I clicked on the first study in the linked blog post. Here is what it says: >We found that active smoking was associated with lower odds of having a positive

I clicked on the first study in the linked blog post. Here is what it says: >We found that active smoking was associated with lower odds of having a positive test result. There are several plausible reasons for this result. Active smoking might affect nasopharyngeal viral load and therefore affect RT-PCR test sensitivity, rather than protecting against actual infection, although this effect is not known to occur with influenza RT-PCR testing.49 Alternatively, as patients with symptoms are more likely to have been tested and included in our analysis, selection bias could affect this result.50 Smokers are more likely to have a cough, meaning they might also be more likely to be tested for SARS-CoV-2 than non-smokers, even if they are SARS-CoV-2 negative. This more frequent testing could increase the proportion of smokers with negative SARS-CoV-2 results in our sample, which would bias our results. However, the proportion of smokers in our study was low. Furthermore, ex-smokers and people with chronic lung disease would also be expected to cough more, but these groups did not have higher odds of SARS-CoV-2 test positivity. Therefore, the relationship between smoking and SARS-CoV-2 infection merits further investigation. Nicotine might downregulate angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors,51 which are used by SARS-CoV-2 for cell entry, although studies have found increased angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 lung expression among smokers and people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.52, 53 Our findings should not be used to conclude that smoking prevents SARS-CoV-2 infection, or to encourage ongoing smoking, particularly given the well documented harms to overall health from smoking, the potential for smoking to increase COVID-19 disease severity,46 and the possible alternative explanations for these findings. I'm not going to check the other 99, but if this is the standard of evidence, I don't find "I made a list of 100 studies!" particularly persuasive. If it's just incidental correlations from studies that aren't designed to specifically investigate the causal link and rule out confounding factors, the list doesn't mean anything.