Mail: Does smoking PROTECT against coronavirus?

Yet another big report on smoking being protective against Covid-19. Excerpts from Mail Online:

…data from multiple Chinese studies shows that COVID-19 hospital patients contained a smaller proportion of smokers than the general population (6.5 per cent compared to 26.6 per cent), suggesting they were less likely to end up in hospital.

Another study, by America’s Centers for Disease Control of over 7,000 people who tested positive for coronavirus, found that just 1.3 per cent of them were smokers – against the 14 per cent of all Americans that the CDC says smoke.

The study also found that the smokers stood no greater chance of ending up in hospital or an ICU.

The reasons for this are unclear.

Evidence coming out of scientific studies is conflicting and some say doctors are just too busy to be accurately noting down everyone’s smoking habits.

Some researchers suggest smoking could reverse one of the ways in which COVID-19 damages the lungs while others argue the lung damage caused by smoke makes the organs more susceptible to failure.

Governments in both the UK and US urge people to stop smoking to protect themselves from the virus, but scientists admit there is no clear proof cigarettes can worsen the disease.


Around 1.1billion people around the world smoke cigarettes in spite of evidence they  cause lung cancer, heart disease and numerous other life-threatening illnesses.

Whether they make people more likely to end up in hospital or die if they catch COVID-19, however, is unclear.

A study published earlier this month by scientists in New York and Athens claims the opposite.

It looked at 13 Chinese studies that had registered smoking as a precondition and found that the number of smokers across the whole sample of 5,300 patients was 6.5 per cent. An astonishingly small number in country where half of all men still smoke.

‘This preliminary analysis does not support the argument that current smoking is a risk factor for hospitalization for COVID-19,’ it reads.


Dr Farsalinos’s study was shared on Twitter by Professor Francois Balloux, director of the genetics institute at University College London.

Professor Balloux described the paper as ‘puzzling’ and added: ‘Whilst the study design is far from perfect – and the authors are clear about its limitations – the evidence for a protective effect of smoking (or nicotine) against COVID-19 is bizarrely strong… actually far stronger than for any drug trialled at this stage…’

It is a claim that has been emerging around the world.


The theory of smokers having some level of protection from the virus stems from raw hospital data which suggested only small proportions of seriously-ill patients smoke.

Hospitals in China, the US, Germany and France have had hundreds of thousands of coronavirus patients but admitted disproportionately small numbers of smokers.

According to the campaign group, Foundation for a Smoke-Free World, early data showed that in Germany six per cent to 21 per cent; and in France six per cent compared to 27 per cent.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the US showed that of around 7,000 COVID-19 patients, former smokers were more likely to be hospitalised or taken into intensive care than current smokers.

Just 22 of the hospital patients and five of those in intensive care admitted to being smokers, while 45 in hospital and 33 in ICU said they were former smokers.

Public Health England has not published any information about the people diagnosed or hospitalised with coronavirus in the UK.

Why then, scientists have asked, do smokers make up such a small proportion of patients when there are significantly more of them in the countries?

Experts have knocked this theory down and say reporting of who smokes and who doesn’t has not been accurate enough.

UCL’s Professor Brown told MailOnline: ‘It’s difficult to assess how well smoking status has been recorded in an emerging epidemic and a lot of these people have been too sick to answer or have not replied totally honestly.’

He added: ‘We know generally smokers tend to come from lower income groups which have poorer access to healthcare… so may be more likely to die in the community.’

Professor Paul Hunter, a former NHS doctor and now medicine lecturer at the University of East Anglia, agreed that recording was likely to blame.

He told MailOnline: ‘One interpretation is that smokers are less likely to end up in hospital.

‘But actually it’s more of an indication that when you’ve got doctors who are unbelievably busy they don’t complete all of the questioning they would normally do.’

Professor Hunter added that the notion smoking could protect people from COVID-19 was ‘rubbish’, but admitted the ACE-2 receptor link deserved further study.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Mail: Does smoking PROTECT against coronavirus?

  1. Beautifully summarized Frank!

    And the excuses of the Antis are so thin that they’re laughable. If the figures that shown that smokers were 500 to 1,000% MORE frequently getting CoVid-19 instead of the opposite would we be hearing even a WHISPER of any of these

    “Evidence coming out of scientific studies is conflicting” and
    “recording was likely to blame” and
    “doctors are just too busy to be accurately noting down everyone’s smoking habits” and
    “the study design is far from perfect” and
    “reporting of who smokes and who doesn’t has not been accurate enough” and
    “The reasons for this are unclear” and
    “Evidence coming out of scientific studies is conflicting” and
    “doctors are just too busy to be accurately noting down everyone’s smoking habits” and
    “It’s difficult to assess how well smoking status has been recorded” and
    “‘This preliminary analysis does not support … smoking is a risk factor for … COVID-19” and
    “there is no clear proof cigarettes can worsen the disease” (!!!!!)

    About the ONLY excuse not being given is, “I’m sorry teacher. The dog ate my homework.”

    NONE of those phrases/statements would have been made if the results had been in the opposite direct. The figures from a place like the CDC would be getting held up as The Gold Standard, and anyone daring to question them would be simply dismissed with “And you probably believe the Earth is flat too, right?” and the Mail article ends with THIS remarkable “take away” for the readers:

    “Professor Hunter added that the notion smoking could protect people from COVID-19 was ‘rubbish’.”

    Absolutely amazing.

    – MJM, simply flabbergasted

    • Igrowmyown says:

      The fear and rising panic of the antis is becoming palpable Michael and some are just dumbfounded.

      • Igrowmyown says:

        I wonder who will be the first anti to buy 20 fags on the quiet,ha,ha.

        • Rose says:

          That has crossed by mind, after all you can’t get a small, portable nitric oxide generator any where else, they were taxing even herbal cigarettes as tobacco last I saw.

          Novel Portable Nitric Oxide Generator for Pulmonary Hypertension Therapy

          “Dr. Warren Zapol’s pioneering studies two decades ago led to the implementation of inhaled nitric oxide (NO) for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension in infants, children, and adults. An effective vasodilator, inhaled NO relaxes pulmonary blood vessels without causing a systemic drop in blood pressure, and is considered a life-saving therapy, particularly in infants and children who suffer from hypoxia and respiratory failure. Despite the efficacy of inhaled NO treatment, factors such as high cost and bulky, complex equipment limit its widespread availability”.

        • Igrowmyown says:

          Rose your research is invaluable,please keep going.

        • Joe L. says:

          … they were taxing even herbal cigarettes as tobacco last I saw.

          No surprise. As we’ve seen since vaping products hit the market, if it even remotely resembles a tobacco product, it doesn’t matter whether there is any tobacco in it, it will be classified as a “tobacco product.” And it will be taxed, regulated and banned as such.

    • Joe, in terms of warning about things that even “resemble” tobacco products,” I think the kicker is the plastic box that holds a JUUL — not the liquid, but the vaporizer … the thing made out of plastic and metal.

      In great big letters we are informed that this piece of plastic and metal is carcinogenic!

      Of course if we lit it on fire and burned it it might be…

      – MJM

  2. Elizabeth says:

    Reblogged this on Life on an alien planet and commented:
    Thank you, Frank – reblogged…..

  3. Smoking Lamp says:

    The anti smoker lobby must be worried that all of their lies will be exposed After all smoking has long Ben known to have protective characteristics for many other diseases and the secondhand smoke rationale justifying smoking bans is a fabrication. Tobacco control must be destroyed.

  4. Александра Собина says:

    Prey for it. Tobacco Control must be destroyed.

  5. slugbop007 says:

    Yep, they are 100% convinced when they maintain that smoking is bad for you, but 100% unconvinced when studies show that it might in certain cases be good for you.


    • Joe L. says:

      This is exactly why Tobacco Control developed the term, “Settled Science.” They settled on the conclusion they wanted (smoking causes every malady known to man), then they cherry-picked statistics (pseudoscience) which sort of support it. Now they can ignore and/or shame any Johnny-come-lately scientist who has the audacity to challenge their magnum opus.

  6. Igrowmyown says:

    From the Metro
    ” Bizarre claims that smoking protects against coronavirus despite official advice ”
    Then our Deb’s,the WHO and Nice are quoted to stamp out this dangerous unorthodoxy.

  7. slugbop007 says:

    Deb might have to find another business to administrate. Boohoo!


    • Joe L. says:

      Waste management is an “essential job,” and with everyone under house arrest, the bins are filling faster than ever. I’m sure there are plenty of openings right now, and Deborah Arnott has decades of experience in peddling rubbish.

  8. Lepercolonist says:

    If it was shown that eating apples lowers your chance of contracting the Chinese flu there would be empty shelves at the grocery store.

  9. Vlad says:

    Anyone knows how to get in touch with Tom Utley to educate the guy about smoking? This self flagellation is painful to read:

    • Joe L. says:

      Vlad, the link you posted is a link to this very page of Frank’s blog. After a quick search, I believe the link you meant to post was the following, which appears to be a follow-up opinion piece on Hockney’s claims of smoking having a preventive effect against SARS-CoV-2:

      TOM UTLEY: I fear these may be my famous last words, but might David Hockney have a point about smoking warding off coronavirus?

      • smokingscot says:

        Thanks for that Joe. All Vlad needs to do is read the best rated comments. They’ve torn Utley a new one.

        • Rose says:

          He’s irritated me already “So it is that for me — and for countless other cigarette addicts”

          To designate nicotine as addictive they had to remove the important previous definition of an addictive drug as first and foremost an intoxicant.

          Essential reading

          US ruling turns smokers into junkies
          “Nicotine is addictive, a panel of experts on drug abuse decided last week. The decision leaves the door open for the US Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco as it does other addictive substances.

          – Over the past few months, the FDA’s commissioner, David Kessler, has been campaigning for tobacco to be regulated in the same way as many other drugs.
          To do so legally, he must demonstrate that nicotine is a powerful drug,and that the tobacco companies depend on nicotine’s addictiveness to keep smokers smoking.

          But the tobacco companies continue to insist that nicotine is not addictive. To settle the issue, Kessler asked the Drug Abuse Advisory Committee to give its expert opinion.”

          “The drug abuse panel listened to a whole range of definitions of addiction. But the debate highlighted some important questions. What makes a substance addictive? What is the difference between an addiction and a habit? Has the term ‘addiction’ become meaningless?

          In 1988, the US Surgeon General concluded in a report on tobacco that nicotine is addictive in the fullest sense of the word. It is psychoactive, having a direct effect on the brain; it is reinforcing, meaning that users will keep using the drug; it is used compulsively despite harmful effects. The desire to smoke takes precedence over other important priorities, such as health, and smokers become physically dependent on nicotine.

          Despite this, a handful of scientists – inside and outside the tobacco companies – claim the Surgeon General stretched the traditional meaning of addiction too far. They claim his report adds to the growing abuse of the word as in pop psychology’s ‘food addiction’ and ‘sex addiction’.
          ‘The smoker’s ability to think or reason clearly is not diminished when making the decision to quit or continue smoking. In short, this is clearly not a behaviour that the smoker has lost control over.’

          “He points out that until the 1960s, most definitions of addictive substances included the intoxicating effect. He said that this part of the definition should still apply, and as nicotine in normal doses is not intoxicating, it should not be considered addictive.

          Some scientists outside the tobacco companies agree. For instance, Robert Cancro, head of the Department of Psychiatry at the New York University Medical School, claims that ‘addiction’ has become ‘a modern shibboleth’. ‘A person who seeks pleasure from smoking . . . is different from a person ‘strung out’ on drugs. The former may enjoy the activity and pursue it; but the latter will reshape his life to obtain the drug,’ he said.

          Robert Cloninger, professor of psychiatry at Washington University in St Louis, also rejects the notion that nicotine is addictive. He does not believe it causes loss of control over behaviour or physical dependence”

          But scientists on the winning side of the debate last week claim the critics misunderstand or misrepresent what constitutes an addiction.
          ‘Tobacco representatives seem to focus in on one element of any definition. They say nicotine cannot be addicting because it does not cause intoxication. But that’s only one of the things that goes into an overall definition,’ said Richard Hurt, director of the Mayo Nicotine Dependence Center in Rochester, Minnesota.

          Jack Henningfield, chief of the clinical pharmacology branch at the National Institute on Drug Abuse Addiction Research Center, points out that in high enough doses nicotine can be intoxicating, while very low doses of drugs such as heroin and cocaine may not be intoxicating.”

        • Rose says:

          You have to smile, there are such a lot of people so desperate for a possible cure not to be real, they’ll spend time and effort shouting a man down to prove their own virtue to total strangers.

          Its an old herbal medicine, that was why it was originally brought into England.

        • Igrowmyown says:

          I remember reading Lewis Spence Myths and Legends of the North American Indians,when he asked one native why they smoked so much tobacco he replied because it was the great protector.

        • Rose says:

          I believe you talk through the smoke with the Great Spirit.

          Which is what James 1st didn’t like.

        • Amazing as always Rose! I wish you were here in the States and near Philly! I’d invite you over and wine you and dine you while you got MY research system in order! LOL!

      • Vlad says:

        Thanks Joe, I don’t how I managed to put in the wrong link.
        @smokingscot indeed, the best voted comments show people are seeing through anti-smoking BS.

  10. Rose says:

    The Telegraph is being remarkably quiet and I’m not surprised.

    They argued with ASH against so much over passive smoking that Clive Bates took them to the Press Commision for going against the WHO. I think this was their last attempt with Enstrom and Kabat.

    Warning: the health police can seriously addle your brain

    “It was a rare good news story in an otherwise grim week. A landmark study into the effects of inhaling other people’s smoke revealed that fears that passive smoking kills more than 1,000 a year in the UK alone are unfounded.

    After studying the health of tens of thousands of people married to smokers, US researchers found that they face no significant extra risk of lung cancer or heart disease. It may sting your eyes, take your breath away and make your clothes smell, but other people’s cigarette smoke will not kill you.

    The demise of a supposed major risk to public health might be expected to prompt celebration among medical experts and campaigners. Instead, they scrambled to condemn the study, its authors, its conclusions, and the journal that published them. The reaction came as no surprise to those who have tried to uncover the facts about passive smoking. More than any other health debate, the question of whether smokers kill others as well as themselves is engulfed in a smog of political correctness and dubious science.

    Researchers who dissent from the party line face character assassination and the termination of grants. Those who report their findings are vilified as lackeys of the tobacco industry, and accused of professional misconduct (in 1998, campaigners tried to have this newspaper censured by the Press Complaints Commission for our reports on passive smoking. They failed.).

    The furore over last week’s negative findings, reported in the respected British Medical Journal, has its origins in research published in the same journal in October 1997. After reviewing the evidence from dozens of studies, researchers at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, London, concluded that being married to a smoker increases the “risk” of lung cancer and heart disease by around 25 per cent.

    The results were seized on by health campaigners as final proof of what they had known all along: that smokers are not just killing themselves – they are also killing innocent bystanders, and must be stopped. The same issue of the BMJ carried an editorial by Dr Ronald Davis, the editor of the journal Tobacco Control, declaring: “Health advocates should pursue all strategies that would help accomplish that goal, including education, legislation, regulation and litigation.”

    Just how willing campaigners are to pursue all strategies soon became clear. In March 1998, The Telegraph revealed that an international study by the World Health Organisation had failed to find any convincing evidence of a link between passive smoking and cancer. The article prompted uproar among anti-smoking campaigners and denials from the WHO, which insisted that the study had found a 16 per cent increase in cancer “risk” among those married to smokers.

    The WHO, in what has become a standard ruse in the passive smoking debate, ignored the fact that the 16 per cent risk figure was not “statistically significant”. That is, it had failed to meet the standard of proof usually demanded by scientists.

    As The Telegraph has discovered, however, passive smoking research is an area where the usual standards do not apply. If they did, last week’s wholly negative findings would have surprised no one. For long before the publication of the original BMJ studies, it had been clear that the 25 per cent extra risk figure was likely to prove a wild exaggeration.

    The evidence comes from research into a key issue in the passive smoking debate: just how much smoke do non-smokers actually inhale? Surprisingly few attempts have been made to gauge smoke exposure directly. Those that have raise grave doubts over claims that passive smoking poses a significant health risk.

    In studies across Europe over the past decade, air quality experts at Covance Laboratories, Harrogate, gave air monitors to thousands of people and measured their exposure to smoke. The startling results showed that passive smokers are exposed to the equivalent of six cigarettes a year, an extra lung cancer risk of 2 per cent compared with non-smokers. The figure is 10 times lower than the BMJ studies claimed.

    So small a risk is, however, in line with last week’s negative findings. It also explains an awkward fact rarely mentioned by anti-smoking campaigners: more than 80 per cent of all studies of passive smoking have failed to find a statistically significant link to lung cancer. Only by subjecting them to abstruse statistical techniques can they deliver the goods.

    One technique is anything but abstruse, however. It involves simply ignoring results that do not fit. In the original BMJ reports, a major US study showing no extra heart disease risk from passive smoking was excluded on the grounds that it did not fit with the positive results, and had been funded by the tobacco industry. The air monitoring studies have been ignored for the same reasons.

    Scientists are understandably chary of research backed by an industry with a history of deceit. Yet so widespread is the conviction that passive smoking is a proven killer that researchers who think otherwise have little choice but to apply for tobacco industry support. Prof James Enstrom, of the University of California, the lead author of the study whose negative findings sparked last week’s controversy, said the research would never have seen the light of day, except for support from the tobacco industry.

    Originally set up in 1959 by the American Cancer Society, who recruited 118,000 Californian adults into the study, the follow-up effort was long supported by taxes levied on cigarettes. In 1997 the funding was suddenly cut off. Prof Enstrom suspects that health officials in California just were not keen to fund research that might undermine the original BMJ studies.

    Prof Enstrom, compelled to take tobacco industry money to complete the study, then found that journals were unwilling to publish his negative findings. He told The Telegraph: “One journal we tried had published three positive studies before, but despite getting a glowing referee’s report on our work, they refused to accept it.”

    After the BMJ published it last week, he has been subjected to a barrage of criticism: “The whole process has been aggressive, vitriolic hate,” he says.

    Within hours of publication, he and his co-author Dr Geoffrey Kabat, of the State University of New York, came under attack by the very organisation that had set up his study: the American Cancer Society. “We are appalled that the tobacco industry has succeeded in giving visibility to a study with so many problems,” said a spokesman, adding that the study was “neither reliable nor independent”.

    But, Prof Enstrom said, the speed of the society’s response to the negative findings is particularly revealing. “They wrote the complaint before they even saw the paper,” he said.

    In the UK, the anti-smoking pressure group Ash accused Prof Enstrom and his colleague of “deliberately downplaying the findings to suit their tobacco paymasters”. But Prof Enstrom says they were subjected to rigorous peer review, and denies tobacco industry influence.

    The denial appears to have satisfied the BMJ. Dr Richard Smith, the journal’s editor, told The Telegraph that the decision to publish the findings was made only after they had been thoroughly refereed, and full disclosure made of the source of funding. “This is a big study with very complete follow-up about an important question,” Dr Smith said. “I take the view that not to publish is a form of scientific misconduct.”

    Now Dr Smith, too, is under fire from his own colleagues. Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the head of science and ethics at the British Medical Association, said: “There is decades of overwhelming evidence that passive smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease, as well as triggering asthma attacks.”

    The reference to asthma hints at a new strategy by anti-smoking campaigners – towards a focus on the health of children. Unlike the risks from lung cancer and heart disease, the evidence that passive smoking damages the lungs of children is strong. Last week the British Thoracic Society called for more funding into this aspect of the smoking and health debate. That suggests that children with disorders such as asthma may soon become the focus of attempts to introduce a total ban on smoking in public places.

    In the meantime, health campaigners show no enthusiasm for giving up their most potent claim: that the person puffing away next to you is not merely making your eyes water, but killing you as well. The scientific evidence is just not there, says Prof Enstrom. “But maybe we’ve gone past the point where anyone cares about the facts.”

  11. slugbop007 says:

    To Joe L says:

    Settled Science? Sez W.H.O.?


  12. slugbop007 says:

    Will these maniacs eventually ban Julie Andrews song from ‘The Sound of Music’? A little bit of sugar … Peggy Lee’s ‘Black Coffee’? Or any other song in the history of music that mentions cigarettes or tobacco? Eh, Jamie? Stanton? Clive?


  13. slugbop007 says:

    This just in. The Conservative Party of Canada also wants to investigate the WHO’s modus operandi of the past few months:


  14. Александра Собина says:

    Would be even better if anyone also remind of their actions of Ebola breakout at 2014

    • Rose says:

      The World Health Organisation spent £1million on a tobacco conference hosted by Vladimir Putin, while having to beg to secure funding to battle Ebola, it has been revealed today.
      26 October 2014

      “Delegates dined on caviar and drank champagne during a week-long Conference of the Parties in Moscow to discuss tobacco control and e-cigarettes.

      This comes after the organisation was criticised for failing to help countries in West Africa affected by the Ebola crisis.”

      ‘The coordination role that WHO should be playing, we just didn’t see it. I didn’t see it the first three weeks and we didn’t see it afterwards.’

      Some aid workers and U.N. officials blame a lack of WHO leadership in the emergency response, particularly in the early stages when it would have been easier to contain. On several occasions, WHO officials played down the outbreak, they say.

      MSF International President Joanne Liu, who warned that her organisation could not cope with the rising number of Ebola victims, has accused the WHO of failing its mandate to help member states cope with health emergencies.”

  15. Александра Собина says:

    Yes, Rose, it is what I meant. All they are willing to fight tobacco.

    • Rose says:

      The WHO don’t do what we thought they did any more.

      WHO targets non-communicable ‘lifestyle’ diseases

      “The World Health Organization has set out a plan to tackle non-communicable diseases like heart disease, which now pose a greater global burden than infectious diseases.
      “Lifestyle-related” diseases are now the leading cause of death worldwide, killing 36 million people a year.

      Much of the toll is in low and middle-income countries and this is where efforts must be focused, says WHO.

      It suggests affordable steps governments should take.

      The list includes measures that target the population as a whole, such as excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol, smoke-free indoor workplaces and public places, as well as campaigns to reduce salt and dangerous fats in foods.”

      NCD summit to shape the international agenda

      Date: 19-20 September 2011
      Place: New York, USA

      “Noncommunicable diseases – or NCDs – like heart attacks and strokes, cancers, diabetes and chronic respiratory disease account for over 63% of deaths in the world today. Every year, NCDs kill 9 million people under 60. The socio-economic impact is staggering. Global leaders will meet at the United Nations in New York from 19-20 September 2011 to set a new international agenda on NCDs.

      This is only the second time in the history of the UN that the General Assembly meets on a health issue (the last issue was AIDS). The aim is for countries to adopt a concise, action-oriented outcome document that will shape the global agendas for generations to come.”

  16. slugbop007 says:

    Rose says:    April 17, 2020 at 11:05 am   

    The Telegraph is being remarkably quiet and I’m not surprised. They argued with ASH so much over passive smoking that Clive Bates took them to the Press Commision for going against the WHO. I think this was their last attempt with Enstrom and Kabat.

    Gee, Clive, I didn’t know that going against the W.H.O. and you was a crime against humanity that deserved immediate censure. Thanks for correcting my oversight.


    • Rose says:

      Press Complaints Commission

      Clive Bates, Director of ASH

      Clauses Noted: 1

      Publication: The Sunday Telegraph

      Clive Bates, Director of ASH, of London W1, complained that an article published in The Sunday Telegraph on 8 March 1998 headlined “Smoking doesn’t cause cancer – official” and an accompanying editorial headlined “A setback for nanny” contained inaccuracies in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Code of Practice.

      The pieces said that a summary of a study by the International Agency for Research into Cancer (IARC) had been withheld as it had shown that there might be no link between passive smoking and cancer and that it might even have a protective effect. The complainant said that both the World Health Organisation and the Chief Medical Officer had criticised the article as being misleading. He said that the fact that the summary had not in isolation shown a definitive link between passive smoking and cancer had wrongly been interpreted as proving that there was no link. He said that both the summary and the study had shown a positive correlation but on account of the small sample size it was not possible to show with 95 per cent confidence that there was a definite link. The complainant sent a copy of the summary of the work upon which the articles were based and maintained that when the study was finally published it would say the same.

      The editor pointed out that the pieces had not said that the full study had been “suppressed” only that publication in a scientific journal had been withheld. He said that the summary of the study had not shown any statistically significant link and that this had been summed up in the headline. The journalist had made repeated attempts to contact the WHO prior to publication but no one would discuss the matter. Articles in subsequent editions had reported the criticisms of the newspaper and explained how the newspaper had reached its conclusions.

      Not Upheld

      Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer – official
      By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

      “THE world’s leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

      The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

      Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

      The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking – or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) – and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

      Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

      The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: “There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.”

      A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings “seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases.” Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.

      A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. “If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all. “It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk.” The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.

      The Government’s own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly – possibly in time for this Wednesday’s National No Smoking day – on the hazards of passive smoking.”

  17. Ryan S says:

    What kills smokers? If I had to make an observation, being a smoker myself, is not viruses or other voodoo. No. What kills them is lack of exercise, obesity and anti smokers giving them an aneurism. The first two are limited to certain subsets. The latter is universal.

  18. Joe L. says:

    OT: We’re in the midst of a global pandemic. A global pandemic that the WHO was very reluctant to officially deem as such for months (and now the President of the US has boldly decided to withhold their funding while investigating their transgressions). We smokers have seen over the years that the WHO has been more concerned with changing the behaviors and lifestyles of people far more than it has focused on communicable diseases. So, now that the corruption of the WHO has finally been exposed on the global stage, one would assume they would at least pretend to focus their efforts on the pandemic that has now all but shut down the entire global economy. But instead, while we are forced to isolate inside our homes to limit the spread of the disease they did nothing to contain, these bastards want to limit the amount of alcohol we can drink!

    WHO recommends limits on alcohol consumption during lockdowns

    The World Health Organization’s (WHO) regional office in Europe on Tuesday published a report calling for people to limit their alcohol intake during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    According to the WHO, an increase of alcohol consumption while countries around the world are on lockdown to prevent further spread of the disease can lead to “health vulnerability, risk-taking behaviours, mental health issues and violence.”

    The organization notes that alcohol “compromises the body’s immune system and increases the risk of adverse health outcomes.”

    A pandemic myth that claims consuming high-strength alcohol can kill the virus is false and can lead to fatal health consequences, the WHO says.

    Alcohol consumption kills 3 million people a year, the WHO said in its statement, adding that existing laws aimed at preventing alcohol overuse, such as those that restrict access to alcohol, should not be relaxed during the pandemic.

    “Alcohol is consumed in excessive quantities in the European Region, and leaves too many victims,” Carina Ferreira-Borges, manager of WHO Europe’s Alcohol and Illicit Drugs Program, said. “During the COVID-19 pandemic, we should really ask ourselves what risks we are taking in leaving people under lockdown in their homes with a substance that is harmful both in terms of their health and the effects of their behaviour on others, including violence.”

    Down with the WHO!

    • Rose says:

      That just has to be the direct descendant of this.
      Even the chapter headings are worth reading.


      What Medical Writers Say

      Superintendent of the Department of Medical Temperance for the
      National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union
      Published by the
      OF THE

      Marcellus, New York

      Alcohol as Medicine.

      Medical use of alcohol a bulwark of the liquor traffic—Alcohol not a Food—Alcohol reduces temperature—Food principle of grains and fruits destroyed by fermentation—Alcohol not a Stimulant—Experiments proving this—Alcohol not a tonic—Professor Atwater on Alcohol as Food96

      Alcohol in Pharmacy.

      Strong tinctures rouse desire for drink in reformed inebriates—Glycerine and acetic acid to preserve drugs—Non-alcohol tinctures in use at London Temperance Hospital—Sale of liquor in drug-stores condemned by pharmacists131

      Diseases, and Their Treatment Without Alcohol.

      Alcoholic Craving—Anæmia—Apoplexy—Boils and Carbuncle—Catarrh—Hay-Fever—Colds—Colic—Cholera—Cholera Infantum—Consumption—Displacements—Debility—Diarrhœa—Dysentery—Dyspepsia—Fainting—Fits—Flatulence—Headache—Hemorrhage—Heart Disease—Heart Failure—Insomnia—La Grippe—Measles—Malaria—Neuralgia—Nausea—Pneumonia—Pain After Food—Snake-bite—Rheumatism—Spasms—Shock—Sudden Illness—Sunstroke—Typhoid Fever—Vomiting

    • Three million deaths due to drinking per year eh? That puts it definitely right up in the same ballpark as smoking with its current claim to 5 million or so (The “Billion Lives” projection rests in good part on population increase in the second half of a hundred years I believe, no?)

  19. Александра Собина says:

    Does this MRS has enough education to make any advice.
    ALLEN, Martha Mehaffey Mrs. Martha M. Allen, 81 of McDonough, GA, went to be with the Lord on Tuesday, December 3, 2019 after a short illness with Dementia. Born on October 11, 1938 in Atlanta, GA. She graduated from Bass High School and worked most of her life, first at the Georgia TB Assn. and over 15 years with an Orthodontist in Decatur, GA.

    • Rose says:

      Superintendent of the Department of Medical Temperance for the
      National Woman’s Christian Temperance Union wrote her book in 1900.
      But she would probably have known this man very well.

      Wayne B. Wheeler: The Man Who Turned Off the Taps
      Prohibition couldn’t have happened without Wheeler, who foisted temperance on a thirsty nation 90 years ago

      “The crusaders who had struggled for decades to place Prohibition in the Constitution celebrated with rallies, prayer sessions and ritual interments of effigies representing John Barleycorn, the symbol of alcohol’s evils. “Men will walk upright now, women will smile and the children will laugh,” the evangelist Billy Sunday told the 10,000 people who gathered at his tabernacle in Norfolk, Virginia. “Hell will be forever for rent.”

      But Interior Secretary Franklin K. Lane may have provided the most accurate view of the United States of America on the edge of this new epoch 90 years ago. “The whole world is skew-jee, awry, distorted and altogether perverse,” Lane wrote in a letter on January 19. “…All goes merry as a dance in hell.”

      How did it happen? How did a freedom-loving people decide to give up a private right that had been freely exercised by millions since the first European colonists arrived in the New World? How did they condemn to extinction what was, at the very moment of its death, the fifth-largest industry in the nation? How did they append to their most sacred document 112 words that knew only one precedent in American history? With that single previous exception, the original Constitution and its first 17 amendments concerned the activities of government, not of citizens. Now there were two exceptions: you couldn’t own slaves, and you couldn’t buy alcohol.”

      Read on and see how they managed to get away with it last time.
      It took 13 years for Prohibition to come to an end and we’ve almost done 13 years since the Smoking Ban.

  20. Rose says:

    Someone asked was anything used as a medicine made out of tobacco smoke a while ago and I just remembered.

    Tobacco water: A special form of tobacco use in the Mizoram and Manipur states of India

    Background. Tuibur and hidakphu are watery tobacco products made by passing tobacco smoke through water. These have neither been described in the health literature nor are there any reports of epidemiological studies on these products. We collected information on the use of these products in Mizoram and Manipur

    “In this, water impregnated with tobacco smoke in a water receptacle is poured out through the mouthpiece of a pipe into a tobacco water flask and preserved for personal use. Usually, in one sip, 5–10 ml of tobacco water is kept in the mouth for 5–10 minutes and then spat out. It is either sipped directly from the bottle or through cotton soaked with tobacco water. People initially use tobacco water to clean their teeth or protect themselves from insect bites, but soon start sipping it several times a day and get addicted.3,4 (this is written by anti-tobacco, remember)

    Tobacco water (tuibur) has been in use since the nineteenth century. A definite record of its use is available since 1907. Men and women alike sip tobacco water. In the past, it was predominantly used by women3,4 and was offered to guests or visitors. It was a form of greeting and it was considered rude not to offer it. It was an essential item at parties in rural areas.”

    “About 90% of the people in both districts believed that tobacco water protects against the bites of insects and paalu (a common insect in the region). They believe that it acts as an antiseptic, protects the teeth and has antisnake venom properties.”

  21. Александра Собина says:

    I know that tobacco infusion is also used to get rid of foot fungus. Have tried, it works.

  22. Александра Собина says:

    As for alcohol, this is without a doubt a medical tool. The application is so extensive that not even listed. Herbal infusions and compresses are made on the basis of alcohol. And in everyday use it is also an antidepressant. Of course, human hunters would like to see their pills as antidepressants instead.

  23. slugbop007 says:

    Public Health today is Eugenics in disguise. The present pandemic and global lockdown is a result of their insidious, pernicious influence on governance everywhere.


  24. Pingback: Good news for smokers? - Head Rambles

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.