Scientific paper claiming smokers less likely to acquire Covid retracted over tobacco industry links

[Judi Lynn]

Analysis of the paper identified several biases ‘which may give the false impression that smoking is protective in Covid-19’

Melissa Davey
@MelissaLDavey
Thu 22 Apr 2021 01.07 EDT

A scientific paper claiming current smokers are 23% less likely to be diagnosed with Covid-19 compared to non-smokers has been retracted by a medical journal, after it was discovered some of the paper’s authors had financial links to the tobacco industry.

The World Health Organization has warned that because smoking impairs lung function, there is an increased risk of severe symptoms if respiratory infections, including coronaviruses, are acquired by smokers. Covid-19 is an infectious disease that primarily attacks the lungs.

But the paper, published in July last year by the European Respiratory Journal, found “current smoking was not associated with adverse outcome” in patients admitted to hospital with Covid, and claimed smokers were at a significantly lower risk of acquiring the virus. The paper was reported on by several mainstream media outlets.

The latest edition of the European Respiratory Journal included a retraction notice for the paper, stating: “It was brought to the editors’ attention that two of the authors had failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest at the time of the manuscript’s submission.”

More:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/apr/22/scientific-paper-claiming-smokers-less-likely-to-acquire-covid-retracted-over-tobacco-industry-links

[Sedona]

1. Mr Sedona is a smoker

and has gone to very great lengths to avoid getting the virus. ALWAYS masking and using gloves anywhere in public, even masking in his four person office. Hand washing is off the hook. I have been doing the same to protect us both.

I wouldn't be surprised if many smokers are going further in their avoidance of the virus making smokers en mass less likely to catch it.

[Tanuki]

2. There are holes in the study that are big enough to drive a truck through.

From the link:
"An analysis for the journal BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine “identified several biases and knowledge gaps which may give the false impression that smoking is protective in Covid-19”.

The authors of that paper said there had been several studies that reported a so-called “smoker’s paradox” with Covid-19, suggesting smokers might somehow be protected from infection and severe complications.

“As of now, the data supporting smoker’s paradox claims are limited and questionable,” the review found.

“In the context of smoking and Covid-19, poor data collection can lead to several erroneous conclusions. If patients with missing smoking data are not eliminated from the total pool, smokers may be wrongly underrepresented. Furthermore, it is difficult to get accurate history from patients who are either intubated or in respiratory failure.

“If data from these patients are missing, and these patients are not removed from the denominator, it can give a false impression that smokers are less likely to develop severe disease. Second, it must be noted that most published studies have not reported the duration (years) or frequency (number of cigarettes) of smoking, hence these cannot be accounted for.”

[diverdownjt]

3. As a former cig. smoker and a current....

hash smoker....my lungs now are slightly irritated due too the inhalation of smoke...giving them...I think...
a slight advantage because the virus can't get to clear lung tissue...a little mucus in the upper respiratory
tract help's a lot I think. If nothing else I'm happier. This is just my opinion of my health for me.
Not advocating anything.

[Scrivener7]

5. The article is explaining why there is no reason for you to believe smoking offers any protection.

[diverdownjt]

6. Yes I know...

I was talking only about me...personally...end of story. and my experiences and thoughts on the matter.

[Scrivener7]

9. I saw a video once of a woman who insisted that she was "washed in the blood of Jesus" and

because she was a believer she wouldn't get Covid. She got Covid.

Your thoughts that smoking protects you in the face of the science that says it doesn't reminds me of that.

Mask up. Get vaccinated.

[hurple]

12. My hypothesis

I think it's the heat of inhaling the smoke.

The virus is inhaled, but since most smokers take regular breaks to smoke, think hourly, the heat of inhaling the smoke kills the virus before it can gain purchase in the lungs.

But, I am not an infectious disease expert, so I am just speculating.

[Scrivener7]

4. There was so much misinformation about Covid rolling around for so long.

We pay a lot for that CDC and it failed us completely. That study went viral for a while in those early months. The CDC should have been monitoring for misinformation and warning us about it.

[diverdownjt]

7. Don't forget who was trying to wreck the CDC...

and hamper their work when this first started.

[Scrivener7]

8. Yes. And their job was to be the voice against that kind of thing. Otherwise, what good are they?

[Kid Berwyn]

10. Greedy bastards never quit.

Then there’s the tobacco industry.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

11. Hmmm. So they were claiming that the very thing that

totally destroys your lungs will keep you from getting a virus that can also totally destroy your lungs? Practically the definition of cognitive dissonance.

It never fails to amaze me how completely in denial smokers are.

Oh, and I really doubt that overall more smokers are extremely diligent about handwashing and masking and the like than nonsmokers.

[hurple]

13. You are misrepresenting the speculation, I believe

Smokers might be less likely to become COVID positive, which could be possible for a few reasons.

But, if they do become COVID positive they are FAR more likely to have a severe reaction and FAR more likely to die from it.

So, it is not claiming smoking is a "get out of COVID jail free" card. Not at all.