Interesting Read If You'Re Bored

[LZ22]

This article throws some critiques out at the WHO's report on negatives of hookahing. They don't by any means take a "hookah is healthy" approach, rather they point out which areas need more study and which areas are extremely 'misleading'. It looks like its a few years old, but I thought it was interesting...especially the part about how tar is not really bad in quantity, but rather quality (temperature at which it is burned).

[url="http://www.jnrbm.com/content/5/1/17"]http://www.jnrbm.com/content/5/1/17[/url]

[Bulldog_916]

Not really a boring report, but many of us have read it before. Thanks for the link though for the newer members to check out.

[Teissenb]

I hope you also take the time to read the comments regarding that article:

[url="http://www.jnrbm.com/content/5/1/17/comments"]http://www.jnrbm.com...5/1/17/comments[/url] Edited December 22, 2009 by Teissenb

[Bulldog_916]

So is the doctor right about your competing interest with Plowshare Technologies (it seems that the interest itself assumes that nicotine is a substance that causes dependence out of hand)? He addresses the competing interest that he had before the critique of the WHO study was actually done (2006).

[Codename067]

Superb article. I remember reading this a while back. It's a good read for those fresh faces here on the forum.

[Teissenb]

No he is not correct about that "competing" interest. He has raised the issue to numerous journals and all that have reviewed the situation have stated that I had no competing interest.

For the record, [font="Default Sans Serif,Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif"][size="2"]my role as paid consultant and principle investigator had nothing to do with hookah (we were working on a portable device to measure puff topography in cigarette smokers, see Blank et al., 2009) and it ended [/size][/font]in 2002 (before my first work on hookah even began). Here is the published conflict of interest statement from the Blank et al (2009) paper:

From June 2001 to October 2002, Plowshare Technologies, Inc.,
supported research conducted at Virginia Commonwealth University
via an NIH grant (R43DA013882); this research involved testing
the portable topography system described in this study. In
addition, in May 2000 and again in December 2002, Thomas Eissenberg
served as a paid consultant to Plowshare Technologies, Inc.
At the time of this study’s design, conduct, and reporting, no financial
conflicts of interest existed between any of the authors and
Plowshare Technologies, Inc.


[quote name='Bulldog_916' date='22 December 2009 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1261526645' post='441065']
So is the doctor right about your competing interest with Plowshare Technologies (it seems that the interest itself assumes that nicotine is a substance that causes dependence out of hand)? He addresses the competing interest that he had before the critique of the WHO study was actually done (2006).
[/quote]

[Pretender85]

Never read it..that's a rather interesting read actually.