Marwan KATURJI, Nancy DAHER, Hiba SHEHEITLI, Rawad SALEH, Alan SHIHADEH:
The first author is a figure here. The real author is Alan SHIHADEH who, for memory and a better understanding of the context, is:
-member of the antismoking Big Pharma funded Globalink network
-a regular “scientific” voice to support ““waterpipe””™ smoking bans everywhere in the world (see link in “Other Relevant Readings” section).
Based on a so-called “field study”, the above antismoking authors boast of (hold your breath) “demonstrating” and presenting (hold your breath) what would be “the most robust evidence to date that water pipe smoking entails inhaling large quantities of toxicants”. They add that their results would be “consistent with a growing body of studies on narghile water pipe toxicant content and health effects, which have unanimously pointed to the hazardous nature of first- and second-hand narghile water pipe smoking".
“Real smokers” would therefore inhale (hold your breath) in a one hour hookah session: 640 mg tar, 150 mg carbon monoxide and 4.42 mg nicotine. When notified, Kamal, still believing in the independence of some titles, sent a critique to the journal in which he highlighted, point by point, the numerous flaws, biases and errors of that supposedly। The most important one is that the study didn’t involve, as expected, 100% of narghile-only users nor such smokers puffing in a natural way.
40% of the so-called volunteers were actual cigarette smokers and 20% were couples of individuals. All have been drawing as mad on the pipe to satisfy their technical observers (they k
now they were observed: some of them drew up to 400 puffs to show off or just for fun) for a full hour (named “compensation” (nicotine) in technical terms).
What is more for a so-called field study that is all about scaring “public authorities” about tar levels, not a single word can be found about glycerol, a major component of tar! Kamal is also convinced that some parts of this highly politicised paper were ghost written by members of WHO TobReg (“”peer-reviewers”” of the WHO flawed report on
““waterpipe””™ smoking
) who are pushing for printing the above figures (above tar, nicotine and CO) on all elements of the ““waterpipe”” paraphernalia.
This means that the 640mg tar figure (which is highly biased) can’t be scientifically compared (as they do) with that produced by cigarette (for memory: “10 mg” is a limit printed on cigarette packs). First, the chemical composition of tar is completely different: a thing that they have been led to admit further to Kamal’s repeated critiques since the publishing of the critique of the WHO flawed report. Secondly, that figure includes that of glycerol (something around 50% of tar – depends on settings and setups). This is why the hookah smokescreen looks so different from that of cigarettes.
The first “REGULATION” (remember this word related to WHO TobReg political objectives) trick (as others you are now familiar with this kind of scientific literature: “forgetting” to change the water...) consists therefore in keeping silent on this very important point (Kamal says: a “taboo” one). Indeed, not a word on it in a long manuscript! The objective is to let the gullible ones (*) believe that 1 hookah produces (now!) 64 times the amount of tar of one cigarette, with a new equivalence:
1 hookah = 64 cigarettes ! You’re dead!
(*) including among tobacco researchers as some of them are quite ignorant and even believe that tar is “present” in the tobacco itself before it is lit. See
top blunder by Dr Anwar Nassar and his colleagues from the same US-American University of Beirut in a recent response to another critique from Kamal.
So what ? Dr Donald Gardner, Editor-in-Chief of the Inhalation Toxicology journal, immediately found Kamal’s critique to be authoritative and acceptable. He just asked Kamal the permission to submit it to the authors so they have an opportunity to respond. As an advocate of scientific debate, the former accepted.
After he received the response (understand pressures in the form of defamation: a classical weapon of the antismoking Globalink soldiers), Dr Gardner, one day later, informed Kamal of his sudden new decision not to publish his critique.
He argued in vain to justify such a flip flop. He mentioned “reports from reviewers”(plural!), exposing this huge lie by presenting later (on Kamal’s request) only one tiny “report” and a meant vague gobbledygook “post hoc (!) “critical” paragraph from himself in order to justify his anti-scientific “U-turn”. He proved he was more ignorant of the issue than the “peer-reviewer” himself! The bottom line is that this man (Editor in Chief!) isn’t aware of what he says and can contradict one day later what he has confirmed the day before! Or he’s just a coward. Thought Police! Stick’em’up!
Excellent! What did that “report” from the “peer-reviewer” said? 3 stupid short though killin’ sentences to block the critique. 2 groundless worthless attacks on the form of the critique (The “peer-reviewer”’s “guts”(sic!) didn’t digest the point-by-point structure). The third one reveals the pit-bull nature of that “peer-reviewer” (likely from the University of California, “a hive of antismoking fanaticism” according to Kamal). Kamal would have written 3 books cited in his manuscript:
Anonymous “independent” (dix. Donald Gardner himself) pit-bull “peer-reviewer” of the Inhalation Toxicology journal said:
“the author claims no conflicts of interest, yet he cites three of his own books”!
The truth is that NOT A SINGLE BOOK was cited in the critique. What does it mean ?
1) that the “peer-reviewer’ hadn’t read the paper he was officially supposed to “review”.
2) He has voluntarily LIED (Kamal is seriously thinking of bringing a lawsuit against him)
3) This ”peer-reviewer” is actually calling to AUTODAFES (burning of books which are not clearly identified as antismoking).
CONCLUSION
This story shows that:
1) The authors (Alan SHIHADEH and his band) of the criticized article, have declined the offer to respond to each of the points. However, they co-decided that the critique should not be published. They LIED to the Editor-in-Chief when they said that they had already addressed the critiques elsewhere.
2) The anonymous “peer-reviewer” has LIED (about the existence of 3 books mentioned in the critique). He is, together with crowds of antismoking colleagues occupying the Editorial boards of biomedical journals, a modern INQUISITOR.
3) The Editor-in-Chief (Dr Donald Gardner) has LIED about the number of peer-reviewers and about his solemn promise (confirmed by twice = 2 e-mails to Kamal) that he would publish the critique (after he has accepted it) even if the authors failed to respond (what they did).
The conclusion is that we have here an excellent live example of: CORRUPTION, ““WATERPIPE””™ INQUISITION, WITCH-HUNT, ETHICAL VIOLATION, PIT-BULL “PEER-REVIEW”, PSEUDO-SCIENCE, LYSSENKOIST SCIENCE, LIES, TRICKS, PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC TERROR, DOUBLE-STANDARD, THOUGHT POLICE, PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC REVISIONISM, CENSORSHIP.
When it comes to ““waterpipe”” smoking (because the world is, particularly since 2002, at war against the people, culture –and here, material objects (!), of the Middle East – to put it short), everything is permitted.
Even when the critique doesn’t come from Kamal (*), any researcher isn’t allowed to publish critiques of the Lyssenkoist “official” ““waterpipe””™ antismoking literature directed by Alan SHIHADEH, Thomas EISSENBEG and Wasim MAZIAK (all soldiers of the Big Pharma financed antismoking Globalink organization) and all indirectly or directly funded by Big Pharma. All other researchers (appearing as “dwarves”, from time to time) cannot but parrot their “studies”. The loop is looped and it works!
(*) A good example is given by Australian researchers who came up with “unexpected” results. The (police) warning (by Wasim Maziak) was immediate:
Kamal’s reaction was immediately accepted by the brave Editors in Chief of the journal who obviously didn’t appreciate Wasim Maziak’s admonishing tone:
To whom does ‘public health’ belong when it comes to ‘Waterpipe’ Smoking ? Aust N Z J Public Health 2008; 32 (6): 583. Doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2008.00319.x
OTHER VERY RELEVANT READINGS
In particular, it also exposes the Globalink nexus. This document, dated Dec 13, 2010 also provides (at the end) the previous correspondence between both. It is an excellent demonstration on how a barefaced liar (supposed to be a “scientist” and a ““peer-reviewer”” with a journal supposedly respecting editorial ethics) is supported by the Editor-in-chief who in is turn can’t but lie in his turn to justify his sudden U-turn in his decision, not to mention the lies by US-AUB authors. Kamal has given the reasons for which he published the correspondence:
“Because my original manuscript has now been circulated among the antismoking Globalink activists, and because the Inhalation Toxicology journal has, apart from lies and misconduct, openly trodden the ethical code (COPE) it boasts of adhering to, the correspondence between Dr Donald Gardner, its Editor-in-chief and I, is being disclosed below so that everyone can check how the whole tobacco-related scientific literature peer-review system, particularly when it comes to ““waterpipe”” smoking, is corrupted”.
COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics, is “a code of conduct for editors of biomedical journals”, “a suggested code of conduct for editors to guide them towards being fair to authors, researchers, and readers”:
- Alan SHIHADEH and Wasim MAZIAK, “scientific” “guarantees” of smoking bans: ASH (Action on Smoking and Health). ““Shisha 200 times worse than a cigarette” say Middle East experts””. 27 March 2007 (prepared by Martin Dockrell)(accessed 13 June, 2008) [based, among others, on an interview with Wasim Maziak and Alan Shihadeh]. Sub-heading: “Three leading experts from across the Middle East have warned that excluding “shisha bars” when England goes smokefree on July 1 could worsen the grave inequalities in health that already affect ethnic minorities.” (The summum of hypocrisy!)
THE UNIVERSAL OPPOSITION TO BAD SCIENCE
This article is an example of junk science about tobacco smoking. This kind of “science” can be termed “TREIF” (non-Kosher) science in Hebrew, “HARAM” (non-Halal) science in Arabic. Indeed, “there is a saying by the Prophet which reads: “Seek science [good sound science, of course] from the cradle to the grave”. In Marxist terms, this may be termed "Bourgeois science". It can also be named “Bad Science” as a UK professor of Applied Psychology would say: “Bad Science in a good cause is just bad science”:
We peoples of the word: United we stand against
pseudo-science and totalitarian science!
Images: courtesy of Project Censored , Daily Censored and Cine-L’affiche (see how recently in France, the pipe of the famous actor, Jacques Tati, has been hidden, further to pressures by antismoking groups. It was replaced by a yellow star (as in the good old good times of fascism...).
YOU ARE NOT ON THE HOME PAGE of the OBSERVATORY on HOOKAH OR HEALTH (Narghile, "Waterpipe"™, Health, Risks, Dangers, Diseases, Tar, Nicotine, Cancer). CLICK HERE to go there!
Posts
