Nicotine causes lung cancer....?

[kristin]

Once again - no one claimed that e-cigarette use was "perfectly safe." And no one was "piling on" anything other than counters to using individual, unrelated and unproven theories about nicotine studies promoted in the media as "proof" nicotine "may" cause cancer. The media likes to make headlines like "Minn. researchers find 'smoking gun' link between nicotine and cancer," which are completely misleading. But people read the headlines and not between the lines.

"They discovered that the smokers with lung cancer had much higher levels of a nicotine byproduct called NNAL.

Those with the highest levels of the compound, and another byproduct called cotinine, had a nearly nine-fold increased risk of developing lung cancer compared to smokers with the lowest levels of the compounds."

Really? That is the smoking gun? But wouldn't it also stand to reason that someone who smokes more and with higher frequency would have higher levels of those chemicals and also be exposed to more of the carcinogens in the actual SMOKE?

Yes, you can name dozens of nicotine studies which show "possible" links to cancer. But NONE of them back up each other, and none of them have shown nicotine as the cause of ANY cancers in humans.

No one is arguing that e-cigarettes are 100% safe, but if you are going to try to use the ANTZ-style scare tactics of using unproven, unbacked (meaning no other studies have been done by other researchers with similar finds and the research has not been extended to humans) research papers on animals and extremely small population studies as a "cause of concern" that nicotine e-cigarette use could eventually cause cancer in humans, you will have people who have also done the research into those studies and have a different opinion of what those studies actually mean to vapers. It has nothing to do with "cheer leading" and everything to do with disagreeing that those studies - standing on their own or even used together - should be use in any way to promote the fear that nicotine e-cigarette use has ANY significant risk of causing cancer just because of the nicotine itself. It was the opinion of some of us that you were simply putting too much weight into tentative studies which tell us little, if anything, about actual nicotine use and humans.

E-cigarettes are turning the accepted rhetoric about nicotine addiction on its head. If we were all just "nicotine addicts" then why is it so easy for so many vapers to use non-nicotine liquid? Why do so many vapers use 36mg or higher nicotine liquid and still find "something still missing?" Why do people who use snus and other smoke-free tobacco products - known to be higher in nicotine content and containing the "something missing" from e-cigarette liquid - still want to vape? Because the medical community was wrong to so quickly latch onto nicotine as the "magic bullet" for why we all smoke. It is a factor - the main factor for many - but it's much more complicated that being "nicotine addicts."

[markfm]

If you go down to 0mg you're no more addicted than someone who bites their fingernails. Kicking the nicotine hasn't ever been a problem for me. It's the habit that's a problem.
Last time I used e-cigs I was down to 4mg in a month.

Healthier doesn't mean healthy, it means less harmful.

4 mg -- sweet I expect to stay at 10 - 12 for the foreseeable future.

Overall on this thread, on some posts I just disagree with tone, things come across too rosy at times, overly forceful on ideas that we don't want to hear; science is a slow pursuit, statistical, not as clean cut as any of us would like. I wholeheartedly agree that the vast decrease in chemicals being inhaled, particularly TSNA, is a gigantic improvement compared to smoking, else I wouldn't be a vaper. Anyhow, hopefully we'll all have a good weekend

[chad]

The State of California does not recognize nicotine as carcinogenic. The State of California does recognize grilled foods as carcinogenic... Nicotine is toxic but is not necessarily carcinogenic.

[John Phoenix]

I didn't read all the posts so I'm sure someone pointed this out already - Most of the people who site studies on nicotine being harmful do not realize those studies usually do not separate tobacco smoke from the nicotine. It's the smoke itself that causes illness, not the nicotine alone.

Nicotine in it's pure form delivered without the use of smoke has not been proven to be cancer causing. If your doctor really believes these lies then she is probably telling people the patch and nicotine gun are killers too.

For kicks, ask her about FDA approved Nicotine Replacement Therapies - if the approves these, then you know sh'se a shill in the pocket of Big Pharma and not looking out for your health.

[Doublexl85]

That is so stupid (thedoctor) they have discovered 64 different cancer causing chemicals in cigarettes and 0 in e-cigs, not to mention the fact that any stimulant can increase cancer growth, such as caffeine. Is that Doctor Durpa Durpa?

[Jimi D.]

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...wednesday.html Perhaps the Doctor should watch this.