End of the road for living evidence review on smoking and Covid-19
Saturday, August 14, 2021 at 14:07 Version 12 of the extended living review on the association between smoking and Covid-19 has been published.
As expected the authors’ conclusion is almost identical to version 11 and very similar to every version before that:
Compared with never smokers, current smokers appear to be at reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and increased risk of greater in-hospital disease severity.
There are of course several qualifications and the authors are keen to stress that:
In the meantime, public-facing messages about the possible protective effect of smoking or nicotine are premature. In our view, until there is further research, the quality of the evidence does not justify the huge risk associated with a message likely to reach millions of people that a lethal activity, such as smoking, may protect against Covid-19.
Nevertheless the results have been remarkably consistent which (I’m guessing) is why the authors say version 12 will probably be the last.
Not only do they want to move on to other projects, I would imagine they have questioned the point of continuing when the updated data shows no sign of significantly changing the narrative.
Another factor may be the breathtaking lack of interest from public health campaigners.
Given the conclusions it might be naive to expect anything else but here’s a reminder of how the living review came about. According to the authors:
An original short review for the Royal College of Physicians was converted to an extended living review after a request by Martin Dockrell, Tobacco Control Lead, Public Health England.
In other words the extended review, all twelve versions, only exists because of a specific request by PHE’s Martin Dockrell, a former deputy to Deborah Arnott at ASH.
Given that Dockrell is credited in every version of the review you would think he might have acknowledged each update of this mammoth undertaking. After all it’s virtually his baby.
But no. As I noted on January 14, 2021:
In recent months … Dockrell has done very little to promote the study to a wider audience.
I have just had a quick glance at his Twitter account and as far as I can tell the last time he mentioned the living review was on September 18 when he retweeted a link to version 7.
Since then versions 8, 9 and 10 have been published and not a peep from PHE's tobacco control lead.
As for the other 'big beasts' of the tobacco control industry, I haven't done a thorough search but I'm struggling to find even one who has tweeted (or retweeted) a link to recent versions of the review.
As far as I can see version 12 has been received with equal indifference.
Credit then to Prof Linda Bauld for yesterday retweeting a link to the latest update.
Not that we should be surprised because Bauld is the one tobacco control ‘expert’ who had the candour to admit last year that “There’s something weird going on“.
In contrast most of her colleagues (and groups such as ASH) have consistently ignored reports that current smokers might be at less risk of catching Covid.
Meanwhile the only smoking and Covid-related story on the Public Health England website reads:
Smokers at greater risk of severe respiratory disease from Covid-19
Dated April 3, 2020, and given what we now know, this is bordering on deliberate disinformation.
Anyway I’ll let you be the judge. See:
See also Chris Snowdon’s blog for ‘Smoking and Covid-19: a new evidence update’.
Reader Comments (2)
Tobacco control long ago stopped using unbiased science in pursuit of their prohibitionist aims. The smoking bans are a result of suppressing data about the lack of health impact from second hand smoke, the third hand smoke initiative is a straight out exercise in fabricated propaganda. And now results that run counter to the tobacco control party line are obscured.
It makes me wonder what else we have been deliberately misled about in the name of the political cause to eradicate smokers from society.
"Smoking, asthma, or air pollution account for many COPD cases, but up to 30% of cases occur in people who never smoked, and only a minority of heavy smokers develop the disease, suggesting that there are other risk factors at play."
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/lung-development-may-explain-why-some-non-smokers-get-copd-some-heavy-smokers-do-not?fbclid=IwAR2Un4SCRZskG8mQ4PSNbkpFtyRFXosUhXnWm_POPLUP88WQv02rrqT0-Ug
Are "smoking related diseases" really just human diseases which we are all subject to? Not smoking won't save us.