3 ms·

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 bee

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.

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.