Covid & The Smokers Paradox

Firstly we have the general suppression of anything that could help covid except vaccines, and secondly, we have the fact that it's politically correct to always despise tobacco under any circumstances, so society/media etc. are VERY hard pressed to admit that smoking could have any upsides.

As I told others in 2020, I've been preparing for this pandemic my whole life!

I wonder if cannabis smoke would apply the same logic as tobacco.

I do know that there are a few studies about CBD and THC in regards to their ability to protect against SARS-COV-2.

cannabis and covid

CBD inhibits SARS-COV-2

Google/ Brave/ Duck search should find more as well.

a reply to: infolurker

Worldwide studies of the harm tobacco smoking does should cancel out any protection it MAY (you said you can't find verifiable/repeatable studies to corroborate this) offer.

This and other studies of this kind are from the GBD 2019 Tobacco Collaborators -

We modelled multiple smoking-related indicators from 3625 nationally representative surveys. We completed systematic reviews and did Bayesian meta-regressions for 36 causally linked health outcomes to estimate non-linear dose-response risk curves for current and former smokers. We used a direct estimation approach to estimate attributable burden, providing more comprehensive estimates of the health effects of smoking than previously available.

In the absence of intervention, the annual toll of 7·69 million deaths and 200 million disability-adjusted life-years attributable to smoking will increase over the coming decades. Substantial progress in reducing the prevalence of smoking tobacco use has been observed in countries from all regions and at all stages of development, but a large implementation gap remains for tobacco control. Countries have a clear and urgent opportunity to pass strong, evidence-based policies to accelerate reductions in the prevalence of smoking and reap massive health benefits for their citizens.

www.thelancet.com...(21)01169-7/fulltext#%20

a reply to: quintessentone

wow how scary those statistics are!! Truly you are a pro.

I am going to round up on those death statistics to 10 million smokers dying per year. What you don't say is that most smokers die 3 months earlier than a non-smoker. out of 8 billion people on the planet that amounts to a death rate only 0.123. Honestly, I don't think the planet will miss us. And truthfully, how are smokers obliged to live an average of 3 months longer just to ease the grief of loved ones.

Should activities that result in death like skiers or moutain climbers also be banned by the government to "save lives"

Further, smoker deaths are "presumed" death as there is no proof that smokers died of smokers.Every study you refer to is an overservational study and not considered scientific. Observational studies are conducted for the sole purpose of identifying areas where a hard scientific study might be worthwhile

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

If smoking was a dangerous pastime and caused excess deaths, the government would not be banning it. Using flip logic, the reality is that the opposite is most probably true.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I'm not any pro, the facts are the facts.

a reply to: quintessentone

Are they facts or just statistics? real research has already been done on lung cancer rates. The MSM ignores the fact that Japan and Greece have the highest smoking rate per capita, but the lowest rates of lung cancer. This is a very inconvenient fact if you want to ban smoking, but never let a real fact get in the way of a politically driven push. The obvious fact is that lung cancer rates started to climb in 1945 and haven't stopped, except in smokers. www.sott.net...

a reply to: quintessentone


Oh I completely agree!!

Observational studies are NOT science. They are intended to highlight areas that might be worthy of hard science, including lab work. All observational studies are soft science for the simple reason, that when the observed numbers are tilted in the direction that you like, you simply stop counting.

No death has ever, and I do mean ever, been proven to be "caused" by smoking. It is always "associated with" or "linked to". The result of such studies in relation to smoking is always "shocking" but they fail to provide the information that any result of less than 400 % means nothing. The only disease that has ever exceeded 400 % is lung cancer but hard science was unable to prove that smoking "causes" lung cancer and in fact as per the original poster stated.

Its like when anti-tobacco campaigners claimed that smoking caused cervical cancer. But they already knew that HPV was the likely culprit and in fact was proved to be the cause. Obervation studies picked up an "association" with smoking as the cause of cervical cancer. They compared nuns and prostitutes and noted that smoking prostitutes had a higher incidence of cervical cancer. But hard science looked further and found that a higher number of partners was the cause. And HPV was discovered. Thank goodness that the hard scientific work was done as we now have a vaccine. It also proved for the first time that cancer can be caused by a virus.

HPV has also been identified as a cause of lung cancers but varies widely from country to country. To date at least 130 strains of HPV have been identified. Of these know strains, 12 are now known to be high risk.