4 ms·
I think to call it a "cover-up" is a bit silly. One important thing to call out is that former smoker status does seem to result in an increased risk. Only curr
by chewmieser 4y ago
I think to call it a "cover-up" is a bit silly. One important thing to call out is that former smoker status does seem to result in an increased risk. Only current status MAY be a reduced risk.
It seems more study is needed but I'm obviously not as invested in this as the author of this article is.
- dang 4y agoI agree that "cover-up" is baity and therefore we should edit the title (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait"). However, I can't think of a good way to fit HN's 80 char limit without changing the meaning. The title needs to include both the author's claim about what the studies show, and the author's claim that this finding has been dismissed or suppressed or overlooked (pick a neutral word) because of its nonconformity. I've put a question mark up there for the time being.
- FollowingTheDao 4y agoIt’s not silly at all. It doesn’t have to be an intentional cover-up. But the lack of creativity and making a huge profit off of the vaccine is a reality. The only reason the Covid vaccines were given emergency use authorization was because there was no other treatments available. If nicotine was a treatment for Covid, they would not have gotten emergency use authorization.