Efficacy of Nicotine in Preventing COVID-19

Post Reply
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:46 pm

Efficacy of Nicotine in Preventing COVID-19

Post by 50YearsOfCigars »

Recently there was referenced in the U.S. National Library of Medicine website: "ClinicalTrial.gov" an ongoing study sponsored by the Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris about :

Efficacy of Nicotine in Preventing COVID-19 Infection in Caregivers -
Principal Investigator: Zahir AMOURA, MD

If you want to follow the developments on this study you can check this following link from time to time. The study will not wrap up until August 2021, and probably published conclusions from the study will take some time to appear after that.


Here is a clip from the Study Description Summary:
The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic represents a major therapeutic challenge. The highly contagious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) and the long duration of the disease have led to a massive influx of patients admitted in health services and intensive care units. These patients represent a significant infection risk to the medical staff. According to current knowledge, there are no treatments that prevent the spread of the infection, especially in exposed populations, or the disease progression to a severe form.

Daily active smokers are infrequent among outpatients or hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Several arguments suggest that nicotine is responsible for this protective effect via the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR).

Nicotine may inhibit the penetration and spread of the virus and have a prophylactic effect in COVID-19 infection, especially in healthcare workers who are at high risk of infection.

User avatar
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 3:43 pm
Location: Raleigh NC

Re: Efficacy of Nicotine in Preventing COVID-19

Post by Kinnikinnick »

So, basically, we’re inadvertently guarding ourselves against covid-19 with our nicotine intake. ;) Yay! us.

I know I won’t be cutting down on my nicotine intake! 7.5mg in vape form and 8mg in Snus form on a daily basis.... That will hopefully keep that virus at bay until I can get the vaccine in my system.

Nicotine for the win! :D

[NOTE from Moderator:] A discussion of Snus followed for several posts and that has been split to : viewtopic.php?f=13&t=76

User avatar
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 4:58 pm
Location: California

Re: Efficacy of Nicotine in Preventing COVID-19

Post by Peter_Ramish »

The following was authored by Harry Shapiro
reprinted with permissiion from

We are now used to hearing experts of all disciplines, from virologists to behavioural psychologists, interviewed in the media about COVID-19. There is general agreement on personal safety measures like social distancing and hand-washing. But even at this basic level, questions arise. As it becomes clear that the virus can be carried in airborne droplets, should the recommended distance in the UK remain at 2 metres rather than I metre plus or even 3 metres? 

Beyond that, is mask wearing an effective barrier? If so, what kind and where should they be worn? Do you render the vaccine less effective by extending the time between each dose? How long is the vaccine effective? Can you contract the virus more than once? How strong is the evidence that the new variant is 70% more transmissible? Can you still pass on the virus even if you have been vaccinated but had the virus at the point of inoculation? There have been 23,000 papers published on the virus in the past year, with the numbers piling up every week: those trying to assess the evidence about coronavirus are just as overwhelmed as the hospitals trying to deal with it.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05 ... hem-afloat
As it grapples with this mountain of evidence, and how best to advise politicians, policymakers and doctors, what the medical and scientific community can certainly do without are the conspiracy theorists. Social media has given new impetus to the cult of anti-vaxxers, with the added frisson of Bill Gates apparently wishing to inject us all with some kind of mind controlling substance, although to what end is unclear. Joining the throng of outliers are those who think 5G masts caused the coronavirus, and virus deniers, including some of the more ‘populist’ delusional politicians who put their citizens at even greater risk.

But the very authorities, in particular the WHO, who rightly condemn such dangerous antics are themselves engaged in a propaganda campaign of epic proportions, potentially putting millions of lives at risk. Just as there is no denying the presence of a highly dangerous virus in our midst, there is no denying the science which shows unequivocally that tobacco can be used relatively safely so long as it remains unburnt. And for more than a decade, there have been products on the market that deliver, more safely, the nicotine that smokers want. That’s it – there should be no controversy about this – and it should be the prime directive of international tobacco control to promote this fact alongside all other public health measures because, like the virus, the smoking epidemic is out of control, primarily in poorer countries.

Instead, a controversy has been manufactured which obscures this central and vital scientific fact which many in the international tobacco control community find so unpalatable. They refuse to acknowledge that, just as the globally polluting car industry can develop electric cars while still selling gas guzzlers, so the tobacco industry (both large and small) can develop relatively safer products. Yes, young people will experiment with vaping products, but that does not translate into the conspiracy theory that Big Tobacco is looking to hook kids on cool vapes. The evidence for this is no more robust than the evidence that Trump was cheated out of the presidential election.

Some people will use safer nicotine products as an offramp from smoking and then nicotine entirely – others won’t and will continue to consume nicotine. As the science shows that nicotine is not a harbinger of deadly disease, so what if people continue to use it? The spectre of addiction is raised as if this was akin to the chaos of a life driven by heroin or crack use. Where there is little or no harm, there is just a habit, not an addiction. ‘We don’t know enough about long-term effects’ is another ‘get out of jail free’ card which fuels ‘the controversy’ and is often played in the game which gambles with smokers’ lives. The scientific gloss on this is the ‘precautionary principle’ which advises caution in allowing innovation which is potentially harmful. But as an EU document on the subject states, “…most experts agree that the precautionary principle does not call for specific measures (such as a ban…)”. And if you are talking about snus – banned throughout the EU – the product is hardly innovative, having been developed 200 years ago. All the recent clinical evidence not only underlines its relative safety, but snus is also credited with plummeting smoking rates in Sweden and Norway and a gold standard decline in smoking-related disease compared to the rest of the EU.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktan ... 015)573876

So, as those working in tobacco harm reduction have repeatedly stated, the claim that we don’t know enough about safer nicotine products to promote them in the fight against smoking is both scientifically and morally indefensible.
All this billowing smoke and dazzle of mirrors deliberately confuses the media, health professionals, politicians and smokers into thinking that we know hardly more about safer nicotine products than we do about COVID-19, except that anybody supporting tobacco harm reduction must be shunned.

During this year, the EU will be reviewing the tobacco products directive while the WHO will be holding the biennial meeting of the signatories to the tobacco control convension. The current mood music is that officials controlling both processes will be pushing for tighter controls on safer nicotine products.

To reiterate, the ‘controversy’ gains traction because the ostensibly credible authorities, exhorting people to do the right thing to protect themselves, their families and the wider community in the face of a global pandemic, snap into cognitive dissonance as the architects of the kind of propaganda they rightly condemn in others.

Posts: 0
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2021 10:55 am
Location: Washington USA

Re: Efficacy of Nicotine in Preventing COVID-19

Post by Testy »

Who knows?
All I know for sure is:
The common cold is a corona virus
Since I started vaping I haven't had a single cold (7 years)
The fact that I only vape NET Is a good thing - great tobacco taste and maybe resistant to Covid as well!
Sounds good to me.

User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:46 pm

Re: Efficacy of Nicotine in Preventing COVID-19

Post by 50YearsOfCigars »

Here is another paper about this issue. Unfortunately the methods used in this paper are very weak. It is just amazing how the industry of "science" has fallen to nothing more than marketing and the pursuit of money grants from governments and private special interest funding organizations.

There is a stampede in the junk science industry to churn out anything that has the potential to grab grant funding. This one uses a perfect combination to grab funds, that is: a study that combines the latest buzz words, "COVID" and "VAPING". If you are a "scientist" trying to make the next payment on your BMW nothing could be more attractive. So here is more junk science.

Electronic-Cigarette Use Alters Nasal Mucosal Immune Response to Live-attenuated Influenza Virus.pdf

You can download this from our server where I place PDFs.
To Download go to viewtopic.php?f=2&t=22 for instrution on how to get to the cloud server.
or go direct for this specific title to:
https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10 ... ode=ajrcmb

Here is a bit of it:
It is well established that inhalation of cigarette smoke is linked to an increased risk of viral infection, such as influenza. Inhalation of smoke or aerosol from new and emerging tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes, has also recently been linked to immune suppression within the respiratory tract, within the nasal mucosa (16), and in response to bacterial infection (35). Considering the concurrent threats of increased e-cigarette use and emerging viral infections, such as coronavirus disease (COVID-19), determining whether and how e-cigarette use affects antiviral host-defense functions is of significant public health importance. On the basis of the known immunity-modifying effects of e-cigarettes, we hypothesize that e-cigarette use will be associated with altered nasal host-defense responses to viral infections
This is science? "It is well established" that A leads to B, it is thought that B is 'linked, to C, therefore A leads to C. This crap actually gets published in a so-called 'peer-reviewed journal'. :roll: The paper is a marketing wonder, even the latest multi-color 'make it look like anything you want' graphs.. But someone on the team of "scientests" that wrote the paper must have realized how far off the science they were getting, so they choose to put this little 'disclaimer' buried way down in the text (you would hardly notice it unless you were looking for the 'fine print'):
Together, these data suggest that e-cigarette use alters nasal mucosal antibody production, gene expression, and protein production and thereby might alter respiratory antiviral host-defense function and immune memory. Demonstrations of causality would require longer-term studies of immunity and infection rates.
Here is a cut and paste from some of my previous comments on another forum about junk science:
This article has all the hall marks of a classic piece of “junk science”… The hangers-on at low quality research labs in various colleges and universities around the country shot gun out tons of this crap hoping to snag some of that big pile of Federal dollars in NIH research grants. It always helps if the subject matter is currently on the radar of federal agencies.

Tip offs to junk science papers are usually similar. Like extravagant mistakes or total misrepresentation of cause and effect. In this case we seem to have jumped from the analytical lab chemistry to statements like: "Findings in our study (…) imply that (,) . E-liquid flavoring chemicals and other constituents must be tightly regulated to minimize the risk of lung disease especially among teens.

Other typical junk science tip-offs is “round robin” cites to previous experimental results from the same group of investigatiors. As well as cites to previously discredited papers in the literature. The many cites used in this paper to things like diacetyl, 2, 3-pentanedione, is classic mumbo jumbo bate and switch.

Also real scientists ask the right question when trying to get the right answer. You are just playing games if you cherry pick 5 compounds already known to have some degree of toxicity then pretend that you can expand any result you get from that contrived experiment with those compounds to answer a greater question like “Is the flavoring agents generally used in E-Liquid in fact toxic at a significant or meaningful levels in the general population?”,

They are not fooling any real chemist that reads this, for example coumarin. which is a common industrial chemical, actually a Benzopyrone is produced in metric tons world wide for many uses. If they are so worried about its “toxicity” they would be better advised to write a paper on that hazard, rather than picking on some guy that is just trying to quit smoking.

I could go on for pages about “junk science”, but it is a subject, that sadly, has taken over Washington DC. It is one of our greatest unseen enemies, and is much more dangerous than all the E-Liquid on the planet.

for more about junk science and vaping see:

Regulator Watch :

RegulatorWatch.com covers the issues, controversies and impacts arising from the regulation of economic, social and environmental activity in Canada and the ...

Post Reply