The truth

DO you really want the truth? Can you handle the truth?  Are you inclined to seek out sources that give you constant reassurance that what you believe is true? Do you ever look for sources that contradict what you believe? When I hear something or am  told something I automatically view it as a lie or disinformation. Are you the type of person that wants to kill the messenger? I have read a couple of articles showing that smokers are a lot less likely to get the covid 19 Virus . I was of course immediately shot on site for posting so to speak. Not one person even read it or considered the evidence. If it were shown by several studies  that smoking reduces the risk of getting a virus would you just reject it because it challenges your belief that smoking is always bad. If it were absolutely proved that smoking would keep you from getting a life threatening  virus would you smoke? 

wrong

Your one piece of evidence does not outweigh the 100 other sources that see the connection

I posted no sources as I new people like you would reject any and all that I would post regardless of credible sources. I didn't post any on purpose because only those who are really open to having their beliefs challenged will research what I said. 

So you didn’t post sources to a very unpopular claim and you just expect people to believe versus you talking crazy? Ok man

Meh, as long as you dont smoke 1000+ chemicals and tar added, smoking isnt a BAD thing. It becomes bad when you add the stuff and smoke more than a pack a week. Etc. 

I didn't expect anyone to believe anything. As I said, I didn't post any sources because the reaction would be to just shoot the messenger, kinda like you are. If you were interested and had an open mind you would research the findings.  But I don't think you are interested so there isn't much else to say.

Here ya go. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8264635/More-proof-smokers-risk-catching-coronavirus-expert-admits-weird.html?ito=social-facebook&fbclid=IwAR30LZO-Sr1VyLpaKreE3hFX6ZK9SuSZFH-0Sjy0yRaeZtm3H9ZUp0p9P8A

2 of the studies included in the analysis concluded that "smokers were 43 per cent more likely to see their disease progress than those who had never smoked." 6 found no notable difference, which is not equivalent to discovering a causal factor, but it does not prove that smoking decreases the chance of dying from the virus. Also, the studies had widely differing sample sizes (some less than 50 people) and the published results aren't conclusive. The 41-patient Wuhan study only measured who ended up in ICU, and yes, none of ICU patients were smokers. But, it should be noted that the study only employed data from 3 smokers.  Let me ask you this: Is it possible that three obese, yet young people in otherwise good health, elude being placed in ICU? Obviously so, since obesity is only one factor. Another study utilized for the meta analysis comprising of 191 subjects only included data for 11 smokers. 6% of the subjects were smokers, 9% of the smoking population died, and 4% survived. Does this seem conclusive given the sample size? Also, a few other studies included in the meta analysis find that smoking is an moderate predictor of mortality as a result of contracting the virus. One study with 1,099 subjects found that a significantly higher percentage of severe cases happened to be smokers. Analyzing the first 5 studies included in the UCL meta analysis, researchers from the University of Crete and Harvard suggested that smokers are less likely to contract the disease, but more likely to suffer complications should they get Covid-19 (1). Irrespective of the study's results, it also must be determined to what extent self-reported smoking data is accurate. It's impossible to know how alleged non-smokers were telling the truth due to social desirability bias (when people lie during self-reports due to the inextricable stigma attached to what is being polled, which in this case, would be smoking.) Underestimated smoking data caused by a dearth of accurate self-reports has precedent (2).

Sources

1.http://www.tobaccoinduceddiseases.org/COVID-19-and-smoking-A-systematic-review-of-the-evidence%2c119324%2c0%2c2.html

2.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246437

Thank you

It's a study, it shows reasonable peculiarities that defy conventional thinking. I never set out or intended it to be a closed case . I find it interesting that they even published it give the automatic confirmation bias about smoking.

I would actually expect the opposite. Publications tend to favor studies that find a causal link between 2 variables (1).

Reasonable peculiarities might have been shown (I can't access the actual study, so no dice on looking at other methodological flaws unless I continue to pick at the Daily Mail article,) but peculiarities are hardly a valid substitute for actual proof. As I stated previously, there is no irrefutable evidence suggesting that smoking decreases one's chances of catching or surviving Covid-19. What is apparent is that certain comorbid diseases elevate the risk of dying to Covid-19, particularly coronary heart disease, myocardial injury, cancer, diabetes, and hypertension (2) (3). The average death rate for those afflicted with cardiovascular diseases is 10% (4). Smoking induces cardiovascular complications in the body, causing plaque buildup in arteries and alterations in blood chemistry (5). Long-term smokers would probably bear the brunt of the virus, which puts young smokers at an advantage. I'd be curious to know if all 20-some studies analyzed control for this.

I am not attacking the validity of the premise - that nicotine can inhibit the impact/spread of Covid-19 - but skepticism is an innate response to this evidence in the face of social desirability bias, widely differing sample sizes (some that border on absurd,) and conflicting studies. The fact that the study with the largest sample size, utilizing the most hospitals, found radically different results than the more compact studies with fewer smokers should raise doubts. 

2.https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046941

The take away I get from it is that statistically smokers should be affected more but they are not. So much less that it baffles science and conventional thinking.  

this claim is very popular actually among researchers. smokers have a lower mortality rate and a lot of hospitals are experimenting with nicotine patches for the infected. Once I get more money I am going to start supplementing with mild doses of nicotine which seem pretty healthy for you as well.

it isn't that baffling. I dug into the science a bit and this is from memory but a lot of deaths happen from the immune system fighting the virus too hard, and what the nicotine does is kinda act as an immuno suppresant

Irrefutable evidence of anything is hard to come by, this is an unfair standard of proof. Particularly since your next post clearly does not have irrefutable evidence to back it up. 

I never said that irrefutable evidence is necessary to prove that smoking somehow prevented Covid-19. In fact, I don't categorically reject the premise that nicotine could prevent Covid-19. It's premature to call it the truth based on this meta analysis when clear methodological issues tarnish some of the studies chosen. Even the authors of the meta analysis study against drawing conclusions based on nicotine intake and Covid-19.

The biological effects of smoking are pretty well documented, especially as it pertains to cardiovascular problems. Do you take issue with a causal link being drawn between smoking and cardiovascular problems?

Estimates of false negatives are scant, but available research suggests that the false negative rate is 15% for the faster variety of tests (3). Getting a clear, post-mortem diagnosis, as it turns out, is difficult, and subject to CDC procedures that involve looking at medical histories, autopsies, lab tests, and current medical records (4). States beset by a torrential deluge of Covid-19 patients are unlikely to to up to date with death rates when hospital beds are filled with withering patients. This is not to say that the way that states go about analyzing records is at all uniform. Alabama, for instance, excludes those who tested positive for Covid-19 but didn't suffer from respiratory issues (5). When ProPublica compiled data on Covid-19 hotspots in multiple states, they found that the number of deaths not taking place in a nursing home or hospital had jumped in NY from 35 deaths per day (the average rate of at-home death from 2013-2017) to nearly 200 (5). Similar findings were observed in Detroit (5). An increase in at home deaths deserves mention because it illustrates that more people are dying under circumstances that would preclude a definite diagnosis. This problem is compounded by the fact that the first person who died from the virus did so weeks before what was previously thought, indicating that the unusually high flu rate could have been mistaken for Covid-19 (6) (7).

I wouldn't advise smoking. It's clearly unhealthy over all. Even if it does have some mild health benefits,  such as an increased visual ability. If adults want to supplement a bit with nicotine patches I can see it being a good ideal, particularly if they are part of a vulnerable population that can be easily killed by covid19, because they will get it, and will need to maximize their chances of survival. We will all get it once, and probably only once. 

Biohackers have known forever that despite it's addictiveness, supplementing with nicotine through means such as gum for example, they can derive a lot of health benefits. 

It is my personal belief that the more vulnerable to death a person is, the more they should jump at some of the knowledge on the bleeding edge of science, particularly when it comes to something really easy to do, with very little draw backs, such as supplementing with a very small dose of nicotine daily. 

I never consider civil discourse rude. You are stating your opinion based on the sources you choose to be acceptable to form that opinion. I have done the same.