In the past I’ve mentioned a few of the goofy email hoaxes some of our co-workers have fallen for, flooding the postal email system with dire warnings about terrorists dressed as UPS men, or amazing cash giveaways from Microsoft that have somehow been overlooked by the media, but that you can get in on if you just forward the offer to everyone on your mailing list!

Today’s email, however, brought a hoax email that really wasn’t funny at all- in fact, it could kill you. This one had as its subject: “Heart Attack Slide Show- What To Do If You’re Alone”. The text of the email said “The American Heart Association includes this presentation in their Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training. Thought it was worth passing on.”

Fair enough- I’m old enough to have pondered exactly what I would do if I was, say, driving to work alone in my car, and felt sudden chest pains and the rest. Usually it involves my cell phone and the numbers 911, and keeping some aspirin in the glove box.

But no, the supposedly official presentation (which is surprisingly amateurish for something supposedly produced by a major national medical organization) suggests instead that you “start coughing repeatedly and vigorously”! There’s more, but it’s basically cough every two seconds “without let-up until help arrives, or until the heart is beating normally again.” No mention of calling 911.

The next slide explains how the process works, getting oxygen into your lungs, and squeezing the heart to keep your blood circulating. It also refers you to the source of the information, an article “published on N.O 240 of Journal of General Hospital Rochester”.

At this point in the presentation I was more than a little skeptical. The last slide sounded the alarm bells, though- it included not one, but two admonitions to “send this to as many people as possible!”.

But the presentation was supposed to be from the American Heart Association, and it had some kind of reference to Rochester General Hospital, so I decided to check those references out.

Googling the words cough and cpr together brings you immediately to a page on the American Heart Association’s web site entitled “Cough CPR”. The first paragraph reads :

The American Heart Association does not endorse “cough CPR,” a coughing procedure widely publicized on the Internet. As noted in the 2005 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care, the American Heart Association DOES NOT TEACH THIS AS PART OF THE CORE CURRICULUM IN ANY COURSE.

The Heart Association page goes on to describe the theory behind “cough CPR”, but concludes “the usefulness of “cough CPR” is generally limited to monitored patients with a witnessed arrest in the hospital setting.”

OK. So what does the American Heart Association suggest you do if you’re driving down the road by yourself and feel the onset of a heart attack?

The best strategy is to be aware of the early warning signs for heart attack and cardiac arrest and respond to them by calling 9-1-1. If you’re driving alone and you start having severe chest pain or discomfort that starts to spread into your arm and up into your jaw (the scenario presented in the Internet article), pull over and flag down another motorist for help or phone 9-1-1 on a cellular telephone.

No coughing. Just what common sense had already told you you should do.

But wait- what about that journal article from Rochester General Hospital?

Not surprisingly, the hospital has had to post a page on its website to deal with inquiries from this email. Here’s what it says:

Hundreds of people around the country have been receiving an e-mail message entitled “How to Survive a Heart Attack When Alone.” This article recommends a procedure to survive a heart attack in which the victim is advised to repeatedly cough at regular intervals until help arrives.

The source of information for this article was attributed to ViaHealth Rochester General Hospital. This article is being propagated on the Internet as individuals send it to friends and acquaintances - and then those recipients of the memo send it to their friends and acquaintances, and so on.

We can find no record that an article even resembling this was produced by Rochester General Hospital within the last 20 years. Furthermore, the medical information listed in the article can not be verified by current medical literature and is in no way condoned by this hospital’s medical staff. Also, both The Mended Hearts, Inc., a support organization for heart patients, and the American Heart Association have said that this information should not be forwarded or used by anyone.

Please help us combat the proliferation of this misinformation. We ask that you please send this e-mail to anyone who sent you the article, and please ask them to do the same.

Moral of the story? Medical breakthroughs and life saving techniques are not likely to surface first in anonymous emails that beg you to copy them to everyone you know. Fortunately, the speed and pervasiveness of the Internet, which make it so easy to spread dangerous misinformation, also make it easier to disprove that misinformation. You just have to take a few minutes to look around.

Unfortunately, the person who sent me this particular email was unimpressed by the denials of the American Heart Association and the Rochester General Hospital. I even pointed her to the sad history of this hoax, which originated in 1999, and is available on Snopes.com.

Her response? Was she embarrassed to have spread false medical advice? Was she worried that someone might die because they took her advice and started coughing instead of calling for help?

Not at all. Here’s her reply, in its entirety:

“Okay, thanks. I did run it by our CPR instructor, who’s an EMT, and he assured me it was legit.”

They’re out there!

BALTIMORE, Jan. 17 — The U.S. Department of Justice’s U.S. Attorney’s office for Maryland issued the following press release:

U.S. District Judge William M. Nickerson sentenced John Bermudez, Jr., age 31, of Brooklyn, Maryland today to 10 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release for assault of a government official and sentenced his brother, Gregory Bermudez, age 28, of Millersville, Maryland to eight months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release, on the same charge, announced United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein. John Bermudez was convicted by a federal jury on August 2, 2007 after a three day trial and Gregory Bermudez pleaded guilty on July 26, 2007.

According to the guilty plea, testimony at trial and other court documents, Gregory Bermudez and John Bermudez, Jr., worked at the United States Postal Service Incoming Mail Facility (IMF) in Linthicum, Maryland. On February 8, 2006 at the IMF a supervisor instructed John Bermudez to stop playing cards and return to work. Both defendants argued with the supervisor, who sought the assistance of the manager of the work floor. When the manager responded he discovered the defendants in a heated argument with another employee. Unable to regain control of the work floor, the manager informed the defendants that he was calling the police and turned to walk away. The defendants followed the manager and, as the manager approached the phone, Gregory Bermudez struck him from behind with his fist. The victim fell to the ground and both defendants punched and kicked him as he lay on the ground. The defendants then left the facility through the loading dock area.

United States Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein thanked the U.S. Postal Inspection Service for their investigative work, and commended Assistant United States Attorneys Paul E. Budlow and Tamara L. Fine, who prosecuted the case.

A couple of weeks ago we linked to a column in the Reading, Pennsylvania Eagle entitled “The claim is in the mail“, which told the story of how the writer, Beth Nauss, had trudged down to the PO to file an insurance claim, only to be thwarted by lazy postal workers. Beth is billed as the Eagle’s “humor” columnist- here’s an example of the “humor” from that column:

The system works like this. Buy a wonderful gift that’s worth more than 10 cents for someone who lives far away from you. Wrap it carefully in a crush-proof container. Then, while under the influence of prescribed medications, decide sending the gift through the U.S. mail is a better idea then soaking it in meat juice before tossing it to a pack of hungry lions.

You get the idea.

After the column was linked to by this and other web sites frequented by postal workers, Beth apparently started getting comments that were less than appreciative of her sense of humor. She responded on Sunday with more of her trademark wit:

I stand corrected on several key points. First, the USPS does not soak packages in meat juice. Then they do not throw them to a pack of hungry lions. The USPS, in fact, does not really have any lions at your local post office. The lions are at the zoo. The postal service no longer has any lions because it switched to elephants in a cost saving measure adopted in 1978. The USPS discovered that elephants are much more efficient at processing fragile packages, and besides, they’re willing to work for peanuts.

And so on. If you really feel like suffering, you can read the whole sorry mess here.

In Beth’s defense, though, I’d like to vouch for the fact that Beth can be funny: here’s the email Beth sent to our feedback address after we linked to her article:

From Beth Nauss
to feedback10@postalnews.com,
date Dec 18, 2007 1:14 AM

12/18/07

Hello!

I doscovered that you reproduced material on your website to which I hold the copyright and you did so without my permission. Please delete the link and the material immediately and contact me.

Thank you.
Beth Nauss

Apparently Beth hadn’t realized that when she clicked on the headline at postalnews.com, she was taken to the Reading Eagle web site. (You’d think the big logo and even bigger picture of herself might have been a tipoff, but apparently not.)

And then it dawned on me: Beth was just cracking another of her wonderful jokes! It was that trademark “humor”!

So I played along, “humorously” pointing out to Beth that I didn’t own the Reading Eagle web site, and that if she really didn’t want people to read her columns, she really needed to the people who kept posting them on the Reading Eagle web site!

Beth must have laughed until she cried at that one! And maybe that’s why I haven’t heard back from her?

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — The Merit Systems Protection Board issued the following decision:

Lawson A. Rose,

Appellant,

v.

United States Postal Service,

Agency.

Lawson A. Rose, Westmont, Illinois, pro se.

Maryl R. Rosen, Esquire, Chicago, Illinois, for the agency.

BEFORE

Neil A. G. McPhie, Chairman

Mary M. Rose, Vice Chairman

Barbara J. Sapin, Member

OPINION AND ORDER

Para 1 The appellant has filed a petition for review (PFR) of the initial decision (ID) that affirmed his removal. We DENY the petition because it does not meet the criteria for review set forth at 5 C.F.R. Sect. 1201.115. We REOPEN this case on our own motion under 5 C.F.R. Sect. 1201.118, however, and AFFIRM the ID as MODIFIED by this Opinion and Order with respect to the merits of the charge, still SUSTAINING the appellant’s removal.

BACKGROUND

Para 2 Effective January 31, 2007, the agency removed the appellant from his position as a preference-eligible PS-4 Regular Mail Handler with the agency’s Cardiss Collins Postal Facility (Cardiss Collins) in Chicago, Illinois, based on a charge of Unacceptable Conduct/Violent and Threatening Behavior Towards Co- Workers. Initial Appeal File (IAF), Tab 7, Subtab 4 at 2, Subtab 4B at 1, 3. The agency based its charge on a November 5, 2006 incident in which the appellant went to Cardiss Collins’s attendance control office and allegedly shouted at Mail Processor Clerks Janice Dean and Roslyn Oliver, “Give me my [time] card before I blow your brains out.” Id., Subtab 4D at 1. After Ms. Dean and Ms. Oliver informed him that his card was not in the office, the appellant left the office, then returned about ten minutes later and allegedly acted as though he was “holding a machine gun/firearm and making machine gun sounds while pointing at Ms. Dean and Ms. Oliver.” Id. He then allegedly laughed and walked away. Id.

Para 3 The appellant appealed his removal to the Board and requested a hearing. IAF, Tab 1. He denied threatening anyone and argued that the agency’s action was taken in retaliation for his prior equal employment opportunity (EEO) activity. Id. at 3, Tab 12 at 3. The administrative judge (AJ) apprised the appellant of the burden and elements of proof as to his affirmative defense. IAF, Tab 12 at 3.

Para 4 After a hearing, the AJ issued an ID affirming the agency’s action. IAF, Tab 15 (ID). The AJ found that the agency proved its charge by preponderant evidence, ID at 3-14, that the action promotes the efficiency of the service, ID at 15, and that the penalty of removal is reasonable, ID at 15-18. The AJ further found that the appellant failed to prove his affirmative defense. ID at 14-15.

Para 5 The appellant has filed a PFR in which he asks the Board to consider documents that he filed in another Board appeal. Petition for Review File (PFRF), Tab 1 at 6. On review, the appellant disputes the merits of the charge and the penalty and appears to reassert his affirmative defense. PFRF, Tab 1. The agency has filed a response in opposition to the petition. PFRF, Tab 7. The appellant has filed a reply to the agency’s response. PFRF, Tab 8. We have not considered the reply because the appellant submitted it after the record closed on review and he has not shown that it contains evidence not readily available before the record closed. See 5 C.F.R. Sect. 1201.114(i); Greenough v. Department of the Army, 73 M.S.P.R. 648, 651, review dismissed, 119 F.3d 14 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Table).

The rest of the document can be viewed at: http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=303163&version=303526&application=ACROBAT .

This document has footnotes and they may be found at the following URL: http://www.mspb.gov/netsearch/viewdocs.aspx?docnumber=303163&version=303526&application=ACROBAT .

First we had the USPS PR guy in Oregon who responded to the report that a lucrative delivery contract had been awarded to the son of a PO supervisor with this: “We all have relatives that work in different facets of the post office,” Jeffrey says. “There’s an old joke about providing full-family employment.”

Now we have a nice story about a letter carrier who went out of his way to accomodate an elderly, legally blind woman on his route, and what does the local PR person have to say about it?

“It’s rare to see a carrier like Mike take initiative like that,” Thomas said. “Usually, it’s instigated by the customer.”

Oh. Thanks for clearing that up- wouldn’t want to give people the wrong impression, would we?

It just gets weirder. I thought I’d heard it all when that West Virginia newspaper editorialized that the ‘forever’ stamp was a ’sleazy strategy’ on the part of the USPS to hoodwink the innocent consumers of West Virginia. Now a letter to the editor of the Boston Globe explains how the stamp is actually a scheme to benefit the wealthy!

The class system in postage stamps

Update: But wait! There’s more- the Corvallis Gazette Times gets points for noting that the real story was the rate increase, not the ‘forever’ stamp, but they lose them quickly for a couple of clueless comments: -

-”What does it say that the U.S. Postal Service actually rolled out its idea for a “forever” stamp in May 2006, and it’s only now being delivered as news? ” Ummm, aren’t you the people who deliver the news? Are you saying you weren’t paying attention back in May?

- “Unresolved is the question of how often and whether “forever” stamps will be updated with new, different editions at the same rate.” OK now I’m not being sarcastic here- I really have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Is the editor afraid that the stamps will always use the same design? Why would you need “new different editions”. All the PO does when the rates go up is to start selling the ‘forever’ stamps at the new rate. We’ve already done that several times with the Breast Cancer stamps. What does he think is “unresolved”.

- Last and certainly not least, there’s this puzzler:”U.S. stamps already are valid forever; it’s the postal rate that changes with increasing frequency. But with no denomination on the forever stamps, perhaps we won’t notice it as much. In fact, our guess is that the Postal Service is counting on that.” Yeah, I guess the fact that I’ll actually have to pay for the stamps at whatever the current rate is wouldn’t be enough of a reminder.

‘Forever’ stamp’s real value is marketing

… or maybe ever?

The Wheeling News Register apparently thinks its readers are too stupid to be trusted with “forever” stamps. The paper somehow comes to the conclusion that offering customers the option to buy a stamp that will always be good for the first class letter rate, regardless of how much that rate goes up, is a “sleazy strategy”.

Why? Good question. Apparently it has something to do with a roll of “clear tape” the editor bought on sale a long time ago, that he seems to have misplaced. Or something like that. See if you can figure it out.

‘Forever Stamp’ Not Bargain for Consumers

(And based on the comments on the YouTube page, some people actually believed it!)

From WFSB TV Hartford:

Here we go again- another hoax email gets broadcast over the USPS email system. And, just like last time, it goes out on a Friday night. This one warns the recipients that “There has been a huge purchase, $32,000 worth, of United Parcel Service (UPS) uniforms on eBay over the last 30 days.” Some kind of mass Halloween stunt? Of course not! It’s (drum roll) Terrorists!!!!!

“This could represent a serious threat as bogus drivers(terrorists) can drop off anything to anyone with deadly consequences! If you have ANY questions when a UPS driver appears at your door they should be able to furnish VALID I.D.”

And just to make sure, the email suggests you check to make sure the suspect delivery person actually arrived in a UPS truck. Good thinking.

Now all of that should be enough to make the average chimpanzee determine that this email is bogus, but any doubts should have been erased by the final advice the sender offers:

“PLEASE send to EVERYONEon your list, even if they are friend or foe. We should all be aware!”

It’s subtle, I know, but still- in all the years that I’ve been sending and receiving email (and I go waaaaay back to MCI Mail and VAX mail), I have never, ever, ever, received a legitimate, reputable email that told me to “send to EVERYONEon your list”. Never.

Oh well. This will be an interesting test, if nothing else. The email was sent by a plant supervisor, whose identity I’ll keep under wraps, because he is obviously somewhat in need of protective custody. For reasons that are unclear, he sent it to several Budget Analyst lists. What was he thinking? “Hey- this is important information! I’ve gotta get the word out! What should I do?! I know!! I’ll send it to the Budget Analysts!! They’ll know what to do!!!!!” Or something like that.

It will be interesting to see how many (if any) of my colleagues fall for this. I’m keeping my fingers crossed…