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. http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/vol13/issue4/
It is the mother of the hundreds of biased politicised publications that would follow over the past decade. Why? Because it was authored by the same people who would prepare the WHO flawed report which appeared one year later .
Few researchers (we mean honest researchers) know that it actually served as the basis for the WHO flawed report. So, one can have a first idea of the world fuelled confusion.
Among the so many errors (“lies” would be more appropriate), let us quote, for memory, those about the risk of lung cancer, bladder cancer, aspergillosis whereby the authors of the related studies were credited in that “review” for the opposite of their conclusions [2-4].
In spite of such a gross manipulation of the research community, such a “review” has been cited at least 200 times by naïve (?) researchers from all parts of the world; and this is more surprising, not only from the “West” but also Middle Eastern countries.
The only explanation for this is that ignorance -in a field where given researchers are expected to display high skills (since the matter relates to social and cultural aspect of their own societies) is prevalent. And this was the objective of the operation as during the psychological operations of mass brainwashing preparing modern wars.
Certainly such a “publication” did help their antismoking authors in blowing up their curriculum vitae (according to the US saying: “publish or perish”…). This said, if you add the confusion fuelled by the WHO calamitous report which built upon such a stuff, to:
-that of the calculated over-citing of it (by their colleagues in a world crusade against the Middle East Peace Pipe virus) and, not the least;
-that of the inauguration of the very antiscientific ««waterpipe» term (actually a reductionist and nominalistic neologism apart from being a sociological and editorial war codename );
then you can have a broad idea of the global confusion, never reach in the history of biomedical research, as demonstrated in a Letter published in the British Journal of Cancer .
 See: 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 (17 Nov); 5:17. Doi:10.1186/1477-5751-5-17
 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
 See: Clarification about bladder cancer and shisha smoking in Egypt. Cancer Epidemiology (The International Journal of Cancer Epidemiology, Detection, and Prevention) 2010 ; 34: 220. Doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2010.01.001
 See: 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.
 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. Br J Cancer. 2013 Apr 2;108(6):1389-90. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.98. Epub 2013 Mar 7.
Note (*): We say “English” because there is in French a ««book»» (actually plagiarised material) which represents the greatest fraud in the history of tobacco research:
Bertrand Dautzenberg (président de l’OFT, Office Français du Tabagisme), Jean-Yves Nau (journal Le Monde), dessins de « Charb », Stéphane Charbonnier): Tout ce que vous ne savez pas sur la chicha». Paris, Editions Margaux-Orange (dirigées par Stéphane Arbouze)/OFT (Office Français du Tabagisme), 2007. See : «Charlie Hebdo» entre plagiat, tabacophobie et rejet de l’Autre. 21 sept. 2012