The great Covid and smoking cover-up? • Hacker News Board

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#171

Post by psychphysic » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 10:23 PM UTC

This is neat I'll have to dig into it.

I love this kind of inconvenient result.

That said. Why was ivermectin and hydroxy-chloroquinine promoted so aggressively and successfully but not smoking?

That's similar to if the moon landing was fake why didn't the Soviets point it out?

I believe asthmatics were also not as negatively affected as initially expected. That was put down to them being more likely to shield and use of steroid inhaler. Maybe tar is good for the lungs?

That systematically reviewing a large body of evidence is tough and it's not clear the author has the chops for that. You don't just do a head count or just add it all up. He makes no mention of publication bias (does he know how to look for it?). He dismissed explanations without reason (the very same thing he accuses "they" or doing.).

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#172

Post by geofft » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 10:23 PM UTC

RajT88 wrote: post #168

akimball wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very actionable: Give nicotine to patients. No smoking required.

Yes. That is also a terrible idea. Worse than off-brand uses of other medications, because it is addictive on top of being unproven.

I was about to post roughly this comment, but then I remembered reading https://www.gwern.net/Nicotine a while ago:

> many asso⁣ci⁣a⁣tions with harm are con⁣founded by past or present to⁣bacco use [...] but when pure nicotine is ex⁣am⁣ined [...] the harms ap⁣peared min⁣i⁣mal: like all stim⁣u⁣lants, nico⁣tine may raise blood pres⁣sure some⁣what, and is ad⁣dic⁣tive to some de⁣gree, but the risks do not ap⁣pear much more strik⁣ingly harm⁣ful than caffeine [...] There is lit⁣tle ev⁣i⁣dence from the NRT [nicotine replacement therapy] lit⁣er⁣a⁣ture that ‘never-smokers’ like my⁣self are all that likely to be⁣come highly ad⁣dicted

(To be clear, I understand why the medical community would be hesitant to endorse this without it rising to the level of a "cover-up," but it seems like it's not as bad an idea as it intuitively sounds. But it's also unclear if the stimulant levels mentioned in that article are anywhere close to the levels relevant for covid.)

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#173

Post by ilrwbwrkhv » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 10:26 PM UTC

A coffee and cigar a day, keeps the doctor away.

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#174

Post by akimball » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 10:27 PM UTC

noelsusman wrote: post #99

This thread will surely devolve into a general repository for COVID contrarian angst, but the broader point in this article is an interesting one. I would summarize it by saying there's an asymmetry in evidence demanded for a claim based on whether or not it agrees with the conclusion obtained by reasoning from first principles. The author seems to be saying that rigorous, peer-reviewed, observational studies should…

Since the interactions of ACE2 and nicotine are well-known, my priors favor the benefit of nicotine in this pandemic. They remain neutral, consequently, with regard to smoking, because while smoking does deliver nicotine, it also does lung damage with heat and particulates, and delivers carcinogenic and oxidative creosotes.

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#175

Post by sacrosancty » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 10:29 PM UTC

akimball wrote: post #163

Fomite wrote: post #155

I don't think this has been particularly ignored - in epidemiology circles, the reaction, by and large was "Huh. That's weird - I wonder why that is?" But it's also not particularly actionable . In terms of a modifiable intervention, "Quick, everyone take up smoking!" is a horrible idea, so it remains in the domain of "A scientific curiosity, and a rare 'W' for one of the worst voluntary health risks one can have." T…

It is very actionable: Give nicotine to patients. No smoking required.

Was there any evidence that the nicotine was what helped, rather than the smoke or something else?

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#176

Post by xhkkffbf » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 10:30 PM UTC

akimball wrote: post #163

Fomite wrote: post #155

I don't think this has been particularly ignored - in epidemiology circles, the reaction, by and large was "Huh. That's weird - I wonder why that is?" But it's also not particularly actionable . In terms of a modifiable intervention, "Quick, everyone take up smoking!" is a horrible idea, so it remains in the domain of "A scientific curiosity, and a rare 'W' for one of the worst voluntary health risks one can have." T…

It is very actionable: Give nicotine to patients. No smoking required.

Are you sure nicotine is the active ingredient here that's mitigating the COVID? It's certainly what smokers crave but the COVID virus could be affected by some other part of the smoke.

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#177

Post by aradox66 » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 10:30 PM UTC

thenerdhead wrote: post #146

notahacker wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author has spent his entire career attacking anti-smoking campaigns both as an author and the reason why the Institute for Economic Affairs was Big Tobacco's favourite think tank, so assembling this sort of list of "evidence" is par for the course for him. Back in the day when "long COVID" was an unknown phenomenon and vaccines a dim and distant dream, the medical profession had already spotted the interesting co…

That would be wild if a treatment to long covid is smoking tobacco or nicotine patches. Mostly because no sane doctor would think to try that. How long did you try them for? I would imagine it would take awhile for your body to get acclimated to it for effects to take on. 4-6 weeks+

smoking cigarettes is also a well established treatment for ulcerative colitis symptoms. Usually not prescribed for the obvious reasons https://www.healthline.com/health/ulcerative-colitis-and-smo...

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#178

Post by akimball » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 10:36 PM UTC

xhkkffbf wrote: post #176

akimball wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very actionable: Give nicotine to patients. No smoking required.

Are you sure nicotine is the active ingredient here that's mitigating the COVID? It's certainly what smokers crave but the COVID virus could be affected by some other part of the smoke.

Sure? I am sure of very little. My priors (i.e. my physical model) favor the theory that nicotine prevents infection by blocking ACE2 receptors. I have no posterior inferences to confirm or refute the hypothesis.

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#179

Post by akimball » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 10:37 PM UTC

RajT88 wrote: post #168

akimball wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very actionable: Give nicotine to patients. No smoking required.

Yes. That is also a terrible idea. Worse than off-brand uses of other medications, because it is addictive on top of being unproven.

Yet it is strictly necessary in order to test the physical model.

Re: The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

#180

Post by fleddr » Mon, Dec 05, 2022, 10:39 PM UTC

DanAtC wrote: post #170

This publication is bordering on garbage https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/spiked-magazine/

As is your comment.

First, if it is biased, it should be trivially easy for you to refute the points made by the author.

Second, a biased publication does not make a biased article. I'm sure that when a far-right publication publishes a weather report, it's not optimized for "conservative views".