Submit a manuscript Sign up for article alerts Contact us Support

RSS

Latest comments

To the Editor of Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine (Kamal Chaouachi, 07 November 2007)

In response to the points raised by Drs Eissenberg, Maziak, Shihadeh and Ward, I offer the following comments:POINT 1- Because of the granted space for publication, I could not provide all details concerning Hoffmann et al's historical experiment on a Syrian shisha. All details -from puff volume and frequency, product used [tumbâk], to quality [including humidity] and quantity - were published in the Tetralogy on Hookah and Health [Ref 5-6, CWR (Critique of WHO Report)][1]. Hoffmann was certainly aware that the parameters he used were not so realistic.As for Rakower and Fatal [Ref 10, CWR], they used a puff volume of 200 ml based on a correct observation of narghile smokers at that time and that place (Jews from Yemen). I can confirm this because I have led field anthropological work... read full comment

Comment on: Chaouachi Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 5:17

In Reply to Dr Henningfield and Dr Dybing's Comment (Kamal Chaouachi, 25 August 2007)

Dear Editor,I would like to clarify that my thesis was not a “graduate” but a postgraduate doctoral one and that it was actually published (ANRT). The authors of the comment also doubt that the personal publications I had cited in the critique of the WHO report were peer-reviewed. Instead of drafting below a long detailed list of documents, let me inform Dr Henningfield and Dr Dybing that I will be happy to provide them with the full names of the academic teams (French research centres and universities among others) who have thoroughly peer-reviewed the corresponding manuscripts.-Concerning dose and compensatory smoking regarding nicotine, my own publications show that I have analysed and described in detail the corresponding process and findings as early as 1998 (see my... read full comment

Comment on: Chaouachi Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 5:17

Misrepresentations and conflict of interest in JNRBM (Thomas Eissenberg, 25 August 2007)

To the Editor of the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine:We are writing to address a commentary (Chaouachi, 2006) regarding the WHO TobReg Advisory Note on waterpipe tobacco smoking (WHO, 2005). This letter demonstrates two facts: 1) the commentary misrepresents data-based, peer-reviewed literature, and 2) the author does not disclose a competing interest. First, the commentary misrepresents the scientific literature and/or the TobReg Advisory Note. We will not list each such misrepresentation, but present five examples below:1) The commentary omits key features of the scientific literature to which it refers. For instance, the commentary highlights apparent “discrepancies” between “tar” yields in Hoffman et al (1963) and information described in the... read full comment

Comment on: Chaouachi Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 5:17

Response from the Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation of the World Health Organization (Gemma Vestal, 15 August 2007)

Dr Erik DybingDivision of Environmental Medicine Norwegian Institute of Public HealthP.O. Box 4404 NydalenNO-0403 OsloNorwayerik.dybing@fhi.noDr Jack HenningfieldPinney Associates3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1400Bethesda, Maryland 20814United States of Americajhenning@pinneyassociates.comTo the Editor of the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine:In response to the World Health Organization (WHO) Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation (TobReg) Advisory Note entitled Waterpipe Tobacco Smoking: Health Effects, Research Needs and Recommended Actions by Regulators (WHO, 2005), Dr. Kamal Chaouachi published a commentary that purports to examine critically the Advisory Note. We are writing on our own behalf and in response to a request from the Tobacco Free Initiative Department of WHO... read full comment

Comment on: Chaouachi Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 5:17

Corrigenda to this article (Daniel A. Wagenaar, 27 February 2007)

Corrigenda to this article have been published [1]. Please visit http://www.jnrbm.com/content/6/1/3 or http://www.biology.ucsd.edu/~dwagenaa/jnrbm to view them.[1] Wagenaar DA, Pine J, Potter SM: Correction: Searching for plasticity in dissociated cortical cultures on multi-electrode arrays. J. Negat. Results BioMed. 2007, 6:3. read full comment

Comment on: Wagenaar et al. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 5:16

*This Article has a Published Correction* (Steve Potter, 27 February 2007)

Please see our correction to this article onhttp://www.jnrbm.com/content/6/1/3After publication of this article we became aware that the numerical codes for two of the datasets, protocols III.3 and III.4, were inadvertently confused during the writing of the paper. The main conclusions of the paper are unchanged, but a number of important corrigenda have been noted on the page linked above. read full comment

Comment on: Wagenaar et al. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 5:16

Alternative explanation for decline in statin studies (An-Wen Chan, 17 August 2005)

Shafiq and colleagues present an interesting review of the many postulated indications for statins in healthcare. We would like to comment briefly on their hypothesis and conclusion that statin research may be on the decline. This assertion was based on an apparent decline in the number of annual citations identified on PubMed, from over 1600 citations in 2003 to fewer than 1200 citations in 2004. We have an alternative explanation for the presumed decline in citations identified from 2004. The indexing date of citations on PubMed falls well behind the actual publication dates in journals. For example, we conducted repeated PubMed searches for clinical trials published in December 2000, and found that citations identified from identical search strategies continued to be added to the... read full comment

Comment on: Shafiq et al. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 4:3

The interpretation of negative results demands more caution than exhibited here (Andy Lynch, 09 June 2005)

The concept of a journal for publishing ‘negative’ results arising from rigorous studies is sound, and as a tool to counter publication bias it has clear merit (although whether it is uniformly of benefit in this matter is open to debate). However there are a number of possible explanations for a negative result and care must be taken not to over-interpret such a finding. The oft-used motto ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ [1] has perhaps never been more at home than it would be if adopted by the JNRBM.This article by Stenberg et al. [2] causes me concern with regard to two issues. One is how the authors interpret their results, and the other is the level of information provided to allow others to interpret the results. The authors state that they... read full comment

Comment on: Stenberg et al. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 3:6

Full supporter of your initiative (Gaël Hédou, 01 July 2003)

Dear editors of JNRBM,I wanted to tell you how your initiative in founding this journal really rings a bell in my mind. I think it represents exactly what was crutially missing in the field. To my point of view there is however no real negative results but so far only so-called positive ones received attention and I always wondered why. The thing is that minds have to drastically change in order for scientists to consider those so-called negative results being critical in potentially explaining the diffulties one ever encounters while trying to design and test new experiments, drugs or chemicals and to challenge widely accepted theories. These results are as important as the ones from "succeeding" experiments. While proceeding with this email I'm feeling the semantic difficulty of only... read full comment

Comment on: Pfeffer et al. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine, 1:2