I'M Getting Really Tired

[TheyCallMeDave]

[quote name='Arcane' timestamp='1291846636' post='490669']
spell check before you submit that....unless it's too late. i know it may seem trivial to some people, but when trying to present an intellectual argument, the last thing someone wants to see are spelling errors.

when looking for hires, i've skipped over resumes once i noticed a spelling error. if they can't be bothered with a simple spell check or worse, don't know the proper spelling of a word, it just looks bad....
[/quote]


No worries. Now I just have to see whether or not it actually makes any impact on the student body. We shall see!

[ih303]

[size="2"]Folks, you've all heard the old adage "knowledge is power", and maybe you're not quite sure what that could possibly have to do with smoking hookah. Well your old pal ih303 is gonna learn ya.

As I'm sure you are all aware, there's a lot of bad information floating around out there having to do with water pipes and hookah tobacco. What makes matters worse is how this misinformation continues to propagate in public spheres, most notably the internet (forums, YouTube, vendor sites, etc.). This is not to say that those participating in these exchanges are out to create negative propaganda or spin. Alternatively, I don't think they're even aware that what they're saying is wrong. It's easier to repeat something that's been told to you that makes sense than to actually take the time to do the research and sourcing necessary to contrive firm, scientifically backed conclusions. That's a problem.

It all comes down to perceived credibility. Case in point:

On my way to work a while back I saw a group of people gathered on the corner at a prominent intersection. They were demonstrating their support for the recent bill recommending the legalization of NHT for medical use. How did I know they were in favor of the bill? It wasn't because of their signs. Nope, it's because they were hippies - dreadlocks, dogs, patchwork pants, backpacks, army-surplus jackets... the works. The question is this: Did their efforts help or hinder their cause?

There are two problems with their approach both affecting their perceived credibility:

1) Motive - You can't expect anyone to take anything you say seriously about an issue when it's clear that you have an ulterior motive. In other words, if it's obvious that that you're supporting a medical NHT bill just to make something you already do legal, you're not going to get many people to come over to your side.

2) Source – Convincing arguments require credible sources. This has the effect of passing the responsibility buck of a piece of information to someone in a much better position to back yours. In addition, opinion and truth are defined by the number of people in consensus. Therefore, the more sources you have backing your claims, the more substantial and convincing it becomes. In other words, quoting Bob Marley, Jerry Garcia, Jimmy Hendrix, Janis Joplin, or any member of any jam band will not score any points or command even an ounce of respect or credibility. In fact it does even more damage than good because you'd be playing right into their stereotype and just reaffirming to everyone they talk to exactly why NHT should continue to be illegal.


Of course I'm not going to generalize and say that all supporters of that type of legislature are hippies or that all hippies are uneducated. In fact, there are some very smart folks out there doing some very serious work/research and making some serious waves. These people know how to play the game. They understand that individual and collective reality is defined by perception which depends entirely on how an individual organizes and interprets sensation. They understand that most people are intellectually lazy and tend to take the path of least cognitive resistance and that many people will believe anything they're told if they perceive the source to be CREDIBLE .

But here's the thing: They also understand that not all of us are like that. They know that some of us will question their motives, models, and methodologies. Some of us actually take the time to check out references and sources. All in all, some of us refuse to be lemmings and buy into the hype because we care enough to dig up the truth. And this is where knowledge – backed by credibility - becomes power, and that power can affect change.



This is a call to action, gang. I've given you the resources [/size][url="http://knol.google.com/k/kamal-chaouachi"][size="2"]here[/size][/url][size="2"] and [/size][url="http://publicationslist.org/kamal.chaouachi"][size="2"]here[/size][/url][size="2"]. Use them. Educate yourselves, and then use what you've learned to educate those around you. Collectively we can stand against the propaganda fueled stigma that is shutting down our hookah lounges and setting outrageous premiums on life insurance. We can rebuke ridiculous articles such as the one that started this thread. We can make changes people. We are not powerless.



I'll end my sermon with this:

"Action is the starting point of all progress, but an accurate perception of reality is the foundation upon which a successful person bases his actions. A false perception of reality leads to false premises, which in turn leads to false assumptions, which in turn leads to false conclusions, which, ultimately, leads to negative results."



Think about it.

[/size]

[agunn1231]

[quote name='ih303' timestamp='1291921941' post='490778']
[size="2"]Folks, you've all heard the old adage "knowledge is power", and maybe you're not quite sure what that could possibly have to do with smoking hookah. Well your old pal ih303 is gonna learn ya.

As I'm sure you are all aware, there's a lot of bad information floating around out there having to do with water pipes and hookah tobacco. What makes matters worse is how this misinformation continues to propagate in public spheres, most notably the internet (forums, YouTube, vendor sites, etc.). This is not to say that those participating in these exchanges are out to create negative propaganda or spin. Alternatively, I don't think they're even aware that what they're saying is wrong. It's easier to repeat something that's been told to you that makes sense than to actually take the time to do the research and sourcing necessary to contrive firm, scientifically backed conclusions. That's a problem.

It all comes down to perceived credibility. Case in point:

On my way to work a while back I saw a group of people gathered on the corner at a prominent intersection. They were demonstrating their support for the recent bill recommending the legalization of NHT for medical use. How did I know they were in favor of the bill? It wasn't because of their signs. Nope, it's because they were hippies - dreadlocks, dogs, patchwork pants, backpacks, army-surplus jackets... the works. The question is this: Did their efforts help or hinder their cause?

There are two problems with their approach both affecting their perceived credibility:

1) Motive - You can't expect anyone to take anything you say seriously about an issue when it's clear that you have an ulterior motive. In other words, if it's obvious that that you're supporting a medical NHT bill just to make something you already do legal, you're not going to get many people to come over to your side.

2) Source – Convincing arguments require credible sources. This has the effect of passing the responsibility buck of a piece of information to someone in a much better position to back yours. In addition, opinion and truth are defined by the number of people in consensus. Therefore, the more sources you have backing your claims, the more substantial and convincing it becomes. In other words, quoting Bob Marley, Jerry Garcia, Jimmy Hendrix, Janis Joplin, or any member of any jam band will not score any points or command even an ounce of respect or credibility. In fact it does even more damage than good because you'd be playing right into their stereotype and just reaffirming to everyone they talk to exactly why NHT should continue to be illegal.


Of course I'm not going to generalize and say that all supporters of that type of legislature are hippies or that all hippies are uneducated. In fact, there are some very smart folks out there doing some very serious work/research and making some serious waves. These people know how to play the game. They understand that individual and collective reality is defined by perception which depends entirely on how an individual organizes and interprets sensation. They understand that most people are intellectually lazy and tend to take the path of least cognitive resistance and that many people will believe anything they're told if they perceive the source to be CREDIBLE .

But here's the thing: They also understand that not all of us are like that. They know that some of us will question their motives, models, and methodologies. Some of us actually take the time to check out references and sources. All in all, some of us refuse to be lemmings and buy into the hype because we care enough to dig up the truth. And this is where knowledge – backed by credibility - becomes power, and that power can affect change.



This is a call to action, gang. I've given you the resources [/size][url="http://knol.google.com/k/kamal-chaouachi"][size="2"]here[/size][/url][size="2"] and [/size][url="http://publicationslist.org/kamal.chaouachi"][size="2"]here[/size][/url][size="2"]. Use them. Educate yourselves, and then use what you've learned to educate those around you. Collectively we can stand against the propaganda fueled stigma that is shutting down our hookah lounges and setting outrageous premiums on life insurance. We can rebuke ridiculous articles such as the one that started this thread. We can make changes people. We are not powerless.



I'll end my sermon with this:

"Action is the starting point of all progress, but an accurate perception of reality is the foundation upon which a successful person bases his actions. A false perception of reality leads to false premises, which in turn leads to false assumptions, which in turn leads to false conclusions, which, ultimately, leads to negative results."



Think about it.

[/size]
[/quote]

This made my day man.

[ih303]

So in light of all of this, I wrote to Mr. Chaouachi expressing my excitement in finding his work and requesting that he make an appearance on the forum. This is what I wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chaouachi,

Hello! My name is Ian Handley and I own a hookah lounge in Rapid City, SD (US). I consider myself to be quite passionate about hookah culture and try to learn as much as I can within that context. I was very fortunate to stumble across some of your work today while researching some of the scientific aspects "smoking". I must admit that I was blown away. Until today, the only journal-worthy data and studies I was aware of were some of the same pieces I found you to be so critical of such as the dreaded report published by the WHO.

I can't express just how grateful I am to have found your work. I remember reading that WHO report and being completely appalled by the obvious errors of the study and the overall bias and misleading nature of their "study". It was refreshing to find a voice of reason and logic amongst the babble of misinformation so prevalent in the field. I was impressed by how you were able to go toe-to-toe with some obviously well backed and well funded "researchers" and do so smartly providing solid sources for all of your challenges. I also liked how you never claimed that smoking hookah is not bad for you (as some people would like to believe). I've been preaching much of what I read in your publications today for a while and am relieved to now have a credible backing for what has largely been unsubstantiated in the past. I'm sure you're aware of the absence of equally backed and funded studies regarding water pipes and hookah tobacco. It's good to know we in the industry finally have an advocate. So THANK YOU!




If I may, I'd like to make a request of you. I'm a member of a hookah-related forum ([url="http://hookahforum.com"][color="#2c2cfb"][u]hookahforum.com[/u][/color][/url]) where there is a gamut of individuals with different levels of knowledge and experience. Recently a member posted a thread comprised of his rebuttal to an article published by his school paper. It's in that thread where I referenced your work. If it's not too much trouble, I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a few moments to just log onto the site and post a simple response. I think it would be very beneficial for members of the forum to know there are people like you out there and have a viable source of information. After all, the more people that are "in the know", the better our chances of improving the perception of something that many of us hold dear. The link to the aforementioned thread is: [url="http://www.hookahforum.com/topic/40159-im-getting-really-tired/"] [/url][color="#2c2cfb"][u][url="http://www.hookahforum.com/topic/40159-im-getting-really-tired/"]http://www.hookahfor...g-really-tired/[/url][/u][/color]




Thank you for your time. Please consider my request.




Sincerely,

Ian Handley

Ifrits Hookah Lounge


[/quote]

[ih303]

This was his reply:

[quote]
[b]Response to Ian Handley from Kamal Chaouachi. [/b]

[b]Paris, 11 December 2010.[/b]




Mr Handley,

I am glad to see you have eventually stumbled on some of my writings. Probably they are poorly "ranked" on the web although I can confirm that they are well-known by antismoking organisations. Perhaps this is also due to subtle censorship thanks to the indirect or tacit help of some search engines. This hypothesis should not be discarded.

If one wishes to get an objective picture of the problem, two important facts must always be borne in mind:

a ) the history of research on this issue (which did not begin in 2002 as Wasim Maziak, the main official WHO ""waterpipe"" antismoking researcher recently stated)[[b]1[/b]];


b ) the unprecedented A-symmetry of forces whereby[b] [/b]divisions of highly mobilised and highly funded researchers (and their media advocates) on all continents have been openly challenged, so far, by only one voice. I can see that you have personally understood this point.

I have tried to summarise all what we know today about the topic in the form of online articles (Knols) that you have apparently visited [[b]2[/b]]. This said, these documents need an update because of the hail, these last months, of new ""waterpipe"" antismoking publications. Interestingly, I also wish to add soon: "Why have I been doing all this ? Response: because nobody has done it so far." For your information also, I have recently posted a "SciTopic"in reply to an important article by Maziak published in the (vehemently ""waterpipe"" antismoking) American Journal of Preventive Medicine [[b]3[/b]].

Please understand that, because of actual censorship and corruption of the "peer-review" process particularly when it comes to ""waterpipe"" smoking), the amount of peer-reviewed articles you may have been "impressed" by actually represents a small portion of all the critiques. Many of them have not been published because of a violent non-scientific ideological opposition, on behalf of antismoking so-called "peer-reviewers", not to mention direct interventions of the antismoking groups on Editorial boards. Given the globally hostile environment for this kind of research, each article, by consequence, appears to be a great deed and achievement. Before year 2004, I used to write in French on such a topic... I realised one day that this was an excellent pretext for ""waterpipe"" antismoking researchers who could later justify their censorship with the argument that they cannot read publications in such a language...

If you read in detail each of the publications, and the corresponding referenced papers linked to them, you will understand that the main problem is not anymore to demonstrate that hookah smoking is less hazardous than cigarettes. Antismoking researchers do not care a damn for it or for enhancing public health. They are driven by an agenda, that of global tobacco prohibition (FCTC project)[[b]4[/b]][[b]5[/b]].

Let me clarify a few points regarding the WHO report that you mentioned. First, this document was prepared by Alan Shihadeh, Thomas Eissenberg and Wasim Maziak, the world top ""waterpipe"" antismoking experts. Second, it is not a study per se but a summary of carefully selected ("cherry-picked") publications (most of them from their very ""waterpipe"" antismoking literature). Third, it is scientifically void and has absolutely no value. Furthermore, few people know that it is a recycled version of another so-called biased erroneous "review" authored by the same people and published in 2004 in the antismoking Tobacco Control journal [[b]6[/b]]. When compared with all the propaganda that so far has been published elsewhere by its authors, this report has indeed no substantial importance.

This asymmetrical opposition has now entered a new era in agreement with the FCTC Prohibition agenda: that of un-publishing already published articles. One of the Knol articles includes a copy of a 3-month lived critique of a Jordanian ""waterpipe"" antismoking study that has been removed by the BioMed Central (BMC) Group [[b]7[/b]][[b]8[/b]]. I invite you to read both the study and its critique (both available online) and try to understand why the latter has been post hoc banned. The same could soon happen with our study on hookah smoking and cancer because of its excessive popularity (more than 50,000 hits so far)[[b]9[/b]]. BMC has also recently resorted to revamping the site of the journal in which the study was published in an obvious intent to reduce the visibility of such a popular item.

The antismoking blackmail is permanent. Recently, one so-called "peer-reviewer" blocked one of my publications by telling a naive Editor-in-Chief that my authorship of a book (by the way not even cited in the article) constituted a "conflict of interest".... In other words, this individual was actually criminalising the very act of writing a book... For this reason (blackmail/defamation), I apologise for not accepting your kind invitation to enter your forum and post there a comment on your discussion about these issues. I highly appreciated the initiative of your friend Dave. In fact, my first interventions, eight years back, were similar to his. However, you must know that the person to which he responded actually represents nothing but a small pawn in the global Prohibition chess game [[b]4[/b]][[b]5[/b]]. She cannot but parrot an article by the Mayo Clinic or other "public health" agencies which themselves cannot but offer parroted materials from the antismoking ""waterpipe"" literature prepared by the three WHO official ""waterpipe"" antismoking experts (Wasim Maziak, Aland Shihadeh and Thomas Eissenberg).

Keep in mind that the latter are the direct colleagues (ideologically speaking) of the most visible antismoking organisations of the world. For instance, the above experts were actually interviewed by their Globalink colleagues of the ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) for the famous article that equated 1 hookah session to 200 cigarettes [[b]10[/b]]. Globalink is the hub/commandment [[b]11[/b]]. Its members can be found everywhere in the WHO satellite antismoking organisations, the Editorial boards of the main scientific journals dealing with tobacco issues, etc. [[b]4[/b]][[b]5[/b]][[b]12[/b]]. So the dice are loaded. By the same process, huge errors have been published in such "prestigious" biomedical journals as the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, etc.

What the author targeted by your friend Dave has done is quite frequent and sometimes daily in every place of the world where hookah smoking is becoming popular. The daily press of your country is swarming with such articles. Most of the time, the authors/editors of the latter have received instructions under the form of "media advocacy" messages designed and coordinated by Globalink in agreement with the FCTC prohibition project [[b]4[/b]][[b]5[/b]][[b]11[/b]].

In these conditions, do not expect a sincere exchange of ideas from the other party. This is a waste of time because their strategy is based on hammering "the truth" (to the media in particular) and avoiding any scientific debate [[b]10[/b]].

This is why the issue at stake is not a scientific question anymore. One observer said "tobacco control" has become "a religious movement". The unprecedented problems (in the biomedical research) since 2002 have actually fuelled a global confusion but also a tide of hatred toward hookah smokers (seen as huge "polluters")[[b]10[/b]]. Given the connotations related to hookah (genies and ifrits, Middle East and so on; a region where uninterrupted wars have been waged particularly since the same 2002 year), I tend, more and more, to consider that, together with methodological and publication biases, we must also take into account a xenophobic bias.




[b]As a conclusion, I have some pieces of advice if you do not mind: [/b]

-Do not describe yourselves as people whose objective is to show that hookah smoking is less hazardous than cigarettes (even if one day this may be definitely established) but, instead, as (scientific) truth seekers.

-Do not challenge void parroting articles published in local journals. It is a waste of energy. Go to the upstream source. Challenge (online comments, comments on your forum, etc., on personal blogs and sites) articles of the national press (which includes interviews with -or based on- the three world WHO ""waterpipe"" antismoking experts: Wasim Maziak, Alan Shihadeh, Thomas Eissenberg) or the original studies themselves. Please know that you can be informed of new articles in this field if you subscribe to an antismoking service like TobaccoOrg [[b]13[/b]].

-However, keep in mind that what is written in blogs, forums or sites has absolutely no value for them unless the material is highly relevant (or reveals a blatant failure). Their criterion is "peer-reviewed" publications. To make it more difficult, they have corrupted this normal process whereby they control almost 90% of manuscripts that are submitted for publication in this field [[b]12[/b]].

-Challenge, including inside your forum –or set up a dedicated blog or site for this purpose- the articles of the daily US press and the official publications in biomedical journals. I feel that you have sufficient knowledge, courage and good sense and are more experimented than the official ""waterpipe"" experts who have never inhaled a puff of a hookah in their lives.

-Publish, when you are ready (or sufficiently graduated...), your own studies so that the world understand that not only one researcher in the word is opposing the word anti-scientific consensus on hookah smoking but also other scientists. Think of launching a scientific journal (peer-reviewed, of course) for this purpose.

-You hookah boys connect with hookah girls who have relevantly highlighted the "morality" aspects of the war on hookah smoking [[b]14[/b]][[b]15[/b]].

-Discuss between yourselves, and even publicly, what is the very nature of Globalink, the FCTC, WHO TobReg and similar bodies.

-Raise awareness among your friends, families, etc.

-[b]Set up an Association for (scientific) truth about hookah smoking[/b]. This is the best thing you can do. There is not such a (visible) thing in your country if I mistake not. Thanks to it, you will be taken into account by journalists and even antismoking organisations. You will make them thinking twice before talking nonsense. Keep in mind that they seem powerful and omnipresent simply because, on the other side, there is nothing but a lack of coordination and organisation.

-Translate your own written materials and those you find relevant into other languages (Esperanto, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese, etc.)




Please accept my apology and convey my greetings to all of your friends.

Kind regards,

Kamal Chaouachi

______________

[1] Chaouachi K. List of "Knol" articles:

[color="#000000"] [u][url="http://knol.google.com/k/kamal-chaouachi/-/534k6mvefph/0#knols"]http://knol.google.c...6mvefph/0#knols[/url][/u][/color]

[2] Kozlowski, Kim. Michigan health leaders target growing hookah use. The Detroit News 2009 (Friday, Aug 14)

[u][url="http://detnews.com/article/20090814/LIFESTYLE03/908140351/1409/METRO/Mich.-health-leaders-target-growing-hookah-use"]http://detnews.com/a...wing-hookah-use[/url][/u]

[3] Chaouachi K. Human Health, ""Waterpipe"" (Hookah, Narghile, Shisha) Smoking and the Global Epidemic of Misrepresentations and Errors. SciTopics 2010 (10 Nov). Retrieved November 11, 2010, from [url="http://scitopics.com"]http://scitopics.com[/url]

[u][url="http://scitopics.com/Human_Health_Waterpipe_Hookah_Narghile_Shisha_Smoking_and_the_Global_Epidemic_of_Misrepresentations_and_Errors.html"]http://scitopics.com...and_Errors.html[/url][/u]

[4] Snowdon, Chris. A Global Prison ? [An interview with Doctor Kamal Chaouachi]. Velvet Glove, Iron Fist 2009 (8 Apr 2009)

[u][url="http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/kamal_chaouachi_interview.php"]http://www.velvetglo...i_interview.php[/url][/u]

[5] Chaouachi K. Prohibition Through the Hookah Looking-Glass (Speech). Version 14. Knol. 2010 Apr 3.

[u][url="http://knol.google.com/k/kamal-chaouachi/prohibition-through-the-hookah-looking/534k6mvefph/15"]http://knol.google.c.../534k6mvefph/15[/url][/u]

[6] 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.

[u][url="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/vol13/issue4/"]http://tobaccocontro...t/vol13/issue4/[/url][/u]

[7] Chaouachi K. [Comment] Errors and Publication Bias in Jordanian Study on Narghile (Hookah, Shisha) Tobacco Smoking. Harm Reduction Journal 2010 ([b]01 Sep[/b])[unpublished 24 nov 2010]

[u][url="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/7/1/10/comments#427672"]http://www.harmreduc...comments#427672[/url][/u]

[8] Dar-Odeh N, Bakri FG, Al-Omiri MK, Al-Mashni HM, Eimar HA, Khraisat AS, Abu-Hammad SMK, Dudeen AAF, Nur Abdallah M, Alkilani SMZ, Al-Shami L, Abu- Hammad OA. 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

[u][url="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/7/1/10"]http://www.harmreduc.../content/7/1/10[/url][/u]

[9] 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

[u][url="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/mostviewed/alltime"]http://www.harmreduc...tviewed/alltime[/url][/u]

[10] 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]

[u][url="http://www.newash.org.uk/ash_4q8eg0ft.htm"]http://www.newash.or...sh_4q8eg0ft.htm[/url][/u]

[color="#28303b"][11] [/color]Globalink, the world antismoking network of about 6,000 activists around the world, sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry (Pfizer laboratories among others)

[u][url="http://www.globalink.org/"]http://www.globalink.org[/url][/u]

[12] Chaouachi K. Globalink Undeclared Non-Financial Global Conflicts of Interest in Tobacco Smoking [Internet]. Knol 2010 (Sep 21)

[u][url="http://knol.google.com/k/kamal-chaouachi/globalink-undeclared-non-financial/534k6mvefph/18"]http://knol.google.c.../534k6mvefph/18[/url][/u]

[13] Tobacco news and information (permanent review by an antismoking organisation) of world shisha related press articles

[u][url="http://www.tobacco.org/articles/category/shisha/"]http://www.tobacco.o...ategory/shisha/[/url][/u]

[14] Hookah Girls. The Science of Hookah

[u][url="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=app_2373072738&gid=36728608684"]http://www.facebook....gid=36728608684[/url][/u]

[15] Hookah Girls. "Morality: Making a decision"(The Science of Hookah)

[u][url="http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=36728608684&topic=6791"]http://www.facebook....8684&topic=6791[/url][/u]



[/quote]

[joytron]

interesting read, thanks for posting that up.

[Chaz1337]

Quite a read. Quite a lot to consider...

[ih303]

Man, I'm having a hard time watching this thread fall into obscurity. The reality here is that nothing on this forum will be worth a damn if we can't smoke. We've heard the rumors, we've read the propaganda, we cannot sit here and pretend that this shit isn't happening. Anyone heard the phrase, "the squeaky wheel gets the grease"? Well the only one's squeaking now are those who would shut us all down and prevent us from smoking, period. We need to squeak back, both directly and indirectly. But before we can do that, we must educate ourselves so we can come correct.

Mods, please consider making this thread sticky. We need this.

[joytron]

I dont know sometimes I hope the hookah fad continues to die out, maybe if our wheel squeaks quiet enough, no one will even know we are here.

[thatonethere]

Her reply was very condescending and arrogant. You were the bigger preson with your response. She couldn't argue back so she tried to delegitimize your source. Such a low blow and a poor move on her part. So what if she hasn't heard of it. Many people have heard of Fox News,and that alone says a source's popularity level doesn't make it a credible source.

[ih303]

[quote name='thatonethere' timestamp='1292920523' post='491932']Many people have heard of Fox News,and that alone says a source's popularity level doesn't make it a credible source.
[/quote]

Lol... Well played.

[bradleyclark86]

Dave, I can't believe I just now found this thread. Even though I'm an alum, I still get those EKU emails and I saw the thing about the hookah. I wondered what your reaction would be (I know you wouldn't let this slide). Props on the email. EKU staff doesn't give 2 shades of a masto-2-shits about the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of the students. My girlfriend had trouble with getting letters of recommendation for grad school, and I had trouble in my department with advising and co-op. So it's not just you, and it's not just EKU HEAT. It's the whole campus. I applaud your effort though. If Tuna gets me hired on at JJ's, I'm hitting you up for some shisha recommendations.

[TheyCallMeDave]

[quote name='bradleyclark86' timestamp='1292982054' post='492013']
Dave, I can't believe I just now found this thread. Even though I'm an alum, I still get those EKU emails and I saw the thing about the hookah. I wondered what your reaction would be (I know you wouldn't let this slide). Props on the email. EKU staff doesn't give 2 shades of a masto-2-shits about the thoughts, feelings, and beliefs of the students. My girlfriend had trouble with getting letters of recommendation for grad school, and I had trouble in my department with advising and co-op. So it's not just you, and it's not just EKU HEAT. It's the whole campus. I applaud your effort though. If Tuna gets me hired on at JJ's, I'm hitting you up for some shisha recommendations.
[/quote]


Sounds like a plan, Brad! More sessions at your house! I swear, something in the levels of humidity or air content makes your pad the best to smoke at.

[bradleyclark86]

Invite the forum over to Edgewood? That would be a meeting for the ages.

[TheyCallMeDave]

[quote name='bradleyclark86' timestamp='1292984491' post='492016']
Invite the forum over to Edgewood? That would be a meeting for the ages.
[/quote]


I know, right? I know some guys are going to try and come down for HP. That'd be something.


All in all, thank you guys on the forum for your support, to 03 for all of the great information and headstrong will, and what not. Really means a lot.

[Comissioner]

Hello everybody! This topic made me to register here , so thats my first reply.
I am a ceo of a Hookah-Service company Nargilia [b]no plugs just yet[/b] placed in St. Petersburg, Russia. In a recent years hookah become more and more popular in our country, and there are a lot of disputes about health hazards of hookah. In Russian wikipedia article about the hookah begans with notification "Hookah-smoking causes serious harm to the smoker", the main sources is the article from Stanford Daily [url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-28-hookah-trend_x.htm"]http://www.usatoday....kah-trend_x.htm[/url]

and the advisory note about waterpipe tobacco smoking of World Heath Organization
[url="http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interaction/tobreg/Waterpipe%20recommendation_Final.pdf"]http://www.who.int/t...ation_Final.pdf[/url]

As for me, I'm smoking hookah for 6 years, and I've always believed that hookah session and smoking sigarette are fundamentally different processes. I found here the sources to Kamal Chaouachi's article, his researches were the great discovery for me, and I've already engaged translation his articles and notes into Russian.
Dave and Ian, I really wondered how much efforts you are directed to this problem, well done;) . I dont understand why this thread is not sticky Edited December 27, 2010 by Travis
Removed Advertisements

[Stuie]

Found this interesting to say to all the "studies" out there

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124

[Coyote]

woot!

[Skoozle]

[quote name='Stuie' timestamp='1349293253' post='557751']
Found this interesting to say to all the "studies" out there

[url="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124"]http://www.plosmedic...al.pmed.0020124[/url]
[/quote]

After reading this... how can we believe it's true?


j/k I didn't read the whole article but from the abstract to sounds like what I have always suspected of a lot of the "studies" I have seen.

[headhunter]

[quote name='ih303' timestamp='1292196107' post='491059']
This was his reply:

[quote]
[b]Response to Ian Handley from Kamal Chaouachi. [/b]

[b]Paris, 11 December 2010.[/b]




Mr Handley,

I am glad to see you have eventually stumbled on some of my writings. Probably they are poorly "ranked" on the web although I can confirm that they are well-known by antismoking organisations. Perhaps this is also due to subtle censorship thanks to the indirect or tacit help of some search engines. This hypothesis should not be discarded.

If one wishes to get an objective picture of the problem, two important facts must always be borne in mind:

a ) the history of research on this issue (which did not begin in 2002 as Wasim Maziak, the main official WHO ""waterpipe"" antismoking researcher recently stated)[[b]1[/b]];


b ) the unprecedented A-symmetry of forces wherebydivisions of highly mobilised and highly funded researchers (and their media advocates) on all continents have been openly challenged, so far, by only one voice. I can see that you have personally understood this point.

I have tried to summarise all what we know today about the topic in the form of online articles (Knols) that you have apparently visited [[b]2[/b]]. This said, these documents need an update because of the hail, these last months, of new ""waterpipe"" antismoking publications. Interestingly, I also wish to add soon: "Why have I been doing all this ? Response: because nobody has done it so far." For your information also, I have recently posted a "SciTopic"in reply to an important article by Maziak published in the (vehemently ""waterpipe"" antismoking) American Journal of Preventive Medicine [[b]3[/b]].

Please understand that, because of actual censorship and corruption of the "peer-review" process particularly when it comes to ""waterpipe"" smoking), the amount of peer-reviewed articles you may have been "impressed" by actually represents a small portion of all the critiques. Many of them have not been published because of a violent non-scientific ideological opposition, on behalf of antismoking so-called "peer-reviewers", not to mention direct interventions of the antismoking groups on Editorial boards. Given the globally hostile environment for this kind of research, each article, by consequence, appears to be a great deed and achievement. Before year 2004, I used to write in French on such a topic... I realised one day that this was an excellent pretext for ""waterpipe"" antismoking researchers who could later justify their censorship with the argument that they cannot read publications in such a language...

If you read in detail each of the publications, and the corresponding referenced papers linked to them, you will understand that the main problem is not anymore to demonstrate that hookah smoking is less hazardous than cigarettes. Antismoking researchers do not care a damn for it or for enhancing public health. They are driven by an agenda, that of global tobacco prohibition (FCTC project)[[b]4[/b]][[b]5[/b]].

Let me clarify a few points regarding the WHO report that you mentioned. First, this document was prepared by Alan Shihadeh, Thomas Eissenberg and Wasim Maziak, the world top ""waterpipe"" antismoking experts. Second, it is not a study per se but a summary of carefully selected ("cherry-picked") publications (most of them from their very ""waterpipe"" antismoking literature). Third, it is scientifically void and has absolutely no value. Furthermore, few people know that it is a recycled version of another so-called biased erroneous "review" authored by the same people and published in 2004 in the antismoking Tobacco Control journal [[b]6[/b]]. When compared with all the propaganda that so far has been published elsewhere by its authors, this report has indeed no substantial importance.

This asymmetrical opposition has now entered a new era in agreement with the FCTC Prohibition agenda: that of un-publishing already published articles. One of the Knol articles includes a copy of a 3-month lived critique of a Jordanian ""waterpipe"" antismoking study that has been removed by the BioMed Central (BMC) Group [[b]7[/b]][[b]8[/b]]. I invite you to read both the study and its critique (both available online) and try to understand why the latter has been post hoc banned. The same could soon happen with our study on hookah smoking and cancer because of its excessive popularity (more than 50,000 hits so far)[[b]9[/b]]. BMC has also recently resorted to revamping the site of the journal in which the study was published in an obvious intent to reduce the visibility of such a popular item.

The antismoking blackmail is permanent. Recently, one so-called "peer-reviewer" blocked one of my publications by telling a naive Editor-in-Chief that my authorship of a book (by the way not even cited in the article) constituted a "conflict of interest".... In other words, this individual was actually criminalising the very act of writing a book... For this reason (blackmail/defamation), I apologise for not accepting your kind invitation to enter your forum and post there a comment on your discussion about these issues. I highly appreciated the initiative of your friend Dave. In fact, my first interventions, eight years back, were similar to his. However, you must know that the person to which he responded actually represents nothing but a small pawn in the global Prohibition chess game [[b]4[/b]][[b]5[/b]]. She cannot but parrot an article by the Mayo Clinic or other "public health" agencies which themselves cannot but offer parroted materials from the antismoking ""waterpipe"" literature prepared by the three WHO official ""waterpipe"" antismoking experts (Wasim Maziak, Aland Shihadeh and Thomas Eissenberg).

Keep in mind that the latter are the direct colleagues (ideologically speaking) of the most visible antismoking organisations of the world. For instance, the above experts were actually interviewed by their Globalink colleagues of the ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) for the famous article that equated 1 hookah session to 200 cigarettes [[b]10[/b]]. Globalink is the hub/commandment [[b]11[/b]]. Its members can be found everywhere in the WHO satellite antismoking organisations, the Editorial boards of the main scientific journals dealing with tobacco issues, etc. [[b]4[/b]][[b]5[/b]][[b]12[/b]]. So the dice are loaded. By the same process, huge errors have been published in such "prestigious" biomedical journals as the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, etc.

What the author targeted by your friend Dave has done is quite frequent and sometimes daily in every place of the world where hookah smoking is becoming popular. The daily press of your country is swarming with such articles. Most of the time, the authors/editors of the latter have received instructions under the form of "media advocacy" messages designed and coordinated by Globalink in agreement with the FCTC prohibition project [[b]4[/b]][[b]5[/b]][[b]11[/b]].

In these conditions, do not expect a sincere exchange of ideas from the other party. This is a waste of time because their strategy is based on hammering "the truth" (to the media in particular) and avoiding any scientific debate [[b]10[/b]].

This is why the issue at stake is not a scientific question anymore. One observer said "tobacco control" has become "a religious movement". The unprecedented problems (in the biomedical research) since 2002 have actually fuelled a global confusion but also a tide of hatred toward hookah smokers (seen as huge "polluters")[[b]10[/b]]. Given the connotations related to hookah (genies and ifrits, Middle East and so on; a region where uninterrupted wars have been waged particularly since the same 2002 year), I tend, more and more, to consider that, together with methodological and publication biases, we must also take into account a xenophobic bias.




[b]As a conclusion, I have some pieces of advice if you do not mind: [/b]

-Do not describe yourselves as people whose objective is to show that hookah smoking is less hazardous than cigarettes (even if one day this may be definitely established) but, instead, as (scientific) truth seekers.

-Do not challenge void parroting articles published in local journals. It is a waste of energy. Go to the upstream source. Challenge (online comments, comments on your forum, etc., on personal blogs and sites) articles of the national press (which includes interviews with -or based on- the three world WHO ""waterpipe"" antismoking experts: Wasim Maziak, Alan Shihadeh, Thomas Eissenberg) or the original studies themselves. Please know that you can be informed of new articles in this field if you subscribe to an antismoking service like TobaccoOrg [[b]13[/b]].

-However, keep in mind that what is written in blogs, forums or sites has absolutely no value for them unless the material is highly relevant (or reveals a blatant failure). Their criterion is "peer-reviewed" publications. To make it more difficult, they have corrupted this normal process whereby they control almost 90% of manuscripts that are submitted for publication in this field [[b]12[/b]].

-Challenge, including inside your forum –or set up a dedicated blog or site for this purpose- the articles of the daily US press and the official publications in biomedical journals. I feel that you have sufficient knowledge, courage and good sense and are more experimented than the official ""waterpipe"" experts who have never inhaled a puff of a hookah in their lives.

-Publish, when you are ready (or sufficiently graduated...), your own studies so that the world understand that not only one researcher in the word is opposing the word anti-scientific consensus on hookah smoking but also other scientists. Think of launching a scientific journal (peer-reviewed, of course) for this purpose.

-You hookah boys connect with hookah girls who have relevantly highlighted the "morality" aspects of the war on hookah smoking [[b]14[/b]][[b]15[/b]].

-Discuss between yourselves, and even publicly, what is the very nature of Globalink, the FCTC, WHO TobReg and similar bodies.

-Raise awareness among your friends, families, etc.

-[b]Set up an Association for (scientific) truth about hookah smoking[/b]. This is the best thing you can do. There is not such a (visible) thing in your country if I mistake not. Thanks to it, you will be taken into account by journalists and even antismoking organisations. You will make them thinking twice before talking nonsense. Keep in mind that they seem powerful and omnipresent simply because, on the other side, there is nothing but a lack of coordination and organisation.

-Translate your own written materials and those you find relevant into other languages (Esperanto, Spanish, French, German, Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese, etc.)




Please accept my apology and convey my greetings to all of your friends.

Kind regards,

Kamal Chaouachi

______________

[1] Chaouachi K. List of "Knol" articles:

[color=#000000][u][url="http://knol.google.com/k/kamal-chaouachi/-/534k6mvefph/0#knols"]http://knol.google.c...6mvefph/0#knols[/url][/u][/color]

[2] Kozlowski, Kim. Michigan health leaders target growing hookah use. The Detroit News 2009 (Friday, Aug 14)

[u][url="http://detnews.com/article/20090814/LIFESTYLE03/908140351/1409/METRO/Mich.-health-leaders-target-growing-hookah-use"]http://detnews.com/a...wing-hookah-use[/url][/u]

[3] Chaouachi K. Human Health, ""Waterpipe"" (Hookah, Narghile, Shisha) Smoking and the Global Epidemic of Misrepresentations and Errors. SciTopics 2010 (10 Nov). Retrieved November 11, 2010, from [url="http://scitopics.com"]http://scitopics.com[/url]

[u][url="http://scitopics.com/Human_Health_Waterpipe_Hookah_Narghile_Shisha_Smoking_and_the_Global_Epidemic_of_Misrepresentations_and_Errors.html"]http://scitopics.com...and_Errors.html[/url][/u]

[4] Snowdon, Chris. A Global Prison ? [An interview with Doctor Kamal Chaouachi]. Velvet Glove, Iron Fist 2009 (8 Apr 2009)

[u][url="http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/kamal_chaouachi_interview.php"]http://www.velvetglo...i_interview.php[/url][/u]

[5] Chaouachi K. Prohibition Through the Hookah Looking-Glass (Speech). Version 14. Knol. 2010 Apr 3.

[u][url="http://knol.google.com/k/kamal-chaouachi/prohibition-through-the-hookah-looking/534k6mvefph/15"]http://knol.google.c.../534k6mvefph/15[/url][/u]

[6] 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.

[u][url="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/vol13/issue4/"]http://tobaccocontro...t/vol13/issue4/[/url][/u]

[7] Chaouachi K. [Comment] Errors and Publication Bias in Jordanian Study on Narghile (Hookah, Shisha) Tobacco Smoking. Harm Reduction Journal 2010 ([b]01 Sep[/b])[unpublished 24 nov 2010]

[u][url="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/7/1/10/comments#427672"]http://www.harmreduc...comments#427672[/url][/u]

[8] Dar-Odeh N, Bakri FG, Al-Omiri MK, Al-Mashni HM, Eimar HA, Khraisat AS, Abu-Hammad SMK, Dudeen AAF, Nur Abdallah M, Alkilani SMZ, Al-Shami L, Abu- Hammad OA. 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

[u][url="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/7/1/10"]http://www.harmreduc.../content/7/1/10[/url][/u]

[9] 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

[u][url="http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/mostviewed/alltime"]http://www.harmreduc...tviewed/alltime[/url][/u]

[10] 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]

[u][url="http://www.newash.org.uk/ash_4q8eg0ft.htm"]http://www.newash.or...sh_4q8eg0ft.htm[/url][/u]

[color=#28303b][11] [/color]Globalink, the world antismoking network of about 6,000 activists around the world, sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry (Pfizer laboratories among others)

[u][url="http://www.globalink.org/"]http://www.globalink.org[/url][/u]

[12] Chaouachi K. Globalink Undeclared Non-Financial Global Conflicts of Interest in Tobacco Smoking [Internet]. Knol 2010 (Sep 21)

[u][url="http://knol.google.com/k/kamal-chaouachi/globalink-undeclared-non-financial/534k6mvefph/18"]http://knol.google.c.../534k6mvefph/18[/url][/u]

[13] Tobacco news and information (permanent review by an antismoking organisation) of world shisha related press articles

[u][url="http://www.tobacco.org/articles/category/shisha/"]http://www.tobacco.o...ategory/shisha/[/url][/u]

[14] Hookah Girls. The Science of Hookah

[u][url="http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=app_2373072738&gid=36728608684"]http://www.facebook....gid=36728608684[/url][/u]

[15] Hookah Girls. "Morality: Making a decision"(The Science of Hookah)

[u][url="http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=36728608684&topic=6791"]http://www.facebook....8684&topic=6791[/url][/u]



[/quote]
[/quote]

To Mush or Chreees: can we make this (even just this quote) a sticky in one of the forums? it has a lot of information that i think would be useful for people looking for information on hookah

[mushrat]

If someone wants to take all the real info out of the rest of the conversation we may be able to do something with it.