Defending legitimate epidemiologic research: combating Lysenko pseudoscience

Hookah (Shisha, Narghile) Smoking and Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS). A critical review of the relevant literature and the public health consequences

Hookah (narghile, shisha, "water-pipe") smoking is now seen by public health officials as a global tobacco epidemic. Cigarette Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) is classically understood as a combination of Side-Stream Smoke (SSS) and Exhaled Main-Stream Smoke (EMSS), both diluted and aged. Some of the corresponding cigarette studies have served as the scientific basis for stringent legislation on indoor smoking across the world. Interestingly, one of the distinctive traits of the hookah device is that it generates almost no SSS. Indeed, its ETS is made up almost exclusively by the smoke exhaled by the smoker (EMSS), i.e. which has been filtered by the hookah at the level of the bowl, inside the water, along the hose and then by the smoker's respiratory tract itself. The present paper reviews the sparse and scattered scientific evidence available about hookah EMSS and the corresponding inferences that can be drawn from the composition of cigarette EMSS. The reviewed literature shows that most of hookah ETS is made up of EMSS and that the latter qualitatively differs from MSS. Keeping in mind that the first victim of passive smoking is the active smoker her/himself, the toxicity of hookah ETS for non-smokers should not be overestimated and hyped in an unscientific way.

Hookah smoking and cancer: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels in exclusive/ever hookah smokers

Background

We have recently published some work on CEA levels in hookah (also called narghile, shisha elsewhere) and cigarette smokers. Hookah smokers had higher levels of CEA than non-smokers although mean levels were low compared to cigarette smokers. However some of them were also users of other tobacco products (cigarettes, bidis, etc.).

Objectives

To find serum CEA levels in ever/exclusive hookah smokers, i.e. those who smoked only hookah (no cigarettes, bidis, etc.), prepared between 1 and 4 times a day with a quantity of up to 120 g of a tobacco-molasses mixture each (i.e. the tobacco weight equivalent of up to 60 cigarettes of 1 g each) and consumed in 1 to 8 sessions.

Methods

Enhanced chemiluminescent immunometric technique was applied to measure CEA levels in serum samples from 59 exclusive male smokers with age ranging from 20–80 years (mean = 58.8 ± 14.7 years) and 8–65 years of smoking (mean = 37.7 ± 16.8). 36 non-smokers served as controls. Subjects were divided into 3 groups according to the number of preparations; the number of sessions and the total daily smoking time: Light (1; 1; ≤ 20 minutes); Medium (1–3; 1–3; >20 min to ≤ 2 hrs) and Heavy smokers (2–4; 3–8; >2 hrs to ≤ 6 hrs). Because of the nature of distribution of CEA levels among our individuals, Wilcoxon's rank sum two-sample test was applied to compare the variables.

Results

The overall CEA levels in exclusive hookah smokers (mean: 3.58 ± 2.61 ng/ml; n = 59) were not significantly different (p ≤ 0.0937) from the levels in non-smokers (2.35 ± 0.71 ng/ml). Mean levels in light, medium and heavy smokers were: 1.06 ± 0.492 ng/ml (n = 5); 2.52 ± 1.15 ng/ml (n = 28) and 5.11 ± 3.08 ng/ml (n = 26) respectively. The levels in medium smokers and non-smokers were also not significantly different (p ≤ 0.9138). In heavy smokers, the CEA levels were significantly higher than in non-smokers (p ≤ 0.0001567).

Conclusion

Overall CEA levels in exclusive hookah smokers were low compared to cigarette smokers. However, heavy hookah smoking substantially raises CEA levels. Low-nitrosamines smokeless tobacco of the SNUS Swedish type could be envisaged as an alternative to smoking for this category of users and also, in a broad harm reduction perspective, to the prevalent low-quality moist snuff called naswar.

Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science

This commentary accompanies two articles submitted to Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations in response to a call for papers about threats to epidemiology or epidemiologists from organized political interests. Contrary to our expectations, we received no submissions that described threats from industry or government; all were about threats from anti-tobacco activists. The two we published, by James E. Enstrom and Michael Siegel, both deal with the issue of environmental tobacco smoke. This commentary adds a third story of attacks on legitimate science by anti-tobacco activists, the author's own experience. These stories suggest a willingness of influential anti-tobacco activists, including academics, to hurt legitimate scientists and turn epidemiology into junk science in order to further their agendas. The willingness of epidemiologists to embrace such anti-scientific influences bodes ill for the field's reputation as a legitimate science.