This paper has a deeply obfuscatory tone I tend to associate with liars. Slogging through the words, here's the money shot: > A potential protective effect of

This paper has a deeply obfuscatory tone I tend to associate with liars. Slogging through the words, here's the money shot: > A potential protective effect of smoking and of nicotine on SARS-CoV-2 infection has been noted. Until recently [39], no firm conclusions could be drawn from studies evaluating the rates of current smokers in Covid-19. All these studies [40-48], although reporting low rates of current smokers, ranging from 1.4% to 12.5%, did not take into account the main potential confounders of smoking including age and sex. In the study that two of us are reporting [1], the rates of current smoking remain below 5 % even when main confounders for tobacco consumption, i.e. age and sex, in- or outpatient status, were considered. 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. Notice how this mess of a paragraph starts with a passive voice claim. Reference 39 is a meta-analysis that concludes that "active smoking does not apparently seem to be signicantly [sic] associated with enhanced risk of progressing towards severe disease in COVID-19." That's not a "firm" conclusion. At this point, I'm going to stop wasting my time. Do a controlled study or get out.