3 ms·
> You named a hypothesis but the experiment doesn't test that hypothesis does it? This paper doesn't claim to be an experiment to test that hypothesis. That's
by ebg13 7y ago
> You named a hypothesis but the experiment doesn't test that hypothesis does it?
This paper doesn't claim to be an experiment to test that hypothesis. That's all you.
This paper claims to be a data record highlighting an interesting trend for future experimentation.
The hypothesis for cause is in the DISCUSSION section at the end and references things that we already know about interactions between nicotine, ACE2, and sars-cov-2.
- LatteLazy 7y agoCall it what you like, experiment or report, hypothesis (your word) or trend (I think this the wrong term but I can't think of abetter one...). As it is, they have found nothing because they did such a bad job of looking. Leaving aside that apparently 601% of patients were men (now there is a concerning trend), they haven't tested nicotine or smokers because their methods don't differentiate the Corona cases involving those factors from ones that don't. Nicotine could kill every user and this study wouldn't find that, nicotine could make its users immortal and this study wouldn't notice. That's what makes it bad: they found nothing because they did a bad job of looking. This is a badly dressed up version of "my aunt smoked and she lived to be 97 so it can't be all bad".