – the Nazi party). His first application had been in 1939 after calling for a ban on "people with mental diseases and people with criminal genes" from reproducing. His first application probably failed because his first wife, Balbine Frumkin, was Jewish.

The statement by Robert Cohen that "Dr. Henry Heimlich's famous life-saving maneuver was criticized and ridiculed for many years by his peers and the American Red Cross" is wrong on all counts.

Heimlich introduced his manuever in 1974. Two years later it was accepted by the Red Cross, astoundingly fast acceptance for a new medical idea. Heimlich's beef was that the Red Cross continued to teach backblows along with the Heimlich maneuver.

It was Heimlich's tactics and lack of scientific data which were widely criticized at the time by the Red Cross and other medical authorities. That was because he had little or no research to back up his claims, just anecdotal evidence.

Such criticism now appears to be even more richly deserved. For example, a Yale research study published in 1982 allegedly proved that backblows were dangerous and would drive a foreign body airway obstruction deeper into the airway - exactly what Heimlich had been claiming for years before.

A coincidence? Not exactly. Recent news articles state that Heimlich secretly funded the Yale study.

We are so quick to naysay any new Idea. We want proof, proof,proof. The idea that malaria would kill the AIDS virus doesn't seem so far fetched. What does it take to kill a virus? Perhaps heat. And the idea that injecting malaria into an AIDS patient might kill him. What will AIDS do?

So what if Dr. Anthony Fauci, arguably the world's leading AIDS expert, says Heimlich's theory is a disaster? Lois Raeihle - whoever she is - has now given her blessing. Let the infections proceed!

Lois, the point you are missing is that experimenting on human beings, in particular those who have likely not been fully informed as to the experimential nature of the so-called "treatment" they are receiving is morally and ethically wrong--and if done here in the US, would likely be prosecuted as a crime.

Gads, what are you saying? That AIDS sufferers are going to die anyway so why not experiment on them? Or that folks in poverty-striken, Third World countries don't deserve the same protections as we do here?

Although, as I've pointed out earlier, in a very real sense, when it came to the maneuver and drowning, human studies WERE conducted without the knowledge and consent of the participants.