The great Covid and smoking cover-up?

First of all, I didnt really deep dive into it, if those 87 studies really exist.

Some ideas:

1) Smokers go outside more and have more vitamin D which helps against covid?

2) smokers are on average less obese than non smokers? A lot of people smoke in order to cut hunger

3) breaks? To be honest sometimes I wish I smoked

4) fresh air?

5) some sort of mechanism that of the lungs can repair themselves after smoking it also stops the virus?

6) something inside the cigarettes stopping the virus?

The article mentions how smokers reacted better when given nicotine patches, bur doesnt this just mean that their bodies didnt have to fight "two" things at the same time: covid and nicotine withdrawal?

On a side note, were there any real studies if those who died of covid didnt have a co infecfion with something else? Reports that said that in some countries various drugs would work, sounded a bit like each country had their own co infecrions treated by that particular drug.

This is such a horribly immature statement to make. There are many chemicals in cigarettes that can be utilized to either prevent or understand how Covid infects the human body, and what we can do to stop it. The nicotonic receptors are highly utilized by the immune system.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11062-007-0037-2

I’m really getting tired of this lack of creative thought in thinking about health and disease.

Having read the article and the comments here, I feel like we're missing the main point.

The point of the article wasn't actually about smoking. At least that's not what I took from it.

I also don't think the author is genuinely claiming there's a conspiracy here.

Instead, what I took from it, is that being a scientist does not mean you're immune to prejudicial opinion, and that the scientific community is not immune to its own dogmas.

In theory, the scientific method should resolve that. But in practice, scientists (including the medical community) are just as apt as anyone to want to confirm their biases and dismiss difficult evidence.

I also think when it comes to anything involving public policy, things can quickly devolve to no longer being about scientific inquiry but rather about supporting or attacking positions.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the author just wants everyone to start smoking and stop listening to their doctors. But that's not how it came across to me.

I think it's more a call for critical thinking and fairness. Just because an issue has been politicized, doesn't mean we should pick a side.

For what it's worth, I'm opposed to smoking and and supportive of vaccines. But if the day comes where there is strong evidence to suggest switching positions on that, I'd like to think I'll be open minded enough to do so.

Final point, briefly touched on in the article: Nicotine deserves more research. Almost all research on nicotine is in terms of smoking tobacco. Nicotine on its own could very well prove to be an important medical drug.

Same for all drugs... THC, CBD, whatever the active substance in cocaine and heroin are. They should all be studies rigorously and without moral judgment.

> the incorrect claim that “back then Big Tech’s fact-checkers were still describing claims about SARS-CoV-2 being airborne and face masks preventing infection as ‘misleading’”.

This is a not an incorrect claim, it is a correct claim.

News to me - credible link please.