Posted by 
Introduction
You may not be over-familiar with the name Henry Heimlich. But I bet you’ve heard of the Heimlich manoeuvre.
Dr. Henry Heimlich is the man who developed Heimlich manoeuvre. Since its introduction in 1974, this simple yet effective technique for saving choking victims has been responsible for countless lives saved.
Yet, as with many famous figures, Heimlich’s story is not without controversy. His son, Peter Heimlich, has spent years investigating and exposing what he claims is a dark side to his father’s career, calling into question both his ethics and some of his more controversial medical ideas.
In this blog, we’ll explore the dual legacy of Dr. Heimlich and the accusations made by his own son. Is he a pioneering hero or a charlatan who jeopardised lives for his own gain?
The Heimlich Manoeuvre: A Life-Saving Innovation
Before delving into the controversies, it’s important to acknowledge the positive contribution Dr. Heimlich made with his development of the Heimlich manoeuvre.
Prior to its introduction, choking victims were often treated with back blows, which were not always effective. Heimlich’s method involved using abdominal thrusts to expel foreign objects lodged in the throat, and it quickly gained global recognition for its simplicity and effectiveness.
The manoeuvre has been credited with saving the lives of celebrities and ordinary people alike, and it became a staple of first-aid training worldwide. For this, Henry Heimlich was celebrated, and his name became synonymous with quick thinking in emergencies.
But behind the scenes, his career would take a controversial turn.
Peter Heimlich’s Allegations: A 50-Year History of Fraud?
In the early 2000s, Peter Heimlich, Henry’s son, embarked on an investigation into his father’s career. What he discovered led him to claim that his father had engaged in a five-decade-long history of fraud.
Peter, along with his wife Karen, uncovered what they believed were dubious medical practices, questionable ethics, and exaggerated claims.
Peter has described his father as a “con man” and a “serial liar,” alleging that Henry Heimlich built much of his career on fabricated medical data and unsupported treatments. One of Peter’s key assertions is that his father was more interested in fame and adulation than actual medical progress.
Malariotherapy: A Dangerous Experiment?
One of the most controversial aspects of Dr. Henry Heimlich’s career was his advocacy for malariotherapy, a treatment in which patients were deliberately infected with malaria to treat diseases such as cancer, Lyme disease, and HIV/AIDS.
This theory was based on the idea that inducing high fevers from malaria could somehow “burn out” other infections. Henry Heimlich began promoting this idea in the 1980s, conducting trials in countries such as Ethiopia, often without proper ethical oversight.
Despite being widely discredited by the medical community and denounced as dangerous by organisations like the CDC and FDA, Heimlich continued to push for malariotherapy.
According to Peter, these experiments were conducted on vulnerable populations without their informed consent, raising serious ethical concerns. Furthermore, no credible evidence has ever supported the idea that malariotherapy works.
Peter has been outspoken about the harm these experiments may have caused, accusing his father of conducting what amounted to dangerous, pseudoscientific trials that had no basis in sound medical practice.
Unfounded Claims and Fabricated Results
In addition to malariotherapy, Peter Heimlich has accused his father of promoting the Heimlich manoeuvre for conditions beyond choking, including asthma, drowning, and even heart attacks.
These claims were widely debunked by medical experts, including the American Heart Association and the American Red Cross, who warned that using the Heimlich manoeuvre in such cases could be ineffective and even fatal.
Peter’s research uncovered evidence that many of the case studies Henry Heimlich used to promote these expanded applications of the manoeuvre were either exaggerated or entirely fabricated.
For instance, he pointed to cases where drowning victims were supposedly saved by the Heimlich manoeuvre, but follow-up investigations revealed inconsistencies or outright falsehoods.
Public Perception and Media’s Role
Despite the growing scepticism from the medical community, the popular media continued to support Henry Heimlich well into the 1990s and early 2000s. High-profile articles and celebrity endorsements kept him in the public eye as a revered figure.
Celebrities such as Jack Nicholson and Muhammad Ali even donated money to his research.
However, as Peter Heimlich’s revelations began to gain traction, the narrative around Henry Heimlich began to shift. While many still view him as a medical pioneer, others have come to see him as someone who overstretched the bounds of scientific credibility, ultimately putting lives at risk in the process.
Family Dynamics and Psychological Insights
Beyond the professional accusations, Peter Heimlich has also painted a complex portrait of his father’s personality. In interviews and blog posts, he describes his father as having narcissistic tendencies, driven by an unquenchable need for public recognition.
According to Peter, this narcissism fuelled his father’s willingness to cut ethical corners and make outlandish claims.
This personal insight into Henry Heimlich’s character raises questions about how much of his controversial behaviour was driven by a genuine desire to innovate, and how much was motivated by a need for fame and validation.
Peter’s relationship with his father, marked by conflict and estrangement, only adds to the complexity of this story.
Conclusion: Hero or Charlatan?
The legacy of Dr. Henry Heimlich is undeniably complex. On one hand, he revolutionised first aid with the Heimlich manoeuvre, saving thousands of lives.
On the other hand, his later career was rife with controversies, including unsupported medical claims, dangerous experiments, and accusations of fraud from his own son.
Peter Heimlich’s investigations have cast a long shadow over his father’s achievements, challenging the public to reconsider how we remember pioneers like Henry Heimlich.
Should we celebrate him solely for his life-saving contributions, or should we also scrutinise the ethical lapses that came to define much of his later work?
As with many historical figures, the truth likely lies somewhere in between. What’s certain is that Henry Heimlich’s name will forever evoke both admiration and controversy, and his legacy will continue to be debated for years to come.
Yours views are welcome.