> So all he's actually complaining about is the lack of nuance in the expression of the conclusions.
That's not what happened, though. The article claims that public health authorities, as well as random doctors, were denouncing these studies, and were claiming that they were a myth. Not just that they disagreed with conclusions. (And even then, merely disagreeing with conclusions sounds pretty dishonest.)
I think it's fair to say something like: "Yes, some researchers have drawn conclusions that smoking can help protect you from COVID infection. However, the health risks associated with smoking can be much worse than a COVID infection, and there are many other ways you can safely reduce your risk of COVID infection."
But instead, they said: "Research? Yeah, that research is garbage and the people involved are completely wrong." If the article here is to be believed, that's a flat-out lie.
> You're just going to end up convincing certain people to start smoking
I get it, but I think the cat was already out of that bag. I'm sure some people did start smoking based on these studies, regardless of what public health orgs said. And yes, maybe more people might have done the same if they'd acknowledged the potential correctness of the studies, but still urged people not to smoke. But I think that's an outcome we just have to accept; lying about scientific evidence hurts the credibility of these organizations in a way much worse than a possible increase of smoking-related health problems. And, personally, if I was in on one of those decision-making meetings, I wouldn't be comfortable lying to the public in that way. I would hope I'd have the stones to resign rather than do that.
That's not what happened, though. The article claims that public health authorities, as well as random doctors, were denouncing these studies, and were claiming that they were a myth. Not just that they disagreed with conclusions. (And even then, merely disagreeing with conclusions sounds pretty dishonest.)
I think it's fair to say something like: "Yes, some researchers have drawn conclusions that smoking can help protect you from COVID infection. However, the health risks associated with smoking can be much worse than a COVID infection, and there are many other ways you can safely reduce your risk of COVID infection."
But instead, they said: "Research? Yeah, that research is garbage and the people involved are completely wrong." If the article here is to be believed, that's a flat-out lie.
> You're just going to end up convincing certain people to start smoking
I get it, but I think the cat was already out of that bag. I'm sure some people did start smoking based on these studies, regardless of what public health orgs said. And yes, maybe more people might have done the same if they'd acknowledged the potential correctness of the studies, but still urged people not to smoke. But I think that's an outcome we just have to accept; lying about scientific evidence hurts the credibility of these organizations in a way much worse than a possible increase of smoking-related health problems. And, personally, if I was in on one of those decision-making meetings, I wouldn't be comfortable lying to the public in that way. I would hope I'd have the stones to resign rather than do that.