Dr. Wulsin made these remarks last Sunday to a group of seniors:
"Health care should put patients above profits. Let me repeat this shockingly simple statement: Health care should put patients above profits. Our entire health care system is a mess. It’s driven by profits, it’s extremely complicated and it’s exceptionally wasteful…Medicare Part D is the perfect example of our failing health care system and our failing government. It was written by and for the pharmaceutical companies. It was a cynical and wasteful ploy. And it’s disrespectful of American families."
Easier said than done, but understanding the problem is the first step. Americans are not being helped by gutless, complicit politicians. It’s nice to hear some straight talk from an actual physician and public health expert.
By the way, Dr. Wulsin will join Paul Hackett this Saturday to fix up a damaged home for an Adams County family that’s had some hard luck. If you can donate some construction materials and/or time, here’s what to do.
22 comments:
What honerable words. I move for her to donate all of her earnings as a doctor to AIDS...and I don't mean by infecting them with Maleria. I'd gather to say she does not care about patients unless she is getting paid.
oookaay...
Well, that's interesting. I clicked over to Ms. Henretta's page and it turns out she's a Green. I find it odd that a Green would criticize a candidate who not only recognizes, but openly acknowledges corporate control of health care. And that's not even mentioning that the other choice is Jean "I support the President on that" Schmidt.
Furthermore, you don't seem to know much about Wulsin except for some kind of conspiracy theory. Wulsin has spent years in the inner city and Africa improving public health. What have you done?
And what do you know about AIDS and "maleria"? Do you have any expertise in science and medicine? Judging by your grammar and spelling, I'm guessing not. Wulsin is a Harvard educated physician, scientist and public health expert. I'll think I'll trust her more than you.
At least until you can prove she's a secret government agent going around infecting people for no good reason...
Dr. Vic Wulsin absolutely worked for the Heimlich Institute -- doing what she said was a literature review -- to determine the efficacy of "malariotherapy." This is Dr. Heimlich's weird idea that injecting AIDS patients with malaria will cure their AIDS. His experiments have been likened to Nazi Germany, and they fly in the face of all accepted ethics.
He had some such experiments done in China, and also Africa -- where he teamed with Michelle Ashby of the Denver Gold Group. African gold mines love using AIDS workers in Africa for hard labor. They're cheap.
Anyway, if you doubt all this so far, go ahead and watch this video clip of how Vic Wulsin characterizes her work for the Heimlich Institute with malariotherapy.
Just one problem: where's the money? Wulsin has been asked repeatedly for copies of this report. She has yet to provide them. And why shouldn't she? This issue of her involvement with malariotherapy is not going away. If the report she wrote is as innocent as she claims -- why not provide a copy.
Is she hiding something?
Is her involvement in these human experiements different from what she claims?
Again, I must ask: how deep is your understanding of virology and hematology? What is your understanding of the molecular mechanisms of disease?
I'll click the links and get the info you suggest, but even without doing that I can understand why malaria might be considered an HIV antagonist.
If scientists suggested giving sickle cell anemia to someone with malaria, what would you say? Would you call them Nazis who exploit black people?
Sickle cell anemia does indeed protect against malaria and it is now known that SCA is prevalent in blacks precisely because it conferred an evolutionary advantage. It helped them live.
If you can criticize Wulsin's scientific actions from a scientific perspective, that would be one thing. But to criticize her just because of a penchant for attaching conspiracies to anything involving Heimlich, that is something else.
Let's make this real simple.
Do you think we should conduct medical experiments on humans in the third world?
According to my sources, Wulsin is not being truthful when she says she did not endorse malariotherapy. It is my understanding she endorsed it fully. That's why I want to see the report.
Her campaign keeps telling me they will get it soon. It's been several weeks.
But don't take my word for it.
From CIRCARE
http://www.circare.org/malariotherapy4.htm
Excerpt
In 1993, senior officials at the CDC wrote a four page memo intended for public release in which they detailed medical, ethical, and scientific objections to Dr. Heimlich's proposal to test malariotherapy on human subjects with HIV/AIDS.
http://www.circare.org/malariotherapy.htm
Excerpt
Experts from the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control, and expert researchers at academic institutions, however, judged it be seriously flawed and unethical
You can also find more at BioEthics Watch:
http://www.bioethicswatch.org/foia/malhiv.htm
So, to answer your question WestEnder -- I know nothing about medicine. But I can read. I have found no credible sources in the defense of Henry Heimlich's human experiments on the third world.
THAT is why Wulsin is running from her connections to it.
Listen, I'm sorry you don't like when issues like this relate to the Heimlich family. But what, are you going to ignore evidence because you think I'm a conspiracy theorist?
I guess you are what Bob Fitrakis calls a coincidence theorist.
"THE DEAN"--
As the video clip you provided demonstrates, Vic answers your question comprehensively and respectfully, providing all the pertinent information: she was hired by the Heimlich Institute to do a literature review of malariotherapy, she found that malariotherapy was ineffective, and she was fired for her findings. In other words, Vic disputed the merits of malariotherapy and lost her job as a result. Your "story" is a total dead end.
The reason why the campaign hasn't provided you with the documents you've requested is two fold (and it has nothing to do with the fact that we have something to hide):
Firstly, a little thing called burden of proof. You don't have it.
And you CERTAINLY don't have the burden of proof to throw around the term "nazi" in the same breath as Vic Wulsin so brazenly and irresponsibly.
Secondly, your incessant maligning of Vic on your and other blogs provides no substantial reason that you will treat any document we give you with fairness and impartiality. You have proven to us that you already have your mind made up. In fact, we have every reason to believe you will use this document as another opportunity to malign and destroy with characteristic contempt.
Again, I have to reiterate: HOW DARE YOU refer to Vic in the same breath as a Nazi. HOW DARE YOU implicate her in such monstrosities and run from the very real, damaging consequences of what you are saying.
I very much suggest you choose your words more carefully because it is disgraceful what you are trying to do to Vic's reputation. Just disgraceful.
I will not stand for you doing what you're doing. It's wrong. It's flat out wrong and it's contributing to why politics in America is so toxic.
Sincerely,
-Ann W. Driscoll-
As an experienced public health professional, Dr. Wulsin is aware that international law requires that all experiments using human subjects be monitored by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The presence of an IRB is designed to protect human subjects from exploitative researchers.
There is no indication that an IRB has ever been in place for the Heimlich Institute's experiments in Africa, which appear to be ongoing. Dr. Wulsin should be asked if an IRB has ever been in place for the Heimlich experiments.
Dr. Wulsin has admitted that she examined patient records while she worked at the Heimlich Institute for a number of months. As Dr. Wulsin is aware, examining records of illicit human subjects research makes her a participant. For her to have done so with the knowledge that no IRB was in place raises obvious concerns.
African patients continue to be unprotected in Heimlich's ongoing violative experiments. As Dr. Wulsin is aware, she has an ethical and perhaps legal responsibility to report the Heimlich experiments to the proper authorities.
Dr. Wulsin's ethical responsibility is easy to understand. By not reporting and exposing what she knows about these experiments, vulnerable patients continue to be subjected to illegal, violative research practices.
According to the Radar article, the Heimlich human experiments are being conducted on African sex workers and are supervised by a car rental agent in the Bay Area. Is it possible to imagine a more grotesque situation than this rich American doctor taking advantage of indigent Third World patients? As Dr. Wulsin knows, the US dollar goes a long way in Africa and protection for these patients is nonexistent.
Dr. Wulsin has the opportunity to protect these vulnerable patients from further harm. She has chosen not to do so.
Debating whether Dr. Wulsin's participation in the Heimlich Africa experiments compares to Nazi concentration camp experiments only obscures the real issues. However, readers may be interested to know that in print, Robert S. Baratz MD PhD, president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, has compared Heimlich's illicit research to Nazi concentration camp experiments.
More to the point, what we do know is that similar human experiments by Dr. Heimlich in China were exposed in Spring 2003 and were widely reported - and widely condemned by leading medical authorities and bioethicists - in the NY Times, LA Times, two front page stories in the Cincinnati Enquirer, and scores of other publications. A top researcher at UCLA was disciplined for participaing in Heimlich's illegal experiments in China.
It's absurd to suggest that Dr. Wulsin was unaware of what happened to Heimlich only two years before she went to work for him. The pertinent question is why did she participate in the discredited and illegal Heimlich project?
One answer worth considering is that she was being paid $10,000/month, an amount which she could be asked to confirm. If so, it would be sensible for her to tell the truth in the event that evidence exists to confirm the allegation.
Repeating the claim "As Dr. Wulsin is aware," does not provide any conclusive proof of the standards by which you are basing your argument. I'm talking ethical standards by medical journals and textbooks. I'm talking using quotes from sources other than a Radar article.
For example, you write "As Dr. Wulsin is aware, examining records of illicit human subjects research makes her a participant."
Aware of what? What standard are you referring to? BTW: If you fail to see the moral distinction between examining records and performing experiments, then you truly are warped.
"As Dr. Wulsin is aware, she has an ethical and perhaps legal responsibility to report the Heimlich experiments to the proper authorities."
Again, she is aware of what? What standard are you basing this on? Obviously, the authorities are aware of the Heimlich Institute. If the Institute is as corrupt as you claim it is, then why hasn't the place been shut down? You’re blaming the entire existence of the Heimlich Institute on a woman who worked there for a short period of time.
"According to the Radar article, the Heimlich human experiments are being conducted on African sex workers and are supervised by a car rental agent in the Bay Area. Is it possible to imagine a more grotesque situation than this rich American doctor taking advantage of indigent Third World patients"
A loaded, disgusting paragraph that undercuts your whole argument. Thanks for that actually. It exposes your hate for what it is.
Be it with her non-profit, SOTENI or her post-genocide work in Rwanda, Vic has devoted her ENTIRE CAREER to helping the neediest on the planet.
Not only are your arguments ridiculous, you’re too cowardly to post your real name. Pathetic.
Anon #1 wrote: As an experienced public health professional, Dr. Wulsin is aware that international law requires that all experiments using human subjects be monitored by an Institutional Review Board (IRB). The presence of an IRB is designed to protect human subjects from exploitative researchers.
Could you cite the international stature to which you are referring? I don't think so, considering that the current standard is the Declaration of Helsinki which does not mention the words "Institutional Review Board", probably because IRBs are intrainstitutional entities. That's why it has the word "institutional".
By the way, here's paragraph 32 of the D of H:
"In the treatment of a patient, where proven prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic methods do not exist or have been ineffective, the physician, with informed consent from the patient, must be free to use unproven or new prophylactic, diagnostic and therapeutic measures, if in the physician's judgement it offers hope of saving life, re-establishing health or alleviating suffering. Where possible, these measures should be made the object of research, designed to evaluate their safety and efficacy.
And it is not really correct to state that IRBs exist to protect subjects from "exploitative" researchers. They exists to ensure that there is a consistent process which protects the rights and interests of patients. I know you want to say it's the same, but it's not.
I appreciate the comments, but I have to say that they only reinforce the opinion that this is just a witch hunt for Heimlich and everyone who ever shook his hand.
I also have to wonder: if there is any truth to this, why hasn't the GOP been all over it?
Dr. Wulsin has been reluctant to discuss her work with the Heimlich Institute with a number of reporters. Moreover, her story has changed throughout the course of interviews.
As the Dean states above, Dr. Wulsin has failed to provide him with a copy of the unpublished report which she wrote for the Heimlich Institute. Dr. Wulsin only provided a copy of her report to another reporter when she was informed that the reporter was going to print the fact that she refused to provide the report.
Why isn't the GOP all over this? Perhaps the fact that Dr. Wulsin was working for Phil Heimlich's dad and that Phil is VP of the Heimlich Institute has something to do with it.
Ann, your comments are absurd. You accuse me of having my mind made up, and that I will not change it if I see the report.
How can you know that? Is there something in the report incriminating?
I mean, if the report says what she claims -- that she was hired, did a review, and recommended that the project be discontinued -- end of story. Closed case. She's telling the truth. Only if the report says something else do we have a problem.
Listen, as you should be aware, I am no conservative, and I am not a fan of Jean Schmidt. Unfortunately, I was hearing about Wulsin's role in malariotherapy long before she ran for the 2nd District.
Is Wulsin a better candidate than Schmidt?
Yes.
Is Wulsin telling the truth about her involvement in malariotherapy?
I don't think so.
Where's the report? The only reason she has for not providing a copy is because it exposes her for telling lies. I can think of no other conclusion. Ann, your paranoia above is nothing more than paranoia. I cannot use a document for something other than what it inherently allows. She either discredited malariotherapy, or she did not.
I didn't find her comments absurd at all. I think she's responded satisfactorily to your accusations, and furthermore, if there's any absurdity, I would have to say it's on your side.
(And I don't know Ms. Driscoll or Dr. Wulsin or anyone in the campaign for that matter. I don't even vote in OH-2).
It's well known that you have a Heimlich monomania, and I'm getting the impression that you're so blinded by it that you've turned into a sort of Joe McCarthy.
"Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Heimlich Institute?"
I look at it this way: just as police need evidence to obtain a search warrant, I would say that you also need evidence to obtain the report. So far you've offered nothing but innuendo and accusations.
You claim to have sources. Get them on the record. ell us what tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki she violated (she, not Heimlich). Tell us what laws she broke. Maybe that will get you somewhere.
Dr. Wulsin made these remarks last Sunday to a group of seniors:
"Health care should put patients above profits. Let me repeat this shockingly simple statement: Health care should put patients above profits. Check out poor Vic's $2,000,000.00 6 bedroom & 6 bathroom home in poor Indian Hill. Not bad for putting patients above profit. Conducting illegal experiments on AIDS patients in Africa must pay well under the table.
I've seen Wulsin's home. I interviewed here there last year. It is nothing like you describe. As I recall, it is a ranch house in the woods.
Six bdrms? Six baths?
I'm sure you figured I wouldn't know that, but it turns out I do. Bad luck, liar.
You've discredited yourself better than her campaign ever could.
I've seen Wulsin's home. I interviewed here there last year.
Interviewed her for what? Why not share your name?
Whoever you are, you continue to ignore the key issue regarding Dr. Wulsin's participation in the Heimlich Africa experiments, which is that vulnerable patients are unprotected. Heimlich has a well-documented history of abusive human experiments in Mexico, China, and now in Africa. His history of conducting unsupervised abusive human experiments has been censured by the CDC and the FDA, and he has been severely criticized by leading immunologists and bioethicists. (It should be noted that Heimlich has no background in immunology and hasn't practiced medicine since he was fired from Cincinnati's Jewish Hospital in 1976. Dr. Heimlich's career of medical fraud has already received widespread attention through the efforts of his son, Peter Heimlich and Peter's wife Karen .)
As Dr. Wulsin is aware, no informed consent was obtained from human subjects being used in the Heimlich Africa experiments. From the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki:
In any research on human beings, each potential subject must be adequately informed of the aims, methods, sources of funding, any possible conflicts of interest, institutional affiliations of the researcher, the anticipated benefits and potential risks of the study and the discomfort it may entail. The subject should be informed of the right to abstain from participation in the study or to withdraw consent to participate at any time without reprisal. After ensuring that the subject has understood the information, the physician should then obtain the subject's freely-given informed consent, preferably in writing. If the consent cannot be obtained in writing, the non-written consent must be formally documented and witnessed.
While working at the Heimlich Institute, Dr. Wulsin became aware of violative human subjects research which is causing harm to unprotected patients. Ignoring their suffering also violates her sworn Hippocratic Oath.
In any event, judging from this forum, it appears this story isn't going away. If Dr. Wulsin's supporters believe that she has nothing to hide regarding her work at the Heimlich Institute, they should encourage her to make her report publicly available. By continuing to avoid doing so only adds to the appearance that she's got something to hide, a characteristic which voters can smell.
WestEnder, why lash out at the above posters? Is it their fault that your angel Dr. Wulsin's halo isn't on as straight as you may have thought?
Isn't the real problem the local Democratic party who refuse to spend any time and money to develop a decent opposition candidate for this Congressional seat? Tim Burke has no problem handing the slot to whomever turns up with cash on hand. In Wulsin's case, a good chunk of her folding green apparently originated from the Heimlich Institute, which now looks like a deal with the devil.
If Wulsin had any political savvy, she'd have known that getting mixed up with Heimlich was likely to dog her, which, of course, it has. When she got involved with Heimlich, Wulsin knew he'd been in the shit for years. Greedy and foolish, she thought Heimlich was offering her easy money. But there's no such thing as easy money and at the time she hooked up with Heimlich, Wulson was old enough to know that.
Go ahead and shout down other posters all you like, but it's Wulsin who's responsible for putting herself - and her supporters like you - in this position.
WestEnder: I am giving the Wulsin campaign till next week to provide the report -- which they have told me I can have repeatedly. For some strange reason, they just never seem able to get it.
Once I have gone over and above any normal person's sense of patience -- respectfully asking to see this from them directly for weeks upon weeks -- I will be happy to move forward on getting sources on the record and researching through other avenues.
But as it stands now, you look foolish. You get angry at a poster wanting to know your name, and you avoid the real crux here: if Wulsin has nothing to hide, why not release the report that substantiates her claim?
This has nothing to do with Heimlich-blinders. It is simple logic. If you say something, and have a document which proves it true -- why not provide the document?
Her reluctance betrays her honesty.
Since you keep saying the same things over and over, I guess I'll just refer you to all the previous comments in which all your points are answered.
Great idea. Since you are not making sense and I have explained this to you, I will refer you to all previous posts where your illogic has been demonstrated.
The Dean's published a final demand for Dr. Wulsin to produce a copy of her Heimlich report.
Post a Comment