###############################
[in French: “Lettre ouverte à Wasim Maziak, opposant politique syrien et directeur du centre «de recherche» USA-Syrie à Alep (US-SCTS)”]. 7 Sep 2013
This Letter is directed at the “Syrian political “opponent”” author, with Thomas Eissenberg and his warmongering colleagues from the US-University of Beirut (Alan Shihadehg, Ghazi
Zaatari, etc.), of the WHO flawed report on “”waterpipe””.
Backed by millions of dollars from the juicy global budget of ”public health”, they recently declared an all-out war on the peaceful Middle East Peace Pipe after having sold NATO’s MACABRE “EPIDEMIOLOGY” and “vision” of the “”Arab Spring”” to a community of researchers still unaware of the GREATEST MANIPULATION OF ALL TIMES IN THE BIOMEDICAL FIELD (behind a simple “word”: ««waterpipe»». Wait and see.
###############################
Summer 2013
Elie AKL and colleagues (University of New York at Buffalo) publish Business-Oriented Junk Paper in the Harm Reduction Journal:
MUST READ : US-American University of Beirut and the Juicy Business of Systematically Flawed ““Systematic Reviews”” on ««Waterpipe»». 20 July 2013
###############################
###############################
In a pseudo-scientific paper titled “Arab Spring and Health”, Adam Coutts, Wasim Maziak (Our (US) Man in Aleppo (Syria)), Martin McKee et al (University of Cambridge, Cambridge , Univ. of Forida, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) endorse NATO’s Scenario for the so-called ««Arab Spring»»™. Among many references to the popular press (i.e. not scientifically peer-reviewed), Maziak and his colleagues cite a speech by war criminal Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Secretary-General in person. Besides, the death tolls caused by the invasion of Iraq and Libya are dramatically downplayed. Is this a surprise?
The other forbidden truth is that according to sources close the United Nations, about 100 000 people have been killed during the recent invasion of Libya. As for Iraq, the unspeakable figure (Coutts, Maziak and McKee DENY the reality of 1MILLION IRAQI DEATHS) is rather 1.5 million deaths, based on the following sources:
> Burnham G, Lafta R, Doocy S, Roberts L. Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey. Lancet. 2006 Oct 21;368 (9545):1421-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17055943
> Roberts L, Lafta R, Garfield R, Khudhairi J, Burnham G. Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey. Lancet. 2004 Nov 20-26;364(9448):1857-64.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15555665
> Iraq Body Count. As of 7 Apr 2013
> Reuters. Iraq conflict has killed a million Iraqis: survey. Jan 30, 2008.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/30/us-iraq-deaths-survey-idUSL3048857920080130
“(Reuters) - More than one million Iraqis have died as a result of the conflict in their country since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, according to research conducted by one of Britain's leading polling groups”.
“The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household as a result of the conflict, rather than natural causes."
"Since 1990 upper estimates are of THREE MILLION Iraqi deaths between sanctions, bombings and invasion, under four US Administrations. One thousand 9/11s.” Malcom Lagauche (The Endless US-Iraq War).
Now, read imperial totalitarian science:
>> Adam Coutts, David Stuckler, Rajaie Batniji, Sharif Ismail, Wasim Maziak, Martin McKee. The Arab Spring and health: two years on. Int J Health Serv. 2013;43(1):49-60.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2190/HS.43.1.d
.....................................................................................and its DEBUNKING CRITIQUE by Dr Kamal
###############################
2012 Release of Tout savoir sur le narguile : societe, histoire, culture et sante” [Everything about hookahs: societies, culture, history ; health] (Paris, L'Harmattan, 2012, 256 pages); (2) "Le narguile" (Paris, L’Harmattan, 261 pages). Includes the full text critique of the WHO flawed report on hookah smoking.
BROCHURE in English availaible HERE.
2002-2012. Kamal’s Masterpiece: “Ten Post-11/9 Great Myths about Hookah (Shisha, Narghile) Smoking & Public Health”
Subject: How Geo-“politically-Correct” Biased Science Generates Fictitious “Civilisation Clashes” in the World...
Public Health” Junk Science Based War Propaganda: The US-Syrian Center for Tobacco Studies (US-SCTS): “a leading institution for high-quality research”
REALLY ??? Read report by most aware analyst:
Syrian Waterpipegate. Our Man in Aleppo, Head of US Masterminded Screen “Syrian Center for Tobacco Studies”. 19 August 2012
Quoteworthy Conclusion: «Independent Syrian experts are likely right to say that the ongoing pseudo-revolution there (17 months now) is meant, not only to achieve macro objectives in the region but, also, in the end, a certain lifestyle (all independent travellers knowing Syria will understand): the simplicity of daily life, its low cost, Middle East sociability best expressed by Syrian coffee-houses and patios with their gurgling narghiles, etc... What is at stake is the repeated intent, begun in Iraq, to implement the US Great/New Middle East Project at all levels: from the political hyper-structure to the socio-cultural aspects. In the view of their designers and their men in the region, the “Arab way of life” must be shattered thanks to the emergence of a consumerist society essentially based on competition.”
“See how the US, US-Syrian & US-Lebanese ««waterpipe»» prohibitionist group (Wasim MAZIAK/Thomas EISSENBERG/Alan SHIHADEH/Kenneth WARD/Jack HENNINGFIELD/GLOBALINK) sponsored (millions of dollars) by big pharmaceutical companies (nicotine patches, gums, inhalers, “Chantix”/Champix, etc.) has recently intended to block the (non-US, i.e. not their money) funding (by an Arab university) of an independent Harm Reduction Project. Their only ““scientific”” argument was that Kamal is a key researcher in the project...”
http://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2iXoxgyuf9lQzZCdWVuNGc1Qmc/edit
NEW: Spring 2011. UNDISCLOSED "UNEXPECTED..." CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
REVELATIONS 2011 (March, 25). How the TOBACCO INDUSTRY (CIGARETTES) has also been funding anti-hookah research over the past years: Big Tobacco & Big Pharma Against "Oriental" Hookah Outsider
Subject: Evidence about One Undeclared Funding Source of WHO Shisha (““Waterpipe””-Coded) Antismoking Research.
The British Medical Journal's Hookah Smoking Prophet : Another Twist of the Danish “Caricatures”?
Subject: "An article of the British Medical Journal targets a certain religion for being permissive and even promoting smoking..."(March 18, 2011).
1a. For memory : Kamal's list of publications on this issue (updated)
1b. Critique of the WHO (World Health Organization) Flawed Report on ““Waterpipe”” Smoking
2. The Most Beautiful Girl in the World
5. A Global Prison ? [An interview with Kamal C. on world tobacco policy]. Run by Chris S (Velvet Glove, Iron Fist), 2009 (8 Apr)
6. Girard M. World Health Organization Vaccine Recommendations: Scientific Flaws, or Criminal Misconduct ? Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 2006;11(1):22-3.
7. Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A. Use of evidence in WHO recommendations. Lancet. 2007 Jun 2;369(9576):1883-9.
#################################################################################################################################################################################################################################
#################################################################################################################################################################################################################################
BELOW IS THE LETTER TO THE WHO BY THE AUTHOR
[with kind PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR]
[undisclosed] Paris (France)
TO THE PERSONAL ATTENTION OF:
Dr
Margaret CHAN, Director-General
World Health Organisation
Avenue Appia 20
1211 Geneva 27
Switzerland
Paris, 07 Sept 2007
SUBJECT: Dissolution (winding up) of WHO TobReg (*). Repeated Scientific
Misconduct within WHO in relation to WHO “Advisory Note” report on ““waterpipe” tobacco smoking”
BACKGROUND: Correspondence with your
organisation [references 1-5]
Please submit copy to all interested parties: Members of the WHO Executive Board; CC: Representatives of the
WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control; CC: Regional
Director for the Eastern Mediterranean; CC: Director of the Tobacco Free Initiative; CC: Editors of the “Advisory Note”; CC: Members
of WHO TobReg.
(*) TobReg: WHO study group on Tobacco product Regulation: Erik DYBING (Norway; Chairman); David L. ASHLEY (USA);
David BURNS (USA); Mirjana DJORDJEVIC (USA); Nigel GRAY (France); S. Katherine
HAMMOND (USA); Jack HENNINGFIELD (USA); Martin JARVIS (UK); K. Srinath REDDY
(India); Channing ROBERTSON (USA); Ghazi ZAATARI (Lebanon).
Dear Dr CHAN,
As an advocate of unbiased and uncensored debate -the only way, in my opinion, to make science and evidence-based public health intervention, progress-, I was actually expecting a comment on my critique of the erroneous WHO 1st report on ““waterpipe” tobacco smoking” for a very long time now [6][7]. This event finally happened as, from what I have understood, Dir. WHO TFI (Tobacco Free Initiative) urged TobReg officials and the authors of the WHO report to post comments on my publication [8-11].
However, I can see two other reasons behind such a move:
1-the growing popularity of the critique
(totalising these days 10,000 unique visits, not to mention a roughly
equivalent of times at mirror sites like PubMed and others, therefore reaching
a figure not far from 20,000 visits)[12]. This document also begins to
be cited side by side with the WHO report by independent scientists and health
officials [13][14].
2-the failure of ““waterpipe”” research for the
last 5 years and, beyond, its related so-called “peer-review” system. I mean
the journals and teams of so-called “peer-reviewers” who have granted the
“peer-review” label to studies that did not deserve it; to start with, the one,
by Drs MAZIAK, EISSENBERG, WARD et al., that inflicted the greatest damage to
the further whole series of publications that relied on its findings [15].
This erroneous study also stands behind the numerous errors to be found in the
WHO report. An early critical analysis clearly established that its authors had
not read some of the publications they cited in the reference section. For
instance, they credited some of them with the opposite statements or findings
they actually contain. The case of the early Israeli study by Rakower and Fatal
in relation to lung cancer in Jews from Yemen [16] is now famous and the
most striking example although there are many others. I could also cite
one or two other dozen(s) of “peer-reviewed” journals which published similar
errors.
I may
understand that an organisation like yours, like many of the same size, is
necessarily bureaucratic. However, my critique raised the question of how a
purportedly “peer-reviewed” report is prepared and validated by a panel of
international experts (TobReg) and , beyond how experts have been selected. Indeed,
I recently saw that my critique was in tune with another one of a more general
scope [17]. I also found that WHO has published this year a second
erroneous report on shisha smoking containing not a smaller number of errors
than the first one [4][18].
Now, in their respective
comments, Drs Erik
DYBING (Chairman TobReg), Jack HENNINGFIELD (Member TobReg), Thomas EISSENBERG
(co-author WHO report), Alan SHIHADEH (co-author WHO report), Wasim MAZIAK
(non-declared co-author – see further down) and Kenneth WARD, did not address the very substance of my
critique of the WHO report, that is, the analysis of the numerous and serious
scientific errors. Instead, they only focussed on its form (notably through a
defamation about as purported “conflict of interest” – see further down) with
the obvious intent of camouflaging the very serious errors that they
euphemistically call “misrepresentations”.
As for the “peer-review” label of their publications, it is also a
seriously tarnished notion that they use as a shield or, I would say, a fig
leaf.
Let us see:
A) MISQUOTATIONS AND STUDIES CITED
BUT NOT READ BY THE “EXPERTS”. No need to go too far. The very first 2 sentences of the report (under
the “Background and history” heading) contain 2 serious errors. Neither is the
hookah (narghile, shisha) of Indian origin nor the cited researcher stated what
they credit him for (about the use in Africa and Asia) [19]. Drs DYBING
and HENNINGFIELD as well as all the authors of the WHO report, refuse to
acknowledge the existence of this huge error in their respective comments [8][10].
I beg of you, Dr CHAN, check by yourself because it is so easy. They also
displayed the same striking unwillingness to acknowledge a serious error
regarding the wrong scenario for the hookah epidemic given by their team in a
famous study [11][20].
B) CONFUSION. The experts in toxicology
cannot distinguish between a burning and a heating process as far as tobacco
smoke is concerned. This is a serious error because the chemistry of smoke is
completely different in both cases. In spite of their denial, the word “burn”
is used by at least two times in the WHO report [11]. Any half-witted hookah (narghile, shisha) user
knows that the tobamel (mu‘assel) -the tobacco [or no-tobacco]-molasses based
smoking mixture-, is only heated.
C) VIOLATION OF WHO TOBREG RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING THE USE OF SMOKING MACHINES. In the critique of the WHO report, I
showed that the use of smoking machines in the field of hookah (narghile,
shisha) is in contradiction with TobReg’s own principles [6][11].
Not only the use of smoking machines should be discontinued but we have seen
how TobReg, and the whole community behind it (TFI [Tobacco Free Initiative],
Globalink, SRNT [Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco], famous
journals, etc.) has endorsed the findings (particularly regarding tar yields,
etc.) of a study in which the tobamel (mu‘assel) was virtually charred, yes
charred, Dr CHAN. The authors of the WHO report insist again that the corresponding study by Alan SHIHADEH
would rely on “state-of-the-art smoke toxicant research”, in fact, a highly
biased smoking topography in a café of Beirut. Certainly a ““waterpipe”” is a
water-pipe in a laboratory but in the street, it is a narghile, a
hookah, a shisha and much more. No researcher (particularly those tobacco
specialists within TobReg) went to look into the details of it. It is
regrettable that such things still happen in the scientific field. This is also
a violation, by TobReg itself, of WHO TobReg’s 12th core principle
regarding independence and integrity: “Regardless
of the funding mechanism adopted, it should ensure that the independence and
integrity of research and testing operations are not compromised or
inappropriately influenced » [21].
D) REPEATED SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT. In the WHO report, key authors were
systematically, and on purpose, dismissed in the “review” of the available
literature. As a sole example, RAKOWER’s and HOFFMANN’s contributions in this
field [16][22] were brushed aside simply because they were
pioneers in using smoking machines, 40 years before the one designed by Alan
SHIHADEH, the co-author of the report. Also, it is worth noting that Drs DYBING
and HENNINGFIELD have actually lied when calling my 420 page transdisciplinary
doctoral thesis an unpublished “graduate thesis”. They perfectly knew, for a very
long time, and from the again bibliographical references, that it was not.
Consequently, the aim was to try to justify, a posteriori, its meant
dismissal from the WHO report based on a so-called “world review” [8][9].
E) THE “PEER-REVIEW” FALSE OUTWARD
SHOW. The numerous
serious errors to be found in the two WHO reports on “waterpipe” smoking show
that “peer-review” has been a mascarade at the highest level. Let me point out that the WHO report was supposed to have been
peer-reviewed, particularly by The WHO Study Group experts TobReg). In one of
the chief studies cited by Drs MAZIAK, EISSENBERG, WARD et al., supposed to
have been peer-reviewed, I, have, as I said previously, early identified very serious errors [15]. Furthermore, the
same “peer-reviewed” publication, published in a “prestigious” journal,
contains up to 5 references (23, 97, 98, 99, 100) that are materials from the
general public press. This also occurs in other publications of the same team.
Alan SHIHADEH and Rawad SALEH [23] cite up to 4 references related to the popular press
(Edds, Gangloff, Landphair, McNicoll). In these conditions, Dr CHAN, are not we
definitely far from the academic world scientific rigour and the
“peer-reviewed” criterion for sound science ?
In the
same vein, the second WHO report on shisha smoking, “inspired” by the 1st
one, also contains many serious errors [4][18]. Surprisingly, it contains not only
quotations from a daily newspaper (Turkish Daily News) for historical aspects
but also 3 bibliographical references which are nothing more than commercial
pirated versions of the Tobacco pages of Wikipedia, the popular, though
certainly not “peer-reviewed”, online encyclopaedia… Tell me, Dr CHAN, can we
call these materials cited in peer-reviewed studies, peer-reviewed literature ?
The
insistence of the authors on the “peer-review” label is really surprising
because their own studies are far from being models in this field. They contain
many serious errors and this situation shows that the peer-review process is
not always so strict in certain journals and, I would add, in the field of
tobacco research on hookah smoking in particular. Personally, I would rather
quote from an existing comprehensive anthropological and historical academic
work (hundreds of pages) than from the daily press. As for the online comments
and Electronic-Letters to the Editor (the only existing critiques of the “good
science” in the field of hookah studies) I have cited in the critique of the
WHO report, of course they are peer-reviewed. Certain journals (Pediatrics for
instance) even call them Post-Publication Peer Review (P3R). There must
be some reason [24]… A journal like JNNBM (Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine), that TobReg experts now know well, takes up to 15
days to accept or reject a comment. All my studies truly were peer-reviewed by academic teams from
prestigious French research centres such as INSERM, CNRS, worldwide known
university laboratories and by not less prestigious great scholars in this
field. The latter have a good grasp of toxicology and definitely know more
about the chemistry of smoke and the dependence process than the authors of the
WHO report and those who have thoroughly “peer-reviewed” their manuscript.
Finally, if my work is
systematically dismissed by these individuals, how come their French colleagues
who blindly share their “views” have pirated the whole of my biomedical
literature [25] ? Isn’t this amazing ?
F) WRONG PRIORITIES: “NICOTINE
ADDICTION” VERSUS NEW CHARCOAL CARBON MONOXIDE INTOXICATION. Instead of focussing on the real
known potential problems related to hookah use, i.e. carbon monoxide
intoxication in certain circumstances and due to the use of a certain type of
charcoal, as I have been doing for 10 years now [26][27], TobReg
and the authors of the WHO report insist on an old dogma about “nicotine
addiction” in an intent to scare the general public and crowds of naive
researchers with this notion. Indeed, as I recalled, there is a serious
debate on this issue [28][29]
and I am confident that ongoing research on hookah dependence will soon
help in the collapse of this dangerous and wrong theory.
G) COLLECTIVE DEFAMATION. As I said, TobReg and the authors of
the WHO report have tried to evade the discussion on the serious errors. Dr
EISSENBERG and colleagues’ comment is intentionally defamatory as it refers to
a purported “conflict of interest” in relation with my critique of the
erroneous WHO report. Let me clarify again that when I submitted my manuscript
to JNRBM (summer 2006), I had not anymore any relation of any sort with the
patent related to the harm reduction no-CO (carbon monoxide) hookah project I
had enthusiastically participated in (all the more that it helped me earn a
living and not starve as the official ““waterpipe”” experts of the world
wanted). I made it clear on several occasions, including in international
expert forums, that I signed away all my corresponding patent rights (past and
future) on 15 June 2005. A declaration was signed in presence of a State
Attorney in Paris on the same date. I have never received (nor shall never
receive) money for the corresponding patent. I was only paid a lump sum for the
work I have done for the advancement of the project.
This is part of an international libel campaign triggered
by the Editor of the Tobacco Control journal who did not accept to
publish, side by side, my response to his published declarations and
misinterpretations. His journal, supposed to be “peer-reviewed”. However, the
above researchers have succeeded in publishing erroneous studies, particularly
that one that served as the base for the WHO report [15]. In France, a
WHO-medal holder took over this defamation in what happened to be the greatest
fraud in the history of tobacco research [25].
H) NON-DECLARED CONFLICTS
OF INTERESTS BY MAIN AUTHORS OF WHO REPORT. Drs Thomas EISSENBERG, Alan SHIHADEH, Wasim MAZIAK and Kenneth WARD, in
their defamation project, actually referred to an
INexistent “conflict of interest” concerning the author of the critique of the
erroneous WHO report. Now, what about them ?
-Dr Wasim MAZIAK. The four
above researchers have actually concealed key information related to a
non-declared conflict of interest on behalf of Dr MAZIAK, director of the SCTS (US-Syrian Center for Tobacco
Studies), in relation with the WHO report on hookah (“waterpipe”) smoking. Please refer to my letter sent to the Editor of JNRBM
which shows that, contrary to what is stated in the WHO report, the
authors of the background paper of the WHO report were 3 (Drs EISSENBERG,
SHIHADEH and MAZIAK) and not 2 (Drs EISSENBERG and SHIHADEH) [30][31]. Dr MAZIAK may have
had competing interests and this would be the reason for such a camouflaging
editorial operation [31]. Notably
also, Dr MAZIAK is now working at the University of Memphis (USA), a US-funding
route for the SCTS, where his colleague and
co-author of the WHO report, Dr Kenneth WARD, works. Personal interests on
behalf of Dr MAZIAK may also have been a motive for the strong focus of the
numerous studies he has led over the pas years on ““waterpipe”” smoking in
Syria. In this country, the prevalence of cigarette smoking is sometimes 10
times higher than that of narghile use. In these conditions, such an asymmetric
priority remains if not highly suspect, illogical.
-Dr Thomas EISSENBERG. He is the
co-author of the WHO report and researcher at the US-Syrian Center for Tobacco Studies as well. He has not
declared all his competing interests. He only mentioned NIH (National
Institutes of Health) while he maintains strong relations with the
Pharmaceutical industry. His official biography states that that he “has
been the PI [principal investigator] on numerous NIH-, pharmaceutical
industry-, and foundation-supported grants.”[32]. In 2004, “he
has been awarded a $2.2 million, five-year grant from the National Cancer
Institute to
develop a model for testing the purported benefits of potential
reduced-exposure products for cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users” using a
smoking topography device from “marketed by Plowshare Technologies, Inc., of
Baltimore, MD” [33]. No need to say that the objective has been to combat the new efficient
harm reduction cigarettes like Eclipse for instance. He has been a consultant
(and therefore, was paid fees), at least in 2002, to Plowshare Technologies and
to another one, Sention Inc. [34], a pharmaceutical company developing new
memory drugs, particularly one targeting nicotine receptors… See: “2002 Award “Thomas E. Eissenberg, Crossover Study Comparning C105
(levo-amphetamine sulfate), Sention Inc, $139,603” [35]
-Dr Jack HENNINGFIELD. He declared
no competing interests in his comment co-signed with Dr DYBING [8] whereas he
is affiliated to Pinney
Associates, consulted by producers of Nicotine Replacement Therapy medicines.
-As for Erik DYBING, Alan SHIHADEH and Kenneth
WARD, as well as the other members of TobReg, I would suggest, given the
extent of the abuse of the non-declaration of conflicts of interest by their
colleagues, that they openly declare all their interests.
I) COOPTATION AND LACK OF INDEPENDENCY AND
TRANSPARENCY. Ghazi ZAATARI (Lebanon) is a member of the WHO Study
Group (TobReg). He said in the Bulletin of the American University of
Beirut: “I have been a member of the
TobReg since October 2004 and encouraged the study group to give this form of
smoking (““waterpipe””) the attention it deserves. Last June, I made a
presentation on the subject before the group during its annual meeting in Rio
de Janeiro.” The same document states: “Dr. ZAATARI’s presentation was
partly based on studies made by Professor Alan SHIHADEH, assistant professor at
AUB’s Department of Mechanical Engineering, and Dr. Thomas EISSENBERG,
assistant professor in the Department of Psychology and the Institute for Drug
and Alcohol Studies in Virginia Commonwealth University, both of whom were
commissioned by the TobReg to conduct the worldwide review.” [15][36]
Consequently, this report was prepared under the
influence of only one member (G. Zaatari) of the Study Group, who imposed to
the entire college of specialists (TobReg) the selection of “his” expert from
the same organisation as his (American University of Beirut). However, this
serious fault is in contradiction with the very principles set out by the
TobReg itself regarding independence [21].
Ø Considering the repeated scandals
taking place inside the UN agency you are responsible for: two erroneous WHO
reports and WHO medals awarded to individuals responsible for the latter [1-7][18];
Ø Taking note of the findings of a
recent study published in The Lancet which puts seriously into question
the quality of the recommendations issued by WHO on a more general level [17];
Ø Stressing that The 1st
WHO report on hookah (narghile, shisha) smoking remains public with its
numerous serious errors despite the comments by their authors and even the
renewed support to these errors by members of TobReg [8-11].
Ø Recalling that the above mentioned
scandals have brought to light the total failure and collapse of the
peer-reviewed system in this field of research. The principle is now admitted
on a wider level [37][38]. Indeed, dozens of supposedly
peer-reviewed studies published in the last years are of so poor quality and
confusing that some public health authorities cannot rely on them and are led
to have recourse to the “precaution principle”…
Ø Regretting the widespread cooptation
and non-declared conflicts of interest among the people in charge of preparing
official reports in the name of WHO;
I renew my offer to help Dir Gal WHO
in reviewing the expert reports released to the public by your organisation.
Let me invite you to set up as soon as possible an international independent
commission of truly independent and not “crusade-minded” experts, mainly from
the so-called “South” countries, so as you can take relevant decisions in this
field. I think this situation demands that such an independent international
commission prepare:
1-
the
immediate dissolution and winding up of WHO TobReg;
2-
the
creation of a new structure with new free and independent (from all lobbies:
Pharmaceutical and Tobacco industries and those who work for their interests in
the so-called “anti-tobacco” and “prevention” movement). Few organisations and
scientists in the world are doing real prevention in this field. WHO must work
with these professionals and get rid of the others. I can help Dir Gal WHO in
identifying them;
3-
The
withdrawal of the two WHO erroneous reports on hookah (narghile, shisha)
smoking. They have created too much confusion in the world [1-7][18].
4-
The
termination of the support brought by WHO (through TFI and other channels) to
organisations like Globalink and others of the same nature, not to forget the
related “peer-reviewed” international journals. Put an end to any kind of
support (financial, etc.) and recognition (medals, etc.) to the institutions
which stained WHO scientific credibility, namely the US-Syrian Center for
Tobacco Studies [37], the American University of Beirut and, to a lesser
extent, the US-Egyptian research centre (ESPRI).
5-
If
necessary -in view of the expected reluctance to commitment by influent
involved parties-, the setting up of an International Tribunal (The Hague) to
establish charges against those researchers and their affiliated organisations
who have imposed, day after day over the past years, a mafia-like system. This
system, as this letter shows, is still based on intellectual and scientific
terror and on collective defamation. The parties responsible for such a
situation have deliberately ignored the real public health priorities regarding
the hookah (narghile, shisha) “epidemic”.
Yours sincerely,
[Full names signed by]
________
CAUTION: Of course, I do not use the “Tobacco Control” phrase
with the meaning of “Tobacco Kontrol” (“controlling smokers and
their suppliers” according to Pierre Lemieux’ cogent critiques)(*). Instead, I
use it with from a diametrical point of view: that of the broad traditional
meaning of “drug control” as in UNDCP (the ex-United Nations Drug Control
Programme) and John Marks’ famous work (**). This non-conformist physician used
to prescribe legally (within the so-called British System) hard drugs to their
users. In my daily practice, this non-prohibitionist notion means the control
over the quality of products (cigarettes, cigars, etc.) that also implies a
systematic decriminalisation of harm reduction solutions (Eclipse cigarette,
Swedish SNUS, No-Carbon Monoxide hookah, etc.) and, not the least, a rejection
of the growing related junk science that stained the credibility of science and
public health.
(*) http://www.pierrelemieux.org/artkontrol.html
(**) Marks J. Drug Misuse and
Social Cost. Br J Hosp Med. 1994 Jul 13-Aug 16;52(2-3):65, 67.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgbz283m_89ff6p76
http://www.toxibase.org/BaseBiblio/Scripts/Show.bs?bqRef=13079
No competing commercial interests, but
co-inventor on patent application for a No-CO harm reduction hookah. IMPORTANT
NOTE: I signed away my past and future rights (total relinquishment) on this
harm reduction patent by June 15, 2005, i.e. before its commercial
exploitation. From that date, I have not had anymore any relation of any sort
with the patent, even if the US patent still mentions my name on the internet.
A legal document was signed on the same date in presence of a State Attorney in
Paris (France).
The author has never received financial or non-financial [1], direct or indirect, support either from pharmaceutical companies (nicotine ‘‘replacement’’ therapies and products) or from the tobacco industry.
“Dr Kamal Chaouachi has been, at times between years 2000 and 2007, an active member of the world antismoking Globalink network sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry (Pfizer in particular). This organisation counts some 6,000 members working with : ministries of health; antismoking NGOs; the World Health Organisation and its relevant bodies (TobReg, the Study Group for the Regulation of Tobacco Products; the “Tobacco Free Initiative”; the regional bureaux; etc.); the Cochrane Review Tobacco Addiction Group; etc. Globalink also maintains strong links with the main antismoking journals: “Tobacco Control” most importantly; “Nicotine and Tobacco Research”; “Addiction”; some US biomedical journals which regularly publish articles on tobacco issues, etc. Since some views expressed in the present article could perhaps be seen as influenced by such an experience, the author wishes to confirm that the whole scientific discussion exclusively relies on the available peer-reviewed world scientific literature”[2]. For more details if necessary, particularly about the first E-Letter ever posted in the author’s life (originally published in Globalink), please refer to the relevant sections of previous publications [3][4].
_____________
[1] Enstrom J. [Reader’s Response] Using the Internet to Disclose Competing Interests. PLoS Medicine 2008 (03 Nov).
[2] Chaouachi K, Sajid KM. A critique of recent hypotheses on oral (and lung) cancer induced by water pipe (hookah, shisha, narghile) tobacco smoking. Med Hypotheses 2010; 74: 843–6.Doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2009.11.036
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.11.036
[3] Chaouachi K. Hookah (Shisha, Narghile) Smoking and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). A Critical Review of the Relevant Literature and the Public Health Consequences. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2009; 6(2):798-843.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=19440416
[4] Sajid KM, Chaouachi K, Mahmood R. Hookah smoking and cancer. Carcinoembryonic Antigen (CEA) levels in exclusive/ever hookah smokers. Harm Reduct J 2008 24 May;5(19). Doi:10.1186/1477-7517-5-19
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/5/1/19/comments#304579 (Section 13)
_________
REFERENCES
[1] Chaouachi K. 1st
Letter to Dr JW LEE, Dir-Gal WHO (15 Dec. 2006), about the 1st
erroneous expert report on “waterpipe tobacco smoking” ever published by WHO
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgbz283m_34cvfwkw
[2] Chaouachi K. 2nd
Letter to Dr JW LEE, Dir-Gal WHO (31 March 2006) about the 1st
erroneous expert report on “waterpipe tobacco smoking” ever published by WHO
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgbz283m_37hjq699
[3] Mochizuki Y. Dr Yumiko MOCHIZUKI (Dir. Tobacco
Free Initiative)’ Letter to Kamal Chaouachi (28 Feb 2006)
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dgbz283m_31hgxhgx&hl=en_GB
[4] Chaouachi K. 1st Letter to Dr Margaret CHAN, Director-Gal of WHO (18 April 2007), about
the 2nd erroneous expert report published by WHO: http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgbz283m_6zjdzng
[5] Chaouachi K. 2nd
Letter to Dr Margaret CHAN, Dir-Gal World Health Organization (18 June 2007)
about WHO Medals awarded to researchers in Shisha (Hookah, Narghile, “Waterpipe”) Smoking
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgbz283m_93gkg69m
[6] Chaouachi K. A Critique of
the WHO’s TobReg “Advisory Note” entitled: “Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking: Health
Effects, Research Needs and Recommended Actions by Regulators”. Journal of
Negative Results in Biomedicine 2006; 5:17.
http://www.jnrbm.com/content/5/1/17
[7] Chaouachi K. OMS &
Narghilé [Letter to the Editor of
Tabaccologia, about
the errors contained in WHO (TobReg) Advisory Note on
“waterpipe Smoking” (2005)].
Tabaccologia 2006;3:44-5. Document dated 15 May 2006. http://www.tabaccologia.org/archivio.htm
[8] Dybing R., Henningfield J.
Comment on critique of WHO report (15 Aug 2007)
http://www.jnrbm.com/content/5/1/17/comments
[9] Chaouachi K. Comment: In
Reply to Dr Henningfield and Dr Dybing's Comment (25 Aug 2007)
http://www.jnrbm.com/content/5/1/17/comments
[10] Eissenberg T., Shihadeh A., Maziak M.,
Ward K. Comment on critique of WHO report by
the very authors of the latter: (25 Aug 2007)
http://www.jnrbm.com/content/5/1/17/comments
[11]
Chaouachi K. Comment entitled: In Reply to Drs Eissenberg, Maziak,
Shihadeh and Ward. Submitted to
JNRBM (Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine) on 26 Aug 2007. Unpublished
to date (probably because it was deemed redundant by the Editors).
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgbz283m_104sf7g9s
[12] JNRBM (Journal of Negative Results in
Biomedicine). Statistics on popularity of critique of WHO report
http://www.jnrbm.com/mostviewedalltime
[13] Bacha ZA, Salameh
P, Waked M. Saliva cotinine and exhaled carbon monoxide levels in natural
environment waterpipe smokers. Inhal Toxicol. 2007 Jul;19(9):771-7.
[14] Rees P. Facts about Sheesha. Directorate of Public
Health (2007) and the Leicester City NHS (National Health Service), Primary
Care Trust.
http://www.phleicester.org.uk/Documents/trs/THE FACTS ABOUT
SHEESHA.pdf
[15] Maziak W, Ward KD, Afifi Soweid RA, Eissenberg T. Tobacco
smoking using a waterpipe: a re-emerging strain in a global epidemic.
Tobacco Control 2004; 13: 327-333. SEE: Chaouachi K. E-Letter to the Editor: Serious Errors in this Study. Tobacco Control 2004 (2 Dec). A critical analysis of
the above study: http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/13/4/327 (SEE ALSO: Chaouachi K. Responding to defamation and censorship by Editor Tobacco Control: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dgbz283m_83fdtkjd
)
[16] Rakower J, Fatal B: Study
of Narghile Smoking in Relation to Cancer of the Lung. Br J Cancer 1962 (Mar), 16:1-6.
[17] Oxman AD, Lavis JN, Fretheim A. Use of evidence in WHO
recommendations. The Lancet Early Online Publication 2007 (9 May).
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60675-8 (Note: also contains comment by Chaouachi K.)
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607606758/fulltext
[18]
WHO-EMRO (World Health Organisation - Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office)
and ESPRI (Egyptian Smoking Prevention Research Institute). Shisha Hazards Profile “Tobacco Use in
Shisha - Studies on Waterpipe Smoking in Egypt”. Cairo, 14 March 2007.
ISBN: 978-92-9021-569-1. 84 pages. Retrieved 17 Apr 2007 from: http://www.emro.who.int/TFI/events-regionalmeetings.htm
[19] Chattopadhyay A: Emperor
Akbar as a Healer and his Eminent Physicians. Bull Indian Inst Hist Med
Hyderabad 2000, 30(2):151-157.
[20] Rastam S, Ward KD, Eissenberg
T, Maziak W: Estimating the beginning of the waterpipe epidemic in Syria.
BMC Public Health 2004, 4:32.
[21] WHO Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation. Guiding
principles for the development of tobacco product research and testing capacity
and proposed protocols for the initiation of tobacco product testing. World
Health Organization 2004.
www.who.int/tobacco/global_interaction/tobreg/en/index.html
[22] Hoffman D,
Rathkamp G, Wynder EL: Comparison of the yields of several selected components in the smoke
from different tobacco products. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1963,
31:627-635.
[23] Shihadeh A, SALEH R. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
carbon monoxide, “tar”, and nicotine in the mainstream smoke aerosol of the
narghile water pipe. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2005, 43(5):655-661.
[24] Chaouachi
K. P3R (Post-Publication Peer Review)
entitled Shisha (Narghile, Hookah) Tips for Child Health Care Clinicians. Pediatrics
2006 (26 Dec.). Comments on: Prokhorov AV, Winickoff JP, Ahluwalia JS,
Ossip-Klein D, Tanski S, Lando HA, Moolchan ET, Muramoto M, Klein JD, Weitzman
M, Ford KH; Tobacco Consortium, American Academy of Pediatrics Center for Child
Health Research. Youth tobacco use: a global perspective for child health
care clinicians. Pediatrics 2006 Sep;118(3):e890-903.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/118/3/e890
[25] Chaouachi K. Tout ce que vous
ne pouviez pas savoir sur le livre de Bertrand DAUTZENBERG et Jean-Yves NAU : «
Tout ce que vous ne savez pas sur la chicha » (8 June 2007)
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dgbz283m_78gkhthv
[26] Chaouachi K. Communication (« Le narguilé »).
XIIIème Journée de Tabacologie. Centre Hospitalier de Villejuif (France). 10 oct.
1998.
[27] Chaouachi K. The Medical
Consequences of Narghile (Hookah, Shisha) Use in the World. Revue
d’Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique (Epidemiology and Public Health)
2007;55(3):165-70. [Article in English]
[28] Cohen C,
Perrault G, Griebel G, Soubrié P. Nicotine-associated
cues maintain nicotine-seeking behavior in rats several weeks after nicotine
withdrawal: Reversal by the cannabinoid
(CB1) receptor antagonist, Rimonabant (SR141716). Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005, 30(1): 145-55.
[29] Dar R, Frenk H. Reevaluating
the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2007
May;192(1):1-7.
[30] US-Syrian Center for Tobacco Studies: http://www.scts-sy.org/en/home.php
[31] Chaouachi K. E-mail to Ed.
JNRBM: Undeclared
Competing Interest from Dr Maziak & Drs Eissenberg, Shihadeh, Maziak and
Ward’ Comment Breaks JNRBM’s Ethics by JNRBM. Submitted to JNRBM (01 Sept
2007).
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dgbz283m_105f2bqdf
[32]
Eissenberg Thomas at VCU:
http://www.apa.org/science/rcr/orifaculty.html
[33]
Eissenberg Thomas. VCU researcher wins NCI grant for tobacco research: Studies will test
claims of potential reduced-exposure cigarettes, other products. Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, Virginia, 16 Feb 2004.
http://www.news.vcu.edu/news.aspx?v=detail&nid=186
[34]
Nicotine & Tobacco Research (2002) 4, 355– 383 [Conference Summary and
Abstracts of Oral Presentations Preclinical, Epidemiological/Public Health, and
Clinical Research. Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society for Research on
Nicotine and Tobacco; Savannah, Georgia, USA, 20–23 February 2002].
[35] VCU
Resarch Office about Thomas EISSENBERG:
http://www.research.vcu.edu/osp/awd02.htm
[36]
Zaatari G. AUB (American University of Beirut)
Bulletin (Vol7, 45, Feb 2006) http://wwwlb.aub.edu.lb
[37] Smith R. Opening up BMJ Peer Review. BMJ
1999 (2 Jan);318:4-5 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/318/7175/4
[38] Muir
Hazel. Scientists Don’t Read the Papers They Cite. New Scientist 2002
(14 Dec). www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3168