A recent short though important article exposes one full decade of numerous serious methodological errors published in the “”waterpipe”” biomedical literature . Not only have these errors remained uncommented for a so long period but they have also been (and still are they) cited again and again… Never before or elsewhere in the biomedical research field had global confusion reached such limits.
Our critique particularly applies to a recent study from the University of California at San Francisco . The latter was widely advertised in the media, e.g. the Huffington Post and Reuters. However and as a principle, is this ethically decent to confront antismoking “experts”’ highly politicised pseudo-scientific views to that of hookah users having not the least idea of the details of such a study ?
The latter was actually led by Neal Benowitz, consultant to pharmaceuticals companies and, in our view this is worth mentioning because the latter are producers of nicotine patches and medicines such as Chantix, etc. In these conditions, it is no surprise to see the anti-scientific hazard represented by “nicotine addiction” hyped on so many occasions in the ««waterpipe»» literature. In the strange related experiment on “carcinogen exposure” of ««waterpipe»» smokers, the water was, on purpose, NOT changed after each session and almost two consecutive hookah smoking sessions took place. This is not the only flaw since the subjects were not exclusive ever hookah smokers but mixed cigarette/hookah smokers…
Question: since the actual filtering effect of hookah smoking is systematically denied by antismoking researchers -because it jeopardises their theoretical pseudo-scientific constructions about “tobacco control” and the planned world Prohibition agenda for which they have been working and paid (particularly through intense funding by pharmaceutical companies) for one decade now, without any supporting sound scientific evidence, then, WHY and so often in their “studies”:
1) Water is not changed after each session?
2) The smoking mixture is charred to a great extent through the use of biased smoking machines?
3) All water pipes of the world, in spite of their wide diversity (particularly regarding chemical composition of smoke and nicotine delivery), are systematically lumped, for one decade now, under a sole object dubbed ««waterpipe»» ?
4) Cigarette and hookah prevalence figures (measured among populations during antismoking surveys) are compared in a meant deceiving unscientific way?
Taking into account the above four points, why do publications on ««waterpipe»» smoking systematically refer to legislation and such prohibition instruments as the FCTC (“Framework Convention for Tobacco Control”)? Does everybody know that the draft of the latter was actually prepared by the same researchers or their colleagues from the Globalink antismoking network ?
 Chaouachi K. False positive result in study on hookah smoking and cancer in Kashmir: measuring risk of poor hygiene is not the same as measuring risk of inhaling water filtered tobacco smoke all over the world. British Journal of Cancer 2013 (7March) ; 1-2 XX. Doi:10.1038/bjc.2013.98
 Jacob P 3rd, Abu Raddaha AH, Dempsey D, Havel C, Peng M, Yu L, Benowitz NL. Comparison of Nicotine and Carcinogen Exposure with Water pipe and Cigarette Smoking. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2013 Mar 5. [Epub ahead of print]
 Hookah smoking no less harmful than cigarettes, study finds. The Huffington Pot and Reuters. 23 April 2013
 Chaouachi K. Prohibition through the hookah looking glass. Speech delivered at the second world conference of TICAP (The Tobacco International Coalition Against Prohibition)(Theme: “Are Guests Welcome? Prohibition and the Hospitality Industry”). 15 Mar 2010. Nieuwspoort; The Hague, The Netherlands.