Maybe one of you crazy kids can help me out with something that I have been having a hard time figuring out. As I understand it, Dr. Vic Wulsin was hired by either Dr. Heimlich personally or by the Heimlich Institute (and that is another whole issue) to provide a "literature review." I don't think there is anybody who is contesting that Wulsin's responsibilities were to conduct a "literature review" on malariotherapy, but what is confusing is that Team Wulsin and her flock of supporters continue to say that Wulsin was "fired" after having completed said "literature review." Now, my question is this: If Wulsin was hired to complete a "literature review" of malariotherapy, how can she be "fired" for having completed her assignment? Was Wulsin not hired to do a "literature review" of malariotherapy or was she hired to work for Heimlich or the Heimlich Institute for other duties including a "literature review" of malariotherapy?By the way, there are lots of interesting comments on this subject over at The Dean's place...
UPDATE: In the comments section, Mary says:
What is also interesting is Wulsin spokesman, Kevin Franck, statements that the case was "dismissed" by the State Medical Board of Ohio. He then changed it to being "without merit". Neither of these statements can be found in the Medical Board findings. They only said that the complaint required no further action by the Board and the complaint was being closed. It sounds as if action was taken and Wulsin was reprimanded. Remember the OMA protects their own. Closing a case allows it to be reopened in the future. It does not dismiss the case. Wulsin was into the Heimlich malariotherapy way beyond "literature review".The whole wording from Team Wulsin on the review board subject is suspicious. Again, all Wulsin had to do was file a claim with the very same people who investigated her and she wouldn't even be in this mess.
Again, I find it curious that Wulsin says that malariotherapy was scientifically unsound and unethical yet didn't bother to tell anybody...other than Heimlich in what appears to be one sentence in a "literature review" well over 20 pages... I believe that she had a moral -- an possibly an ethical and legal -- obligation to report Heimlich and his Institute for malariotherapy...but that is going to have to wait a bit as I don't have time to expand on that further at the moment.
