Elie AKL and colleagues (University of New York at Buffalo) publish Business-Oriented Junk Paper in the Harm Reduction Journal:
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.
> 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.
> Iraq Body Count. As of 7 Apr 2013
> Reuters. Iraq conflict has killed a million Iraqis: survey. Jan 30, 2008.
“(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.
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...”
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.
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)
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
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 . 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). This document also begins to be cited side by side with the WHO report by independent scientists and health officials .
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 . 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  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 . 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 .
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) . 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 . 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 .
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 . 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 . 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 » .
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  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” .
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 . 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  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 . 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 … 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  ? 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 , 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  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 . In France, a WHO-medal holder took over this defamation in what happened to be the greatest fraud in the history of tobacco research .
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) . Dr MAZIAK may have had competing interests and this would be the reason for such a camouflaging editorial operation . 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.”. 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” . 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. , 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” 
-Dr Jack HENNINGFIELD. He declared no competing interests in his comment co-signed with Dr DYBING  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.” 
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 .
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];
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 ;
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 . 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].
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 , 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”.
[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.
(**) Marks J. Drug Misuse and Social Cost. Br J Hosp Med. 1994 Jul 13-Aug 16;52(2-3):65, 67.
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).
[IMPORTANT NOTE: Kamal has had the opportunity to clarify this point (see excerpt from Knol on striking
universal invisible permanent Globalink conflicts of interest related to tobacco research in general):
universal invisible permanent Globalink conflicts of interest related to tobacco research in general):
The author has never received financial or non-financial , 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”. 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 .
 Enstrom J. [Reader’s Response] Using the Internet to Disclose Competing Interests. PLoS Medicine 2008 (03 Nov).
 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
 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.
 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
 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
 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
 Mochizuki Y. Dr Yumiko MOCHIZUKI (Dir. Tobacco Free Initiative)’ Letter to Kamal Chaouachi (28 Feb 2006)
 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
 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
 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.
 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
 Dybing R., Henningfield J. Comment on critique of WHO report (15 Aug 2007)
 Chaouachi K. Comment: In Reply to Dr Henningfield and Dr Dybing's Comment (25 Aug 2007)
 Eissenberg T., Shihadeh A., Maziak M., Ward K. Comment on critique of WHO report by the very authors of the latter: (25 Aug 2007)
 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).
 JNRBM (Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine). Statistics on popularity of critique of WHO report
 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.
 Rees P. Facts about Sheesha. Directorate of Public Health (2007) and the Leicester City NHS (National Health Service), Primary Care Trust.
 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 )
 Rakower J, Fatal B: Study of Narghile Smoking in Relation to Cancer of the Lung. Br J Cancer 1962 (Mar), 16:1-6.
 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.)
 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
 Chattopadhyay A: Emperor Akbar as a Healer and his Eminent Physicians. Bull Indian Inst Hist Med Hyderabad 2000, 30(2):151-157.
 Rastam S, Ward KD, Eissenberg T, Maziak W: Estimating the beginning of the waterpipe epidemic in Syria. BMC Public Health 2004, 4:32.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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)
 Chaouachi K. Communication (« Le narguilé »). XIIIème Journée de Tabacologie. Centre Hospitalier de Villejuif (France). 10 oct. 1998.
 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]
 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.
 Dar R, Frenk H. Reevaluating the nicotine delivery kinetics hypothesis. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2007 May;192(1):1-7.
 US-Syrian Center for Tobacco Studies: http://www.scts-sy.org/en/home.php
 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).
 Eissenberg Thomas at VCU:
 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.
 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].
 VCU Resarch Office about Thomas EISSENBERG:
 Zaatari G. AUB (American University of Beirut) Bulletin (Vol7, 45, Feb 2006) http://wwwlb.aub.edu.lb
 Smith R. Opening up BMJ Peer Review. BMJ 1999 (2 Jan);318:4-5 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/318/7175/4
 Muir Hazel. Scientists Don’t Read the Papers They Cite. New Scientist 2002 (14 Dec). www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3168