4 ms·

If that were true you'd be able to show it convincingly with COVID-19 demographic surveys. The fact this argues for an experimental treatment that could be haza

If that were true you'd be able to show it convincingly with COVID-19 demographic surveys. The fact this argues for an experimental treatment that could be hazardous (even fatal) without first having reviewed available demographic data or arguing for a study to obtain it makes me question the ethics of what they're proposing. For example other studies have looked at this question and found nicotine to be a risk factor: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/studies-smoking-age-other-factors-raise-risk-covid-19-death https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/studies-...

mannykannot 7y ago
Of course the paper involves speculation (though, as others have pointed out, it is not as unsupported as you suggest), but there's nothing unusual, let alone wrong, about that. If the possible usefulness of nicotine could not be discussed until it was proven to be both an effective and safe treatment, we would never find out if it were either. Nor is there anything wrong in considering whether it could lead to a feasible treatment, as that is an important consideration in how vigorously to follow up. Your ethical concerns seem to be overblown and premature. By itself, this paper will have no effect on policy.
dahfizz 7y ago
The article you link shows smoking to be a risk factor. That's why you can't do this with demographic surveys: Smoking != tobacco != nicotine. Nicotine has been shown to be a dangerous chemical all on its own, but that's also true of almost any drug taken without medical regulation or supervision. Whether this is safe to do or not should be left to the professionals.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  From the thread's link: > propose nicotine and nicotinic orthosteric and/or allosteric agents as a possible therapy for SARS-CoV-2 infection. So nicotine's safety is absolutely relevant to the topic at hand. > Whether this is safe to do or not should be left to the professionals. Professionals have to consider the ethics and available data when proposing a study. Considering this paper doesn't reference the available data (nor propose gathering) it is reasonable to question that. There's a long history of immoral science occurring during periods of national and international strife, so I believe oversight, harm reduction, and due diligence remain important considerations.
  - contravariant 7y ago
    Maybe I'm blinded by medical jargon, but where in that sentence are they proposing administering nicotine through smoking tobacco?
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > I'm not sure if you read the thread's link before responding but they're proposing using smoking as a treatment vector I did read it, at no point did I see them proposing smoking as treatment. Rather, they're proposing nicotine patches. > There's a long history of immoral science occurring during periods of national and international strife, so I believe oversight, harm reduction, and due diligence remain important considerations. Even if it was administered by smoking, nicotine would be about as safe a drug as you can find at that dose. You'd be hard pressed to find a case where somebody died upon smoking their first cigarette. Aspirin, Paracetamol or Ibuprofin are way more dangerous than that. It would be undue diligence not to investigate this potential treatment vector, even if it turns out to be some weird statistical artifact.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- twomoretime 7y ago
  >Nicotine has been shown to be a dangerous chemical all on its own Excluding overdose I've never come across a study which showed nicotine (not tobacco) was inherently harmful. >but that's also true of almost any drug taken without medical regulation or supervision The vast majority of prescription and over the counter drugs are safe for the vast majority of the population, regardless of supervision. But I agree with your comment regarding demographic surveys.
selectodude 7y ago
"Compared to the French general population, the Covid-19 population exhibited a significantly weaker current daily smoker rate by 80.3 % for outpatients and by 75.4 % for inpatients. Thus, current smoking status appears to be a protective factor against the infection by SARS-CoV-2. Although the chemistry of tobacco smoke is complex, these data are consistent with the hypothesis that its protective role takes place through direct action on various types of nAChRs expressed in neurons, immune cells (including macrophages), cardiac tissue, lungs, and blood vessels." Edit: here's another paper. "The current study examined for the first time the prevalence of current smoking among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in China. An unusually low prevalence of current smoking among hospitalized COVID-19 cases in China was observed when considering the population smoking prevalence. The pooled prevalence observed in the 13 studies analyzed was approximately 1/4th the population prevalence. Consistently low prevalence of current smoking was observed in all studies." https://www.qeios.com/read/article/561 https://www.qeios.com/read/article/561

mannykannot 7y ago

Of course the paper involves speculation (though, as others have pointed out, it is not as unsupported as you suggest), but there's nothing unusual, let alone wrong, about that. If the possible usefulness of nicotine could not be discussed until it was proven to be both an effective and safe treatment, we would never find out if it were either. Nor is there anything wrong in considering whether it could lead to a feasible treatment, as that is an important consideration in how vigorously to follow up. Your ethical concerns seem to be overblown and premature. By itself, this paper will have no effect on policy.

dahfizz 7y ago

The article you link shows smoking to be a risk factor. That's why you can't do this with demographic surveys: Smoking != tobacco != nicotine. Nicotine has been shown to be a dangerous chemical all on its own, but that's also true of almost any drug taken without medical regulation or supervision. Whether this is safe to do or not should be left to the professionals.

Someone1234 7y ago
From the thread's link: > propose nicotine and nicotinic orthosteric and/or allosteric agents as a possible therapy for SARS-CoV-2 infection. So nicotine's safety is absolutely relevant to the topic at hand. > Whether this is safe to do or not should be left to the professionals. Professionals have to consider the ethics and available data when proposing a study. Considering this paper doesn't reference the available data (nor propose gathering) it is reasonable to question that. There's a long history of immoral science occurring during periods of national and international strife, so I believe oversight, harm reduction, and due diligence remain important considerations.
- contravariant 7y ago
  Maybe I'm blinded by medical jargon, but where in that sentence are they proposing administering nicotine through smoking tobacco?
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > I'm not sure if you read the thread's link before responding but they're proposing using smoking as a treatment vector I did read it, at no point did I see them proposing smoking as treatment. Rather, they're proposing nicotine patches. > There's a long history of immoral science occurring during periods of national and international strife, so I believe oversight, harm reduction, and due diligence remain important considerations. Even if it was administered by smoking, nicotine would be about as safe a drug as you can find at that dose. You'd be hard pressed to find a case where somebody died upon smoking their first cigarette. Aspirin, Paracetamol or Ibuprofin are way more dangerous than that. It would be undue diligence not to investigate this potential treatment vector, even if it turns out to be some weird statistical artifact.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
twomoretime 7y ago
>Nicotine has been shown to be a dangerous chemical all on its own Excluding overdose I've never come across a study which showed nicotine (not tobacco) was inherently harmful. >but that's also true of almost any drug taken without medical regulation or supervision The vast majority of prescription and over the counter drugs are safe for the vast majority of the population, regardless of supervision. But I agree with your comment regarding demographic surveys.

selectodude 7y ago

"Compared to the French general population, the Covid-19 population exhibited a significantly weaker current daily smoker rate by 80.3 % for outpatients and by 75.4 % for inpatients. Thus, current smoking status appears to be a protective factor against the infection by SARS-CoV-2. Although the chemistry of tobacco smoke is complex, these data are consistent with the hypothesis that its protective role takes place through direct action on various types of nAChRs expressed in neurons, immune cells (including macrophages), cardiac tissue, lungs, and blood vessels." Edit: here's another paper. "The current study examined for the first time the prevalence of current smoking among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in China. An unusually low prevalence of current smoking among hospitalized COVID-19 cases in China was observed when considering the population smoking prevalence. The pooled prevalence observed in the 13 studies analyzed was approximately 1/4th the population prevalence. Consistently low prevalence of current smoking was observed in all studies." https://www.qeios.com/read/article/561 https://www.qeios.com/read/article/561