Limits...
Use & Misuse of Water-filtered Tobacco Smoking Pipes in the World. Consequences for Public Health, Research & Research Ethics.

Chaouachi K - Open Med Chem J (2015)

Bottom Line: We also found that, for more than one decade, two other main methodological problems are: 1) the long-lived unwillingness to distinguish between use and misuse; 2) the consistent unethical rejection of biomedical negative results which, interestingly, are quantitatively and qualitatively much more instructive than the positive ones. the great majority of WFTSP toxicity studies have actually measured, voluntarily or not, their misuse aspects, not the use in itself.This is in contradiction with both the harm reduction and public health doctrines.The publication of negative results should be encouraged instead of being stifled.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: DIU Tabacologie, Université Paris XI, France.

ABSTRACT

Background: The traditional definition of an "epidemic" has been revisited by antismoking researchers. After 400 years, Doctors would have realized that one aspect of an ancient cultural daily practice of Asian and African societies was in fact a "global "epidemic". This needed further investigation particularly if one keeps in his mind the health aspects surrounding barbecues.

Method: Here, up-to-date biomedical results are dialectically confronted with anthropological findings, hence in real life, in order to highlight the extent of the global confusion: from the new definition of an "epidemic" and "prevalence" to the myth of "nicotine "addiction" and other themes in relation to water filtered tobacco smoking pipes (WFTSPs).

Results: We found that over the last decade, many publications, -particularly reviews, "meta-analyses" and "systematic reviews"- on (WFTSPs), have actually contributed to fuelling the greatest mix-up ever witnessed in biomedical research. One main reason for such a situation has been the absolute lack of critical analysis of the available literature and the uncritical use of citations (one seriously flawed review has been cited up to 200 times). Another main reason has been to take as granted a biased smoking robot designed at the US American of Beirut whose measured yields of toxic chemicals may differ dozens of times from others' based on the same "protocol". We also found that, for more than one decade, two other main methodological problems are: 1) the long-lived unwillingness to distinguish between use and misuse; 2) the consistent unethical rejection of biomedical negative results which, interestingly, are quantitatively and qualitatively much more instructive than the positive ones.

Conclusion: the great majority of WFTSP toxicity studies have actually measured, voluntarily or not, their misuse aspects, not the use in itself. This is in contradiction with both the harm reduction and public health doctrines. The publication of negative results should be encouraged instead of being stifled.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Different devices produce, in each case, a qualitatively different chemical smoke and induce different health effects, particularly in case of misuse as this happens with inexperienced users. Even if some health effects may be similar to those affecting cigarette smokers, this is generally due to a specific chemical or group of chemicals. This does not mean that all water filtered tobacco smoking pipes do cause the “same effects” as cigarettes.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4384226&req=5

Figure 5: Different devices produce, in each case, a qualitatively different chemical smoke and induce different health effects, particularly in case of misuse as this happens with inexperienced users. Even if some health effects may be similar to those affecting cigarette smokers, this is generally due to a specific chemical or group of chemicals. This does not mean that all water filtered tobacco smoking pipes do cause the “same effects” as cigarettes.

Mentions: Any independent observer is entitled to ask why ««waterpipe»» antismoking teams, apparently so concerned with the health of populations, have been publishing alarming papers on only one type of WFTSP and definitely ignored all the others particularly adapted for tumbak, jurak, etc. (See Figs. 1, 3, 5). Yet, the smokers of the latter are actually much more numerous than those of the former type. The contradiction is striking since a neologism as ««waterpipe», which has led astray so many physicians and epidemiologists in the world, is supposed to cover all WFTSPs of the world: from hookah to narghile, shisha, etc., and all of the corresponding products consumed in them. What is even more concerning is that not only the latter’s use (i.e. traditional several-centuries old) is much more important (prevalent) but they are most of the time served in a mixed way in the very places where studies have been carried out (e.g., coffee houses…). A rare independent study from Kuwait exemplifies this point [15]. It is once again amazing that the latter fact (qualifying for another serious methodological flaw) is silenced in most of the corresponding publications. Indeed, the chemistry of smoke and the potential health effects are completely different in both cases (e.g., between flavoured and unflavoured shisha smoking, not only because the products are different but also because of the set up involving or not a direct contact between the heating or burning source and the smoking product (See Figs. 1, 2, 3).


Use & Misuse of Water-filtered Tobacco Smoking Pipes in the World. Consequences for Public Health, Research & Research Ethics.

Chaouachi K - Open Med Chem J (2015)

Different devices produce, in each case, a qualitatively different chemical smoke and induce different health effects, particularly in case of misuse as this happens with inexperienced users. Even if some health effects may be similar to those affecting cigarette smokers, this is generally due to a specific chemical or group of chemicals. This does not mean that all water filtered tobacco smoking pipes do cause the “same effects” as cigarettes.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4384226&req=5

Figure 5: Different devices produce, in each case, a qualitatively different chemical smoke and induce different health effects, particularly in case of misuse as this happens with inexperienced users. Even if some health effects may be similar to those affecting cigarette smokers, this is generally due to a specific chemical or group of chemicals. This does not mean that all water filtered tobacco smoking pipes do cause the “same effects” as cigarettes.
Mentions: Any independent observer is entitled to ask why ««waterpipe»» antismoking teams, apparently so concerned with the health of populations, have been publishing alarming papers on only one type of WFTSP and definitely ignored all the others particularly adapted for tumbak, jurak, etc. (See Figs. 1, 3, 5). Yet, the smokers of the latter are actually much more numerous than those of the former type. The contradiction is striking since a neologism as ««waterpipe», which has led astray so many physicians and epidemiologists in the world, is supposed to cover all WFTSPs of the world: from hookah to narghile, shisha, etc., and all of the corresponding products consumed in them. What is even more concerning is that not only the latter’s use (i.e. traditional several-centuries old) is much more important (prevalent) but they are most of the time served in a mixed way in the very places where studies have been carried out (e.g., coffee houses…). A rare independent study from Kuwait exemplifies this point [15]. It is once again amazing that the latter fact (qualifying for another serious methodological flaw) is silenced in most of the corresponding publications. Indeed, the chemistry of smoke and the potential health effects are completely different in both cases (e.g., between flavoured and unflavoured shisha smoking, not only because the products are different but also because of the set up involving or not a direct contact between the heating or burning source and the smoking product (See Figs. 1, 2, 3).

Bottom Line: We also found that, for more than one decade, two other main methodological problems are: 1) the long-lived unwillingness to distinguish between use and misuse; 2) the consistent unethical rejection of biomedical negative results which, interestingly, are quantitatively and qualitatively much more instructive than the positive ones. the great majority of WFTSP toxicity studies have actually measured, voluntarily or not, their misuse aspects, not the use in itself.This is in contradiction with both the harm reduction and public health doctrines.The publication of negative results should be encouraged instead of being stifled.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: DIU Tabacologie, Université Paris XI, France.

ABSTRACT

Background: The traditional definition of an "epidemic" has been revisited by antismoking researchers. After 400 years, Doctors would have realized that one aspect of an ancient cultural daily practice of Asian and African societies was in fact a "global "epidemic". This needed further investigation particularly if one keeps in his mind the health aspects surrounding barbecues.

Method: Here, up-to-date biomedical results are dialectically confronted with anthropological findings, hence in real life, in order to highlight the extent of the global confusion: from the new definition of an "epidemic" and "prevalence" to the myth of "nicotine "addiction" and other themes in relation to water filtered tobacco smoking pipes (WFTSPs).

Results: We found that over the last decade, many publications, -particularly reviews, "meta-analyses" and "systematic reviews"- on (WFTSPs), have actually contributed to fuelling the greatest mix-up ever witnessed in biomedical research. One main reason for such a situation has been the absolute lack of critical analysis of the available literature and the uncritical use of citations (one seriously flawed review has been cited up to 200 times). Another main reason has been to take as granted a biased smoking robot designed at the US American of Beirut whose measured yields of toxic chemicals may differ dozens of times from others' based on the same "protocol". We also found that, for more than one decade, two other main methodological problems are: 1) the long-lived unwillingness to distinguish between use and misuse; 2) the consistent unethical rejection of biomedical negative results which, interestingly, are quantitatively and qualitatively much more instructive than the positive ones.

Conclusion: the great majority of WFTSP toxicity studies have actually measured, voluntarily or not, their misuse aspects, not the use in itself. This is in contradiction with both the harm reduction and public health doctrines. The publication of negative results should be encouraged instead of being stifled.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus