What did it take to convince the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to publish this correction of a

simple, easy-to-verify factual error?

In reverse chronology, here's my e-mail trail with medical reporter Jill Daly (no
reply), eidtor Tom Birdsong (refusal), and managing editor Sally Stapleton -- PMH

On 8/3/2018 9:51 PM, Peter Heimlich wrote to: sstapleton@post-gazette.com cc:

Don.Lauritzen@redcross.org

Dear Ms. Stapleton,

Thanks for your follow-up e-mail, but we appear to be on different pages. I have no quarrel with
most of Jill Daly's article. In fact, I complimented her in a July 17 e-mail and via a comment I
posted under her story.

As I e-mailed Tom Birdsong on Monday (and to Don Lauritzen today, the e-mail on which you
were copied and to which you replied earlier today), my corrections request concerned only this
information in bold from Ms. Daly's article: http://tinyurl.com/ybc7kg4d

“For an infant, if they’re choking, that’s where your back blows come in,” (retired
nurse and American Red Cross volunteer Chris) DeRosa said. Holding the child with
one hand, with the back facing up, apply the back blow five times, then flip the child
over, giving five thrusts with two fingers, under the ribs, similar to the
Heimlich.

As I explained, the American Red Cross -- and to my knowledge every other legitimate medical
organization -- does not recommend performing under the rib abdominal thrusts (the Heimlich
maneuver) on infants because -- according to e-mails I received from the ARC and American
Heart Association -- that treatment may cause injuries.*

Per the accompanying graphic in Ms. Daly's article which shows the correct treatment response,
rescuers should perform chest compressions aka chest thrusts.
Via page 5 of this pdf of current ARC guidelines posted here which in about 15 seconds may be
located via Google by keyword searching American Red Cross choking infant
https://www.redcross.org/images/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog
/m4240175_Pediatric_ready_reference.pdf
I have no medical training but presumably the profession considers chest thrusts less invasive for
infants than abdominal thrusts which, per this (incomplete) list of case reports in the literature
which I compiled http://tinyurl.com/z9sm95o have been associated with a wide variety of
complications, ranging from mild to life-threatening.

Back to Ms. Daly's report, if Mr. Birdsong had Googled or reached out to Don Lauritzen at ARC
National as I suggested to him on Monday, presumably the error would have been corrected days
ago and you and I wouldn't be having this exchange.

In any event, if the Post-Gazette wishes to continue defending a straightforward, easily-fixed

factual error that may result in injuries (or worse) to babies, that's your choice. But wouldn't it be
more sensible -- and better journalism -- to simply publish a correction?

Thanks for your continued attention and your thoughts/questions are always welcome.

Cheers, Peter

* According to a recent e-mail I received from Mr. Lauritzen, that also figured into the decision 13
years ago by the ARC to reinstate back blows as the first treatment response for choking children
and adults. Via the February 28, 2014 Chicago Tribune:
 The back blows are a less-invasive technique that might help clear the airway, so the
Red Cross advises trying them first, (said American Red Cross trainer Gabriele
Romanucci).

"If that technique is not successful, then we would go to the abdominal thrust," he
said.

More here if you're curious https://redcrosschat.org/2013/01/22/choking-101/

On 8/3/2018 7:27 PM, Sally Stapleton wrote:

Dear Mr. Heimlich:

Working with reporter Jill Daly and editors, this is what I learned. She used more than three sources to
confirm this aspect of the story, including:

Chris DeRosa, RN, preparedness teaching, Erie chapter

The medical director of emergency medicine at Allegheny General Hospital
The executive vice-chair of emergency medicine at UPMC

She says the above didn't see a dispute. Generally, she wrote, as her story said, they recommend an
assortment of techniques, including the back blows and the Heimlich.

I hope this clarifies our earlier email but this confirms the end result.

Sincerely,

Sally Stapleton

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Peter Heimlich <peter.heimlich@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Ms. Stapleton,

Thanks for your prompt/courteous reply, I look forward to any further communications, and
if I can be of any help, please don't hesitate to give me a shout.

Cheers, Peter

On 8/3/2018 2:45 PM, Sally Stapleton wrote to peter.heimlich@gmail.com

Don.Lauritzen@redcross.org

Dear Mr. Heimlich and Mr. Lauritzen:

I've asked our features editor Virginia Linn, to whom Jill Daly reports, and our night city editor Tom
Birdsong to fill me in on what efforts we've made following the publication of the story. I'm away
next week but will follow up upon my return if I don't get all the information today.
Sincerely,

Sally Stapleton
Managing Editor

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 2:02 PM, Peter Heimlich <peter.heimlich@gmail.com> wrote:

Don Lauritzen
Communications Officer
American Red Cross
National Headquarters

Don,

Apologies in advance for taking up your time with this, but I'm making best efforts to
avoid putting an ARC volunteer on the spot for apparently providing incorrect
information to a reporter.

Via a July 17, 2018 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article by medical reporter Jill Daly, here's
the problem http://tinyurl.com/ybc7kg4d

“For an infant, if they’re choking, that’s where your back blows come in,”
(retired nurse and American Red Cross volunteer Chris) DeRosa said.
Holding the child with one hand, with the back facing up, apply the back blow
five times, then flip the child over, giving five thrusts with two
fingers, under the ribs, similar to the Heimlich.

Needless to inform you, the information in bold contradicts ARC guidelines.

Further, Ms. Daly's article included this graphic which accurately represents ARC
guidelines. That is, on choking infants perform chest thrusts, not abdominal thrusts ("the
Heimlich"). As you've informed me (and as I've reported on my blog http://tinyurl.com
/y8lhoo4h), the position of your organization (and the American Heart Association and
to my knowledge every other medical organization) is that performing abdominal thrusts
on infants may cause injuries.
It was unclear if Ms. DeRosa provided incorrect information to Ms. Daly or if Ms. Daly
got it wrong, so per a July 28 e-mail, I asked Ms. Daly to check her notes. I didn't receive
a reply.

Assuming the Post-Gazette didn't wish to provide their audience with incorrect
information that might injure babies (or worse), on July 30 I sent a friendly request for a
published correction to the paper's assistant managing editor, Tom Birdsong, in which I
provided the above information and suggested he contact you for verification and further
information.

Well, you know the old line about what happenes when you assume? To my surprise, in
an e-mail yesterday copied to a string of Post-Gazette staffers, Mr. Birdsong e-mailed me
that "we are standing by our reporting until someone tells us we have erred" and invited
me to write a letter to the editor. (Page down for the e-mail trail.)

Over the years I've gotten my share of published corrections, for example, please see this
Washington Post article last year by media reporter Erik Wemple http://tinyurl.com
/y789nfsp However, this is the first time an editor has refused to correct such a
straightforward factual goof, one which might result in harm to babies. (So much for
conscientious j0urnalism.)

Cutting to the chase, even though I provided him with thoroughly-documented facts, Mr.
Birdsong doesn't consider me "someone," hence this outreach.

Assuming his publication considers you "someone," would please address this with the
Post-Gazette's managing editor Sally Stapleton? Her phone number is (412)263-1858
and her e-mail address is sstapleton@post-gazette.com

Again, sorry for bothering you with this, but since it involves an ARC volunteer, I figured
-- not assumed (smile) -- that the ARC would want to correct the record. I can also get a
media backstory item out of this for my blog, so it's worth my time/effort.

As always, thanks for your time/consideration and your thoughts are welcome.

Cheers, Peter

Peter M. Heimlich
Peachtree Corners, GA 30096 USA
ph: (208)474-7283
website: http://medfraud.info
blog: http://the-sidebar.com
e-mail: peter.heimlich@gmail.com
Twitter: @medfraud_pmh

On 8/2/2018 3:33 PM, Tom Birdsong wrote to peter.heimlich@gmail.com cc:

tbirdsong@post-gazette.com lparker@post-gazette.com jdaly@post-gazette.com
arowley@post-gazette.com

we are standing by our reporting until someone tells us we have erred. You are certainly free to
write a letter to the editor if you have an opposite view. I will make sure the editor of the letters
gives yours full consideration. Thanks, Tom Birdsong

On 7/30/2018 3:15 PM, Peter Heimlich wrote:

Hi Tom,

I didn't hear back from Jill, so just cutting to the chase to move this forward.

Via Jill's 7/17/18 article http://tinyurl.com/ybc7kg4d

“For an infant, if they’re choking, that’s where your back blows come in,”
(retired nurse and American Red Cross volunteer Chris) DeRosa said.
Holding the child with one hand, with the back facing up, apply the back
blow five times, then flip the child over, giving five thrusts with two
fingers, under the ribs, similar to the Heimlich.

IMO the sentence below in bold requires a published correction. If you take a look at
the graphic from Jill's article (copied below my signature), you'll see it contradicts the
information attributed to Ms. DeRosa. That is, the graphic accurately reflects the
guidelines of the American Red Cross (ARC): chest compressions for choking infants,
not abdominal trusts.

It's not a minor distinction. Per this item I blogged http://tinyurl.com/y8lhoo4h I have
both the ARC and American Heart Association on record stating their organizations
don't recommend "the Heimlich" for infants because it may cause injuries. Since Ms.
DeRosa is a Red Cross volunteer, either she got it wrong or she was misquoted -- that's
why I asked Jill to check her notes.
BTW, Jill's story doesn't mention this, but one of the reasons why in 2005 the ARC
reinstated back blows and "downgraded" my dad's namesake maneuver because
abdominal thrusts have been associated with scores of injuries ranging from minor to
life-threatening http://tinyurl.com/z9sm95o The ARC (and other organizations)
consider back blows less invasive hence the treatment sequence. That is, of course you
want to get the obstruction out of the airway, but you can perhaps avoid causing other
injuries by first attempting back blows. (Incidentally, to my knowledge, that story's
almost entirely unreported in mainstream media, that is, the medical risks associated
with "the Heimlich.")

Anyway, if you need to verify the infant choking rescue guidelines, I'd suggest
contacting communications rep Don Lauritzen at ARC National in DC:
Don.Lauritzen@redcross.org ph:(202)303-4775

Big thanks for your continued attention and I'd welcome your thoughts.

Cheers, Peter

Via https://liber.post-gazette.com/image/2018/07/17/1000x/WEB-First-aid-for-
choking-500-px

On 7/28/2018 9:56 AM, Peter Heimlich wrote:

Jill,

I'm trying to fact check the following from your 7/17/18 choking rescue story
http://tinyurl.com/ybc7kg4d
 “For an infant, if they’re choking, that’s where your back blows come in,”
(retired nurse and American Red Cross volunteer Chris) DeRosa said.
Holding the child with one hand, with the back facing up, apply the back
blow five times, then flip the child over, giving five thrusts with
two fingers, under the ribs, similar to the Heimlich.

I'm trying to verify that the information in bold is what Ms. DeRosa said. Would you
please check your notes and let me know?

Thanks, Peter

Peter M. Heimlich
Peachtree Corners, GA 30096 USA
ph: (208)474-7283
website: http://medfraud.info
blog: http://the-sidebar.com
e-mail: peter.heimlich@gmail.com
Twitter: @medfraud_pmh