Edited Messages
Edited Messages
These are the e-mail messages used to write the article "Name Three." I've reformatted them and removed redundant quotes and information to make them easier to read. Great care was taken not to take anything out of context or change the meaning of anything, but if you'd like to check up on me you can read the unedited messages here.
Correspondence with Ted Scheile
Tompkins County Health Department, Ithica NY
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 12:00:13 -0500
From: Ted Schiele <tschiele@tompkins-co.org>
Subject: Re: WWTC Feedback Form
To: hittman@davehitt.com ()
Dave:
I have attached a report about the dangers of second hand smoke for your
reference. I hope this adds to your understanding of the situation.
Thanks for your interest.
Ted SchieleOn 23 Dec 2003 at 19:09, hittman@davehitt.com wrote:
> Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by
> (hittman@davehitt.com) on Tuesday, December 23, 2003 at 19:09:02
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> senders_name: Dave Hitt
>
> Topic: 63,000 deaths
>
> message: On your website you claim that 63,000 people die from second
> hand smoke every year.
>
> Could you please name three or four or them?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dave HittAttachment: TFK_SHS.pdf
To: tschiele@tompkins-co.org
Subject: Re: WWTC Feedback FormThanks for sending that, Ted, but it doesn't answer my question.
My question is quite simple. Name three or four people who have died from second hand smoke.
Anyone can name a dozen people who have died from primary smoking, because it really does kill people. So if SHS really kills people too, it should be possible to identify at least a couple of them.
So I ask, once again, Can you name three or four people who have died from second hand smoke?
Regards,
Dave Hitt
Subject: Re: WWTC Feedback Form
To: Dave Hitt <hittman@davehitt.com>
No, I cannot.
Correspondence with The American Lung Association
From: "The American Lung Association - Email the American Lung Association®" <info@lungusa.org>
To: "Dave Hitt" <hittman@davehitt.com>
Subject: The American Lung Association Has Received Your Information
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2004 19:42:03 -0800Dave Hitt
Thank you, Dave, your information has been received.
Thank you for your question. We will respond to your specific question within three business days.
For almost 100 years, the American Lung Association® has been fighting the ravages of lung disease. We've been on the front lines of the battle to bring better health to all Americans.
We can't continue alone - we need your help. Please donate to the Lung Association and support our mission in your area.
The American Lung Association contact information:
Email Address: info@lungusa.orgIf you have technical questions, please submit them at http://customersupport.kintera.org.
To: <hittman@davehitt.com>We are sorry but we do not have this information.
The information contained in this American Lung Association email is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment, and the ALA recommends consultation with your doctor or health care professional.
From: Dave Hitt [mailto:hittman@davehitt.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 10:56 PM
Why not?
If I had asked for the names of people who died from primary smoking, I'm sure you could name a dozen without giving it a second thought, and could list a hundred or two with five or ten minutes research on the inherent. It's an easy project because primary smoking really does kill people.
According to your numbers, a half million people have died from SHS over the past twenty years. That's huge. So if SHS really is a threat, you should have no trouble supplying me with a few names.
If you can't, then it's reasonable to conclude that SHS isn't the threat you claim it to be, right?
Regards,
Dave Hitt
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:12:21 -0500
From: "ALA_INFO" <INFO@lungusa.org>
To: "Dave Hitt" <hittman@davehitt.com>The issue is not what the person died from related to lung disease but rather that the American Lung Association would not give out the name of any person who died from any lung disease or condition.
From: Dave Hitt [mailto:hittman@davehitt.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:39 PM
To: ALA_INFO
Subject: RE:If I ask you how, say, Telly Savalis died, or how the first Marlboro man died, you would refuse to answer? I didn't specify the names of private individuals, the name of a few well known public figures would do, without violationg any confidences.
I just want to know if you can back up your claim that SHS kills tens of thousands of people a year. Can you?
To: "Dave Hitt" <hittman@davehitt.com>
The American Lung Association's mission is the prevention of lung disease and the promotion of lung health. In the completion of this mission, it is our responsibility to provide all available information to the general public about the dangers of both indoor and outdoor air pollution to lung health. However, once this information has been dispensed to the public it is the individual's choice whether or not to heed the warnings.
We do not have names, however, we do have scientifically proven studies that document that secondhand smoke exposure has been directl{Note: That last sentence is not a transcription error. It's what they sent.}
Correspondence with Jeffrey Wigand
Envelope-to: hittman@davehitt.com
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:02:20 -0500
From: JSW700@aol.com
To: hittman@davehitt.com
Subject: Re: looking for namesIn a message dated 3/29/2004 3:08:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, hittman@davehitt.com writes:
> Second hand smoke kills 63,000 people a year. That means over a half million people have died from it in the past twenty years. Yet, I'm unable to find any names. Can you provide me with the names of three or four people who have died from SHS?<I do not have access to the data base with the specific names on it but the correct CDC number is 55,000 per year. It is composed of lung cancers, heart disease, SIDS, etc.
It has been classified by virtually all public health scientific agencies as a Class A Human carcinogen. See attachment for the details on SHS.
I have been involved in only one case where a nurse, initially a missionary nurse who then worked at the VA hospitals holding cigarettes for at the VA hospital's patients. She NEVER voluntarily smoked or used any form of alcoholic beverages. She died on adenocarcinoma of the lungs...the specific lung cancer associated with SHS and smoking mild or light cigarettes.
Her name was Elizabeth Wiley and the case was tried in Muncie, IN.
J. S. Wigand, Ph.D., MAT
SMOKE-FREE KIDS, Inc.
PO Box 527
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48804-0527(989) 772-4063
(989) 779-8730 FAXWeb Sites:
jeffreywigand.com
smokefreekids.org"Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander"
Holocaust Museum, Washington, DC
NOTICE:This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use this information. In addition, please indicate to the sender that you have received this communication in error and delete the copy you have received.
Thank you.
PASSIVE SMOKE.ppt
Reply sent 3/30/2004
To: JSW700@aol.com
Subject: Re: looking for namesThanks for the info.
There is a database of such things? Who keeps it?
I'm rather surprised that you can only come up with one name, considering that more than a half million people have died from it in the past twenty years. I'm sure either of us could come up with twenty different names of dead primary smokers without giving it a second thought. Why can't we do the same for second hand smokers?
I can't find any reference to Elizabeth Wiley or a case anywhere on Google. Do you have a URL?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Regards,
Dave Hitt
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 10:44:58 -0500
From: JSW700@aol.com
To: hittman@davehitt.com
Subject: Re: looking for namesIn a message dated 3/30/2004 10:35:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, hittman@davehitt.com writes
> Thanks for the info.
>
> There is a database of such things? The vital statistics of each state, death certificate. Who keeps it?CDC may be able to help you at cdc.gov/tobacco or the Flight Attendants Research Foundation in Miami, FL.
> I'm rather surprised that you can only come up with one name, considering
> that more than a half million people have died from it in the past twenty
> years. I'm sure either of us could come up with twenty different names of
> dead primary smokers without giving it a second thought. Why can't we do
> the same for second hand smokers?The only names that I keep in my memory are the names of people that I have actually been involved legal action against the industry.
I do not keep these types of records or statistics on these facts nor do I desire to do so. However, if they were paramount to delineating each one I am sure I could obtain the names.
> I can't find any reference to Elizabeth Wiley or a case anywhere on
> Google. Do you have a URL?No, but you can contact the law firm of Ness, Motley in Charleston, SC who tried the Wiley case as well as many others.
> Thanks in advance for your help.Please refer to the PP I sent you as it provides the key issues and health concerns for exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.
PASSIVE SMOKE1.ppt
To: JSW700@aol.com
Subject: Re: looking for names>I do not keep these types of records or statistics on these facts nor do I desire to
> do so. However, if they were paramount to delineating each one I am sure I
> could obtain the names.That surprises me, given your involvement in this issue. I would think you'd like to have as much specific information as possible.
>> I can't find any reference to Elizabeth Wiley or a case anywhere on
>> Google. Do you have a URL?>No, but you can contact the law firm of Ness, Motley in Charleston, SC who tried the Wiley case as >well as many others.
Legal firms are prohibited from discussing their clients, so that's not going to help.
>Please refer to the PP I sent you as it provides the key issues and health concerns
> for exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke.I'm very familiar with the issues, I was just trying to turn those big, abstract numbers into a few human beings.
You gave me three names. The first was a woman who had pancreatic cancer that spread to her lungs, and the jury ruled against her. It appears her case was a fraud from the start. The second was someone who claimed SHS caused his lung cancer, but the jury ruled against him. Considering that juries are very sympathetic to individuals and hostile to Big Tobacco, he must have had a very weak case. And the third is someone I can't find any reference to anywhere.
I had really hoped for more, Jeff. With a half million dead from SHS in the past twenty years, this is all you can find? Could it be that SHS *isn't* the killer it's claimed to be?
Is there a death certificate anywhere, just one, that states SHS is the cause of death?
Regards,
Dave Hitt
To: JSW700@aol.com
Subject: Re: looking for namesSorry I haven't heard back from you yet, I'm sure you're a busy man, but I'm still curious, is there a single death certificate, anywhere, that lists SHS as the cause of death?
I do appreciate your help, and have a few other questions I'd like to ask as well, but this is the most important one.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Regards,
Dave Hitt
To: JSW700@aol.com
I haven't heard back from you, and realize it's my fault. I've been asking various anti-smoker groups the "name three" question in preparation for an article for my web site, and the last paragraph of my last e-mail to you was intended for someone else. I apologize for the confusion. My last question to you was "Are there any death certificates, anywhere, that list second hand smoke as the cause of death."
I'd like to ask you about three more things, if you don't mind. I realize these are very personal questions, but since you willingly became a public figure, I think it's fair to ask them.
The first is regarding your employment at Biosonics Inc. Jack Paller, the CEO, wrote a rather devastating report about your behavior there. He claims you were very abusive of employees, including his wife, that you were fired from there, and that you then lied to Brown & Williamson in order to get hired. He also says you resigned with a one sentence letter, but provided The Wall Street Journal with a much more elaborate resignation letter. Is he telling the truth?
What I find most interesting about his story is that it used to be in several places on the Internet, and now the only place I can find it is FORCES, a smoker's rights web site. Why did the other sites remove it? Were legal threats levied against them?
The second question is the most troubling. If you only answer one, please answer this one. One of the most dramatic scenes in The Insider was you finding the threatening letter and the bullet in your mailbox. Yet when the FBI investigated, they found some concrete evidence that you had written that letter on your own computer, printed it on your own stationary, and put both the bullet and the letter in your own mailbox. Their report is available on the highly regarded web site "The Smoking Gun." (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/wigand1.html) Why did you do that, Jeff? And why do you think the FBI declined to prosecute you for the fraud?
My last question is about signature line you use in your e-mail. You use the quote "Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander" and cite the source as the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC.
A while back I did some research on Hitler's war on smokers. It turns out that he was a rabid anti-smoker too. (http://www.davehitt.com/nov02/nicotine.html) His methods and techniques are eerily similar to those that you and your anti-smoker collogues use. The phrase "passive smoking" was coined by one of his minions. Therefore, if you're going to compare yourself to anyone in the Holocaust scenario, it's clear which side you belong on, and it's not the side of the victims. With this new information at hand, will you continue to use that quote?
I look forward to your answers.
Correspondence with James Repace
To: James Repace <repace@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: A few namesWe have been told that passive smoking causes 63,000 deaths per hear in the united states.
That's more than a half million in the past twenty years.Could you please provide the names of three or four of these victims?
Thanks in advance
Dave Hitt
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:45:25 -0500
From: James Repace <repace@comcast.net>
To: Dave Hitt <hittman@davehitt.com>
Subject: Re: A few namesSure. Mildred Wiley of Indiana, Burl Butler of Missouri, and Larry Ray Thaxton of Tennessee. You're welcome to check them out on Google.
To: James Repace <repace@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: A few namesI found the first two, but can't find Thaxton anywhere. Is it spelled right? Do you have URL?
On an side note, I recall seeing something a couple of years ago about how SHS behaves outdoors. I think it was something you did, but I'm not sure. If it was, can you tell me where to find it?
Thanks for your time.
Regards,
Dave Hitt
To: Dave Hitt <hittman@davehitt.com>
Subject: Re: A few namesActually, I couldn't find it either; it hasn't yet come to trial.
Sorry. The outdoor paper is on my CV on my website, paper # 58:
<www.repace.com>. JR
Thanks James, you've been very helpful, and I appreciate your prompt responses. With that information I was able to find the actual report on the web.
Another question, if you don't mind. I know you worked for the EPA, and I see you listed as a contributor to the 1993 report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. Do you approve of the methodology the EPA used for that report?
Regards,
Dave Hitt
To: James Repace <repace@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: A few namesJames, I want to make sure my last question made it to you. I realize you're a very busy man, and appreciate the rapid responses you've been providing so far.
The question is simply do you approve of the methodology used by the EPA in their 1993 report on SHS?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Regards,
Dave Hitt
To: Dave Hitt <hittman@davehitt.com>
Subject: Re: A few namesDear Mr. Hitt, I have visited your website. I note that you are a smoker, and take a decidedly libertarian view of this issue. While this is your right, based on those opinions, I do not think that my professional opinion of the EPA study methodology will be understandable to you, as you are apparently not a science professional. In the event that you ever wish to pursue genuine scientific inquiry on this issue, and are not simply a flack for big tobacco, I suggest you visit the Cal EPA website for an update on the risks of passive smoking. Jim Repace
To: James Repace <repace@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: A few namesOne doesn't need to be a farmer to know if an apple is rotten.
If you were an *ethical* science professional, and a real scientist, you would be appalled at your name being attached to a study that ignored 2/3s of the data, then doubled the margin of error, then doubled *that* number, to come up with 3,000 imaginary deaths in a population of 300 million people.
For the record, I despise Big Tobacco as much as you do, in fact, probably more.
I spent several years as a consultant for General Electric's R&D center, working with hundreds of the world's best scientists and engineers. Many of them worked with highly toxic airborne chemicals. They protected themselves with ventilation. They didn't need hurricane force winds, and would have laughed at the suggestion that they were necessary. And that was for high concentrations of chemicals that were really dangerous, not the imaginary danger of SHS.
I'm not sure which site you visited - there are actually three under the same domain name. I'm guessing you visited The Hittman Chronicle, where I print opinion articles. You should also check out The Facts, which shows the real facts about second hand smoke. You'll find that here: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/ . You're invited to search it for a single error listed as a fact. The third is a Blog I just started, just for fun, and doesn't have anything to do with this conversation. You'll find it at http://www.davehitt.com/blog/
Our conversations are the final step in a project of mine. I've been asking the same question (name three people) to a variety of organizations and individuals. You were the only one who suppled three names, and your choices are quite revealing. One of them is unverifiable. Another, despite the fact that juries love ailing individuals and hate tobacco companies, was unable to convince a jury that his illness had anything to do with SHS. And the first one you cited was an outright fraud - she had pancreatic cancer which spread to her lungs, and she tried to cash in by blaming tobacco.
So thanks, James, for proving what I've known all along. You and your ilk are making a very good living by telling lies about SHS and vilifying smokers. The bans you promote put thousands of small business men and women out of work, all to protect someone from a non-existent danger. And worst of all, you've provided nannies and busybodies of every ilk with a blueprint on how to use Big Brother and Lawyers to interfere with every aspect of everyone's life.
There is all kinds of evil in the world, but the very worst is those who sacrifice freedom and facts "for our own good," and for their own profit.
Regards,
Dave Hitt
To: Dave Hitt <hittman@davehitt.com>
Dave, each cigarette you smoke takes 13 minutes off your life. What more do you need to know about the toxicity of tobacco smoke? If a horse drinks out of a well and dies, do you supply the town with the water? Use your common sense, man. Jim
To: James Repace <repace@comcast.net>
Jim, I don't smoke cigarettes. I used to, but quit, because I wasn't comfortable with the risk. I do smoke cigars, but not a lot.
Thirteen minutes? Not nine, not fourteen, but precisely thirteen? Those are the kind of nonsense numbers no real scientist would be quoting. A real scientist would say something like "cigarettes increase the risk of dying prematurely." No one can argue that, because that's a real, honest to goodness fact. But smoking seems to have no effect on a some people (everyone knows someone who lived to be 90+ smoking several packs a day) and a devastating effect on other people.
Of course, none of that is the issue at hand. We both agree that primary smoking is risky, but we're talking about SHS, an entirely different thing. We're talking about your "hurricane force winds" statements. And we talking about you having your name, apparently without any objection, appearing on one of the most fraudulent "studies" that ever came out of the EPA. Wouldn't a real scientist speak out against a report that ignored 2/3s of the data, then doubled the margin of error, then doubled THAT number, to come up with an RR that is laughably small? Why haven't you spoken out against that, Jeff?
Regards,
Dave Hitt
To: Dave Hitt <hittman@davehitt.com>
I've forwarded your message to the author of the EPA study; if he wants to, he can respond.
To: James Repace <repace@comcast.net>
I didn't ask the author of the EPA study. I asked you. Why are you evading the question?It's pretty simple. There's nothing tricky about it. Do you approve of the methodology of the study? Yes, or no?
To: Dave Hitt <hittman@davehitt.com>
No, Dave, it's not simple. It's a weight of evidence approach, you just don't consider the epi studies, most of which are flawed because of poor exposure assessment, which drives the results toward the null. There are 10 different risk assessments, all using different methodology (see "Risk Assessment Methodologies in passive smoking-induced lung cancer." J.L. Repace and A.H. Lowrey, RISK ANALYSIS, 10: 27-37, (1990)) , EPA's is just one; at the time, I reviewed the methods in detail, and I thought is was a very nice job, and so did the 16 member external review panel, all of whom had PhDs. All the other 9 risk assessments produce the same estimates as everybody else, plus or minus 50%, including mine. The only garbage submitted at the hearings in 1992 was from the tobacco companies and their stooges. Now before you respond again, why don't you check out some of my publications?
<List of 71 publications snipped.>
To: James Repace <repace@comcast.net>
I checked out the one {publication}where you claim that SHS doesn't dispute outdoors, but does some acrobatics and then heads for non-smokers. I found it pretty amusing. Perhaps I'll look up some of your other papers when I'm in need of entertainment.
The results are driven toward the null because SHS has no effect on mortality. Kabat just proved that with a 39 year study. A cohort study, no less. One funded mostly by the American Cancer Society.
So you reviewed the methods in detail. Let me make sure I understand this, me being a non-scientist and all. The EPA announced their results ahead of time. Then they committed the fraud of ignoring two thirds of the available data. Then they compounded that fraud by doubling their margin of error to a 90% confidence level. Then they compounded that fraud by doubling the 1500 deaths they calculated. And after reviewing those methods in detail, you say it "was a very nice job."
Thank you James. I think that explains everything I need to know about you. There were two more things I was going to bring up - your ludicrous claims that hurricane force winds are necessary to clear smoke from a room, and the fact that of the three names you did supply, one was unproven, one was unverifiable, and one was an outright fraud. But since your assessment of the EPA study provides such a deep insight into your character, I think those conversations would be a waste of both your time and mine.
So thank you, James, for your time. It has been most enlightening.
Regards,
Dave Hitt
© 2004 Dave Hitt