The author

A passion not for hookah but for scientific integrity and accountability in research

Citation
, XML
Authors

Abstract

Researcher working on complex issues, particularly those related to the health of populations, as the Middle East Peace Pipe is (a “global epidemic” according to the WHO) and mainly from a medical anthropology perspective.

Article published in 2013 in the British Journal of Cancer, shattering in only 1,000 words one full decade of pseudoscientific claims and methods regarding the so-called toxicity of the Middle East Peace Pipe (Hookah, Shisha, Narghile)

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.

> Author’s copy available from Researchgate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235843685_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_wor


Raison d’être:
Scientific integrity and accountability in research supporting public health interventions. Researcher and consultant in this field, mainly from a prevention critical medical anthropology transdisciplinary perspective (more elaborated than a mere inter-disciplinary side-by-side collaboration)[1]. Native of Tunisia-Middle East.Holder of a post-graduate diploma in Tobacco Science from the University of Paris (1998). Solid hard-scientific background (in physics, chemistry, thermodynamics and electronics, studied for more than 4 years at university). Taught the science of water-filtered tobacco smoke to French doctors (University of Paris XI-XII; 2006-2010.) Consulted by the French Ministry of Health (national debate on controversial smoking ban). Scientific collaborator of various excellence research centres in Asia, Africa and Europe.Because of the violent monopolistic biased turn the issue early took (official WHO ““waterpipe”” experts said:“We must nip it in the bud”), the author, who had kept discreet on his previous achievements for several years, felt he had to reveal his name (as author of not less than a 420-page 850-substantial-footnote comprehensive transdisciplinary doctoral thesis, sealing 5 years of research and bridging between social and biomedical sciences) and enter the “battlefield”.

This work actually sealed five years of research (1995-2000) and included field observations in the Middle East and Europe. It offered the first review of the world biomedical literature on this issue, long before the multimillion dollar funded US-Lebanese, US-Syrian and US-Egytian ““waterpipe”” antismoking centres were set up in 2002 (see SciTopic ).

This document had been positively peer-reviewed by renowned scholars; in particular, for its biomedical aspects, by the top tobacco authority in France, founder of the first learned society for tobacco science (“Societe de Tabacologie”) and father of the latter as a discipline taught to physicians in the same country. This scientific publication was dismissed, on purpose (together with other “embarrassing” references, particular independent researchers outside the influence of the antismoking Globalink network and the pharmaceutical industry), by the authors of the WHO flawed report (Thomas Eissenberg, Alan Shihadeh, Wasim Maziak) and those members of the WHO TobReg hyper-structure who ““peer-reviewed” “it. WHO TobReg members (Jack Henningfield, Erik Dybing) even went so far as publicly stating that this research work was a “graduate” (sic) one (see online comments on our critique of the WHO flawed report ) in an obvious desperate intent to justify its striking absence in a supposedly objective independent WHO report. Note: all the above cited individuals are Globalink members.

In these conditions, the challenge was not less than becoming the unofficial “spokeperson” of thehundreds of millions of voice-less (wo)men in the street, particularly in Asia and Africa where the peace pipes have been around for centuries. These persons -who often cannot read English or challenge the materials published in biomedical journals – have often felt powerless after being hurt by the pseudo-scientific and technical language of world ““waterpipe”” experts suddenly interested in their daily life. To the question:“Why have you been doing all this ?”, the response is easy:“Because nobody has done (or wished to do) it so far”


Overview of research (

author

or co-author)

> Two transdisciplinary research Books: (1) “Tout savoir sur le narguile –societe, histoire, culture et sante” [Everything about the Middle East Peace Pipe: societies, culture, history ; health] (Paris, Maisonneuve et Larose, 1997, 256 pages); (2) “Le narguile” (Paris, L’Harmattan, 261 pages).

> First world studies on: Hookah Smoking and Canceraetiology [2008]; its Radiological Hazards[2008] and its ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) (Passive Smoking) [2009] including Public Health recommendations; the methodological critique of the WHO flawed expert report on ““waterpipe”” smoking [2006] prepared 20 WHO top tobacco experts. > First measurements of expired and ambient CO (Carbon Monoxide) in smoking lounges in 1998. Issued the first Public Health recommendations in this respect (Alcoologie 1999). Involved, from Spring to Autumn 2004, in the development of a harm reduction narghile prototype cutting down CO (carbon monoxide) by 95%.

> First technical and critical comprehensive reviews (1998, 2000, 2004, 2005-6) on this issue: Tetralogy on hookah and health .

> Methodological critique (2009) of the WHO and US American University of Beirut’s Flawed Narghile Smoking Machine (behind the global confusion : e.g. above-mentioned WHO flawed report and, more recently : one 30-minute hookah session = up to 450 cigarettes…)[ BBC story ] and its smoking topography.

> All above cited studies have come to light in spite of a negative global environment for this kind of research, mainly caused by an competition (race for funds) and a scientifically unjustified prohibitionist agenda. They have been peer-reviewed by academic teams from excellence research centres such as INSERM, CNRS (France), worldwide renown university laboratories and by not less prestigious scholars in this field. Presently working on hookah smoking and cancer.

(*) Note for English-speakers: Tabacologie (tobaccology, i.e. tobacco science) is in France (in particular) the official cutting-edge scientific discipline for the study of all aspects (health, pharmacological, behavioural, social, cultural, historical and economical) of tobacco use with a strong focus on the dependence phenomenon.

Outstanding Achievements

Our research (1996-2009), including field work in Asia and Africa, has radically changed what has been officially presented as Gospel truth (WHO, mass media, etc.) over the past decade. In spite of the hostile international environment (pseudo-science; science-by-press release [2] ; world prohibition agenda; reductionism ( nominalism , functionalism); xenophobic bias [11 Sept 2001 to date] [3] ; etc.)(See Knol exposing the British Medical Journal’ s endorsed xenophobia), below are samples of issues in which our interventions have been essential for the advancement of research in this field:

-[COMPLEXITY]We have outlined the complex intermingling of social, anthropological, historical, and health aspects (transdisciplinary doctoral thesis, book).

-[SMOKE CHEMISTRY: TAR, NICOTINE, etc.]We have corrected the widely disseminated error that the smoking mixture (moassel) would be burnt as with cigarettes (source:WHO flawed reportand a long list of supposedly “peer-reviewed” publications). We showed that the product is only heated and that the temperatures differ by hundreds of degrees Celsius. Such a difference is of utmost importance and our doctoral thesis pointed out that what is at stake is a chemical reaction of the Maillard type. We early revealed that hookah smoke is mainly made up of water and glycerol, and that the proportion of the latter is not mentioned in the advertised antismoking publications which reflect measurements based on a biased smoking machine. In other words, hookah tar and cigarette tar are completely different from each other. As for nicotine (and what is at stake: “nicotine-addiction”), we showed, based on a critical review of the censored scientific literature of the previous decades, that hookah smoking under its modern form is not or little addictive. We discussed the compensation phenomenon (Macaron et al.) as early as 1998. Antismoking researchers themselves recently found that one 45 min hookah session would not deliver more nicotine than one single cigarette. We also contend that the gateway hypothesis (switching from cigarette to hookah smoking) has no grounds.

-[CO POISONING (CO)]We have carried out the first measurements of expired and ambient CO levels in hookah lounges as early as 1998. The first public health recommendations in this respect were issued and were never taken into account because they mention the importance of ventilation, a taboo issue that would jeopardise the relevance of the world prohibition agenda.

-[CANCER] Our comprehensive transdisciplinary (biomedical/social sciences) doctoral thesis offered the first substantial critical review of the health effects of hookah smoking. It highlighted the generally weak observed association between hookah smoking and cancer. In 2007, we published the first aetiological study on cigarette, hookah and mixed cigarette/hookah smokers. Using CEA as a cancer biomarker, we found a lower risk for hookah smokers. In 2009, we published the results of our furtherinvestigation on exclusive hookah smokerswho have been using, for decades, huge amounts of tobacco in their pipes (each time, in the bowl, the tobacco-weight equivalent of up to 60 cigarettes). We found a much weaker association than that induced by cigarette smoking. These results arein agreementwith the bulk of previous studies on this issue.

-[RADIOACTIVITY] We have assessed the radiological activity of various brands of moassel and compared it to that from cigarettes. We found no great difference between both products.

-[SMOKING MACHINE]. We demonstrated that the use of a smoking machine (such as the one on which the WHO flawed report relies and all the widely disseminated claims about the toxicity of hookah smoke), is completely irrelevant and has led, for the first time in the history of research on tobacco, to the greatest confusion in the world. The last version has been presented by its authors as “perhaps the most robust evidence to date that water pipe smoking entails inhaling large quantities of toxicants”, omitting to mention the numerous biases and errors. The first one is that 40% of the volunteers (who knew they were observed) were cigarette smokers (known to inhale in a completely different way). Furthermore, 20% of the volunteers were sharing the hose. Unsurprisingly, the results are in total contradiction with more “relaxed” settings. This politicised publication -whose critique has been forbidden by the authors themselves and a highly corrupted “peer-reviewer” consulted by the editor-in-chief of the Inhalation Toxicology journal, represents a step beyond for the implementation of the global prohibition agenda[4].

-[PASSIVE SMOKING] We havedebunked the claimsabout the supposedly high hazards of hookah Environmental Tobacco smoke. Recent published findings from antismoking researchers funded by powerful lobbies are actually based on methodological tricks (Fromme et al., 2009)(Daher et al., 2009].

[DRUGS] We have clarified, in several publications, that the use of hookah with drugs (such as cannabis, opium) must be distinguished from that of other fashionable products such as flavoured moassel. A full 262 page book was entirely dedicated to this “devilish” relation.

[REASONS FOR THE HOOKAH “EPIDEMIC”] We have debunked the official scenario put forward by the authors of the WHO flawed report. The doctoral thesis has shown that there were at least 15 reasons (8 objective reasons and 7 subjective ones). We have summarised them in atablethat was published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[ORIGINS] We had to correct serious scientific errors published by the WHO ““waterpipe”” antismoking researchers whose excessive focus on the Indian origin (1605) of the hookah has only one explanation: trying to convince the whole world that the myth of hookah smoking as a safer way of smoking is as old as its invention. According to their “official” anecdote, a physician would have invented the device to make tobacco smoke less harmful for his Emperor). Based on archaeological, chemical and literary evidence, our critical research brought outthe pre-Colombian origin of the hookah. Our work (1997) also reviews other historical hypotheses.

[GENDER USE, CHILDREN USE] We have shattered anti-scientific sexist andxenophobicsclichés regarding hookah use by women. We also emphasised that in Asian and African societies, “children are not allowed to smoke”(cigarettes or hookah).

etc., etc., etc.]

As a conclusion,our research (1996-2009) confirms that from all viewpoints, hookah and cigarette smokes are completely different from each other. Two renowned tobacco researchers have paid a tribute to our patient advocacy: “Only recently experts have acknowledged that “WP [““waterpipe””] smoking is so different from cigarette smoking that data on smoke composition and toxicity cannot be extrapolated from one to the other” [ 9 ] .

Addendum Oct 2010. However, the most important achievement is that the prevalent paradigm (the world networked structure of ““waterpipe”” antismoking research and its hyper structure – with their publications, authors, teams, activists, media, etc.) has been shaken.Researchers, after years of denial, have been forced into admitting the relevance of most of our critiques : about tar, nicotine, “cigarette-equivalent” figures, the “nicotine-addiction” dogma and the now fashionable related “gateway hypothesis” (hookah use leads to cigarette smoking), other health effects, etc.

Of course, one needs to be abreast of the related literature and its evolution since 2002 in order to contemplate these changes. For instance, the confusionist nominalist ““waterpipe”” neologism is now systematically followed by a “clarification” by their very authors that it covers “hookah, shisha, narghile”. The linguistic mistake is somewhat corrected. However, the methodological flaw (drawing a parallel between all water pipes of the world in spite of their striking diversity (chemical, to start with)) still remains.

Antismoking researchers themselves begin to refer to the existence of a so-called “

controversy” without, however and unsurprisingly, naming the other involved party…As examples of this unethical attitude (that allows the authors not to cite the kind of bibliographical references that can be found on this site and, this way, justify their sriking publication bias), see Nancy Daher et al (US American University of Beirut) [a-b] and Najla Dar-Odeh et al (Jordan University) recent papers [c-d]…. Fortunately, Independent health investigative journalists also begin to confront arguments [e].

[a] Chaouachi K. Waterpipegate and Climategate : Man Made Hookah (Shisha, Narghile, “”Waterpipe””) Side-Stream Smoke and Climate Change. Knol. 2010 Mar 25.A critique of:

[b] Daher N, Saleh R, Jaroudi E, Sheheitli H, Badr T, Sepetdjian E, Al-Rashidi M, Saliba N, Shihadeh A. Comparison of carcinogen, carbon monoxide, and ultrafine particle emissions from narghile waterpipe and cigarette smoking: Sidestream smoke measurements and assessment of second-hand smoke emission factors. Atmospheric Environment 2010; 44(1): 8-14.

[c] Chaouachi K. [Comment] Errors and Publication Bias in Jordanian Study on Narghile (Hookah, Shisha) Tobacco Smoking . Harm Reduction Journal 2010 (01 Sep).A critique of:

[d] Dar-Odeh N et al.Narghile (water pipe) smoking among university students in Jordan: prevalence, pattern and beliefs. Harm Reduction Journal 2010, 7:10. Doi:10.1186/1477-7517-7-10

[e] Fahiemah Al-Ali & Connie Karambelas. Health effects of hookah, spot on or smoke and mirrors? Medill News Service 2010 (03 June)

Funding of tobacco research

zero (forbidden research. We rely on our brain before relying on money)…

vs.$ 10 MILLION for antismoking research backed by thepharmaceutical industry (nicotine patches, gums, Chantix, etc.). The marketing label of the latter is easy identifiable: ““waterpipe””. Following our pioneering study on cancer (2008), the US National Institute of Cancer has immediately awarded the US American University of Beirut a $ 2.8 MILLION grant to support new hookah antismoking papers in the coming years. By Spring 2011, we identified anew source of funding: the Tobacco Industry (cigarettes) itself…ReadBig Tobacco & Big Pharma Against “Oriental” Hookah Outsider.

Competing interests

Dr Kamal “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.” [5]

None (financial or non-financial ). Unfortunately, never received any funding (direct or indirect) neither from Pharmaceutical companies (Nicotine “Replacement” Therapies and tools: e.g. patches, gums…) nor from the Tobacco industry. More details (particularly about the 1st E-Letter he ever sent in the author’s life – to “Tobacco Control”, a renown antismoking journal – which “officially” marked his entry in this (battle-)field here ). Finally, few people realise that both the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries share a common economic interest in curbing down the world growing popularity of hookah smoking.


ADDENDUM 23 December 2011.
Unfortunately, KC does not hold any hookah relatedpatent. He has never received financial or non-financial, direct or indirect, funding either from pharmaceutical companies (nicotine ‘‘replacement’’ therapies and products) or from the tobacco industry, as reflected (with a clarification regardinga famous invention) in the corresponding sections of two key references [1][2].

Having soon realised that most of the remaining toxic chemicals in hookah smoke originated from the charcoal used with the pipe (and not the smoking mixture itself; this is another myth…), he was involved, from Spring to Autumn 2004, in the development of a hookah prototype with a public health harm reduction objective.

Harm reduction does not mean, as a prohibitionist caricature (see Big Pharma funded Globalink antismoking network) wants, “pushing” for the use of certain substances. Instead, the harm reduction concept relies on a solid, logical, epidemiological, medical and philosophical background. Interested readers may consider having a look at the Harm Reduction Journal to get an idea of what this concept covers, particularly in the tobacco smoking field [3].

KC is an official co-inventor of this harm reduction pipe (cutting down CO by 95%, among others). Its full reference is: Patent 2005. “Narguile a allumage simplifie” [Narghile with simplified ignition]. Appl. EP20050291196. Filed 3 June. Published 14 Dec). Please also note that the work on which this patent relies was cited in another important article published in the Journal of Public Health [4]. Its Editors introduced it as follows:

“Chaouachi opens a debate on narghile (hookah, shisha) smoking. Chaouachi illustrates why any public health intervention concerning narghile involves an overdue critique of the narghile smoking machine now regarded as “standardized”[5].

His participation in this exciting project was frozen by Autumn 2004. However, the official termination was officially formalised only by 15 June 2005, i.e. before the potential commercial exploitation of the product (which did not actually took place as foreseen as the company in charge of this project eventually went bankrupt). By 15 June 2005, he signed away and ceded all his rights regarding the invention (legally certified as an “acte sous seing prive” by State Attorney in Paris). From the above date onwards, he has not had anymore any relation, of any type, with the patent, even if the US patent (Young&Thompson/USA), based on the original French one, may still mention his name on the internet. He has received only a lump sum for his short-lived participation in this harm reduction project. Furthermore, he declares that, in the course of his 15-year research work on this issue, he has never received funding either from pharmaceutical companies or the tobacco industry. He began to publish hookah health-related studies in peer-reviewed biomedical journals only beyond that date.

For those who can read French, here is, as another example, what he put down at the top of the first page of a university document disseminated among medical students:

“Conflits d’intérêts: Je déclare n’avoir ni n’avoir jamais eu aucun conflit d’intérêts au sens de la loi Kouchner (décret 2007-454 du 25 mars 2007. Art. R. 4113-110 ; ni avec l’industrie pharmaceutique (NRT ; produits et thérapies de « substitution » de la nicotine) ni avec l’industrie du tabac”.This academic material clearly refers to national French Law. This is no game.

Readers interested in more administrative details can simply contact the French State Attorney, the local Patent Office (Novagraaf) in Paris or the US one (Young & Thompson). An Internet search specialist such as Pascal Diethelm, distinguished member of GLOBALINK Advisory Committee who has been suing Big Tobacco “moles” across the globe [6], may easily establish that KC has signed away all his rights related to the French patent by June 15, 2005 and that he has absolutely no relation with any US patent. Full names, particulars and relevant related correspondence details (attorneys, patent offices) have been provided in the past.

It is also sad to see professional defamers, who have wasted huge amounts of public money in mass publishing of ““waterpipe”” biased papers, using the same stratagem with other independent researchers that they now term « denialists » (yes, « denialists », probably a reminiscence of World War II or, closer to us, in reference to G.W. Bush’ famous summon: “If You Are Not with Us [against the Axis of Evil..], You Are Against Us”…). Dr Siegel, a professor of public health -who, interestingly, argued that Environmental Tobacco Smoke “kills over 50,000 US Americans each year and whose testimony expertise contributed towards a 145 billion dollars verdict against tobacco companies- has reacted to this totalitarian escalation [6][7]. KC’s only potential competing interest is that he has been, for several years, an active member of Globalink, as explained elsewhere [1].

________________

[1] 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 2009 (online: 24 Dec).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.11.036

[2] 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

[3] 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/mostviewed/alltime

[4] Chaouachi K. Public health intervention for narghile (hookah, shisha) use requires a radical critique of the related ‘‘standardised’’ smoking machine. J Public Health 2009;18(1):69–73. Doi: 10.1007/s10389-009-0272-7 [Springer Berlin/Heidelberg].

http://www.springerlink.com/content/58352477706011t0/

[5] Arloth J. Editorial. J Public Health (2010) 18:1–2. Published online: 31 December 2009. Doi: 10.1007/s10389-009-0303-4 [Springer Berlin/Heidelberg]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10389-009-0303-4

[6] Siegel M. Danger: Public Health Could Become a Religious Movement. Eur J Public Health. 2009 (11 Feb):

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/eletters/19/1/2#99

[7] Siegel M. On the McCarthystic element in Tobacco control.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/02/on-mccarthyistic-element-in-tobacco.

Plagiarism in tobacco research

In France, an extensive part of this work was plagiarised in the form of a “”book”” titled “Tout ce que vous ne savez pas sur la chicha” ( Editions MARGAUX-ORANGE ). Its “authors” are Bertrand Dautzenberg, president of OFT (Office Français du Tabagisme) , the French top national antismoking authority, and Jean-Yves Nau, columnist with Le Monde national newspaper and collaborator of Revue Médicale Suisse ( type “nau jy” here). The above publisher (Stéphane Arbouze, Dir. Editions MARGAUX-ORANGE, whose products are financially supported by the great names of the Pharmaceutical Industry [browse its site]) defends such a practice and two “peer-reviewed” articles (Jacques Prignott, Annie Sasco et al. in

International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease; Becquemin et al. in Revue des Maladies Respiratoires) have openly cited this great fraud. Evidence here :Letterpublished in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal (English and Italian) and comparative tablethere. In Belgium,Jean Paul Vooren, “Editeur responsable”(sic) of FARES, has then marketed a laundered recycled version of the above “”book””, “”peer-reviewed”” byJacques Prignot and Pierre Nys. Such a deed qualifies forMetaplagiarism (Metaplagiat).

Plagiarism in 2013 in Addiction journal (Editor in Chief: Robert West): Maynard OM, Gage SH, Munafo MR.
Are waterpipe users tobacco-dependent? Addiction. 2013 Nov
;108(11):1886-7. doi: 10.1111/add.12317.

The astounding silence of medical anthropology

The extremist reaction of antismoking researchers and organisations to the hookah smoking “epidemic” was expected. As for the silence of independent biomedical researchers, there are two main explanations for their attitude. -First, those from the rich nations have either been afraid for their careers or simply lacked the necessary experience to be in a position to criticise, point by point, the numerous errors that were published in scientific publications. -Second, the work of scientists in the so-called “developing world”, despite the high calibre of many of them in the field of tobacco smoking, was dismissed. This was even more easy when they had published studies in their own national language (particularly in Persian, Turkish, Arabic, Urdu, etc.). In fact, most of the independent researchers cannot write in English, the dominant language, and have subsequently been ruled out by the international biomedical publishing process clearly infiltrated by extremist antismoking activists.

However, for ten years now, the silence of anthropologists, particular medical anthropologists, around the whole world, has been amazing, not to say dumbfounding. Indeed, was there nobody to point out that a hookah is not a mere water pipe prototype in a chemistry laboratory ? Such a silence has amounted to accepting that the issue needed to be treated exclusively through the (antismoking) biomedical research looking glass (

medicalisation of the hookah issue). The rest of thestoryis well known. Interestingly, in a neighbouring field (environmental tobacco smoke), Luiz Antonio de Castro Santos, social scientist in Brazil, has made a similar point[6],

In these conditions, the asymmetric scientific encounter

(*) took place on two main fronts : biomedical and anthropological. When looking back at this situation, it appears that this approach proved natural, useful and very efficient.

(*) what Günter Rophol, a professor emeritus of general technology at the University of Frankfurt (Main, Germany) has named“the structural inequality of weapons”[8].

It is hoped that a new generation of brave scientists will dare critically look at the existing publications, consider the size of all scientific errors and fallacies and will not accept to blindly cite them in their own studies without revealing the whole truth about them. In other words, they should not behave like “parrots” as the herd of uncritical antismoking researchers have been doing for years and for clear reasons. Any scientist worthy of this name should not be a parrot and should reject what was once called “expert mongering” when her/his colleagues, as in the case of other alerts about other epidemics, go too far [7] .

Consequently, the author has never claimed anything in this field : prestige, money, etc. His favourite poetic quotation (inserted as an epigraph in his book) is:

I am nothing. I will always be nothing. I cannot wish to be anything. Apart from that, I hold inside myself all the dreams of the world.Original:“Não sou nada. Nunca serei nada. Não posso querer ser nada. À parte isso, tenho em mim todos os sonhos do mundo”(Fernando Pessoa, Tabacaria, 1928)”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.