Nicotine and Cancer Research On The News

[strungmind]

Hello,

Seems like it's been far to long since I've been to this forum, just got caught up with work and personal life.

Ok, so, while watching the news last night, a report came out stating that Nicotine aids in the development of breast cancer, just wanted to raise everyones awareness and get some input.

Unfortunately, I do not have speakers on the computer I use for work, so I cannot listen to it, and there is no direct link, but if you go to WGNTV.com | WGN TV | Chicago's CW , find the search, and type in "Medical Watch: Nicotine and Cancer", it should be one of the first videos that shows up.

Sorry if this study was already posted, couldn't find it doing a quick search, hope this helps the community in understanding the health benefits/risks. (Quick Disclaimer: While I do think this isn't the great news we where looking for, I do still believe in the "hard reduction" way of thinking, and that e-cigarettes are still a better alternative than to the traditional cigarettes.)

[Nazareth]

Key point is that nic aids in the development- it doesn't 'cause' cancer itself. It would certainly be wise to cut down and eventualyl eliminate nic from our ecigs, but like you mention, we're greatly reducing our chance of getting cancer by goign to ecigs because we are not takign in the 40 some odd chemicals in real ciggs that actually DO 'cause' cancer because they are carcinogenic

[TropicalBob]

Deceptive logic. The current thinking is that while nicotine is not carcinogenic per se, it could act as a trigger for pre-cancerous cells to begin explosive growth. Now, chances are good you've got those in your lungs if you've smoked real cigs any length of time. In fact, you probably have pre-cancerous conditions elsewhere in your body, like hidden time bombs. If nicotine accelerates the growth of these all-conquering cells, well .. Houston, we have a problem.

Are you better off e-smoking? Sorry, no one can make that assurance to you. You're assuming a conclusion not scientifically verified.

[Mamba]

Sorry, but this sounds like more anti-smoking propaganda. I have yet to find the study they quoted but I notice they explicitly mention nicotine and not smoking. How was the nicotine administered and what are the other parameters of this study?

The reason I'm calling it propaganda is because there have been numerous studies on smoking and breast cancer and smoking has not been shown to be a causative factor in breast cancer and may actually be protective in women with certain gentetic factors (GASP!!!). This includes exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke. Not to mention it is actually unscientific and entirely incorrect to say that smoking or nicotine "causes" cancer. One should say that it may be a potential risk factor in certain individuals. If smoking or nicotine "caused" cancer then every smoker would get cancer. They don't.

Here is a quote from a 1996 study:

Cigarette smoking and breast cancer

JA Baron, PA Newcomb, MP Longnecker, R Mittendorf, BE Storer, RW Clapp, G Bogdan and J Yuen

Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755-3861, USA.
A priori hypotheses suggest that cigarette smoking could either increase or decrease breast cancer incidence. To clarify these competing hypotheses, we used data from a very large population-based breast cancer case-control study to investigate the impact of smoking on breast cancer risk. Breast cancer patients less than 75 years old were identified from statewide tumor registries in Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maine, and New Hampshire; controls were randomly selected from driver's license lists (age less than 65) or lists of Medicare beneficiaries (age 65-74). Information on reproductive history, medical history, and personal habits including cigarette smoking was obtained by telephone interview. A total of 6,888 cases and 9,529 controls were interviewed. There was virtually no relationship between current smoking and breast cancer risk (multivariate odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.09), and former smokers had a barely increased risk (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.19). Similar results were observed among both premenopausal and postmenopausal women. There was no suggestion that heavy or long-term smoking increased or decreased risk, nor were there indications that women who began smoking at an early age were at increased risk, as has been hypothesized. The results of this large population-based study indicate that smoking does not influence the risk of breast cancer, even among heavy smokers who began smoking at an early age.

Cigarette smoking and breast cancer -- Baron et al. 5 (5): 399 -- Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Smoking not linked to breast cancer

Passive Smoking Exposure and Female Breast Cancer Mortality

P.S. Alcohol drinkers may not like that second study.

[Nazareth]

Mamba- there have been studies showi ng that Nicotine can cause or trigger cancer by enabling cells to becoem cancerous as TB points out- but not sure abotu breast cancer- haven't read anythign on that particular cancer

TB- What Strungmind and myself pointed out isn't deceptive- We're cutting out 40 some odd chemicals by esmoking, and that has to be a good thing. While we're not exactly sure if PG (and perhaps other ingredients) are bad, we are sure that esmoking doesn't contain the 40 or so chemicals that do cause cancer. As well, while a cartridge may have 24 mg nicotine, it doesn't last hte whole time like a real cig does, so we're also cutting down on nicotine as well.

If we have cancerous cells or precancerous cells, we're goign to get cancer regardless of nicotine as well. Nicotine MAY acceolorate cancer by providing a pathway, but it may not as well, and certainly cutting down by using the ecigs is a good thing as well- fact is, I'm goign to smoke and vape, and know the risks and accept them, but I'm sure I'm 'helping' some by vaping by cutting out the 40 or so known carcinogens in regular smoking. People live all their lives with precancerous cells and smoke right till the end and never actually get cancer- some do, some don't.

Ugggh- got another cold- can't think straight and not saying what I want to correctly. Bottom line I guess is that while nicotine is dangerous, and CAN excellorate cancer by developing a pathway- Nicotine in itself isn't a cancer causer- it's a cancer enabler, and the second bottom line is that I'm goign to consume nicotine one way or the other (in my case- both ways), and while vaping may not save me from gettign cancer, it's my belief that it is safer because it doesn't contain 40 some odd known carcinogens that ciggs do.

I think it is deceptive of the antismokers to make the claim that eciggs are NOT 'safer' than ciggs. While they are certainly not safe- they are safer by pretty large magnitudes, and hte fact is that many many htings we consume in life are not safe, but antismokers aren't petitioning for bans on those things- just on ciggs and probably on vaping because they are neurotic about nicotine. I can understand htem not wanting sellers to portray ecigs as 'safe' because it gives the wrong impression to young folks, but to claim they are not safer than ciggs is just deceptive.

[TropicalBob]

Mamba: Here's a Science Daily story on the new findings: Nicotine Linked To Breast Cancer Growth And Spread, Study Suggests

This one on nicotine and lung cancer is pretty disturbing, too: Protein Protects Lung Cancer Cells From Efforts To Fix Or Kill Them That little protein is produced from nicotine use.

Your use of the word "propaganda" is interesting, as if there weren't a real case against smoking. That case was settled some time ago. Smoking lost. Big Tobacco was ordered to pay billions for the carnage its products caused. And smoking lost because it is the number one public health menace today, not because some anti-smokers don't like the looks and smell of tobacco smoke.

But I do agree with you on this: Warnings should not say "smoking causes lung cancer." That is simply not accurate. "Smoking might cause lung cancer in some people" would be better -- and accurate. Certainly not every smoker develops lung disease -- and some seem to get away without any penalty to health or longevity. The overkill against tobacco is overwhelming. How any individual is impacted by tobacco smoking depends largely on genetic makeup.

I despise the untruths from the anti crowd. They have enough science without resorting to exaggerations.

Naz: Think as you like, but we cannot back up any statement regarding the safety of e-smoking, not even that it's "safer" than cigarette smoking. We "think" so. We "hope" so. We "believe" so. But we have nothing to back up claims of safety until the clinical trials are complete. You aren't getting 40 carcinogens in your e-vapor, that's for sure, but you only need ONE to become a cancer statistic. We have to eliminate the possibility that there are any carcinogens. Not even one. So far, we don't know that.

[Nazareth]

Naz: Think as you like, but we cannot back up any statement regarding the safety of e-smoking,

It wasn't my intention to claim we had anythign to back up- just that in all likelihood, we are vaping a much safer product as witnessed by pillbox's toxicology results on all the ingredients in his juices.

You aren't getting 40 carcinogens in your e-vapor, that's for sure, but you only need ONE to become a cancer statistic.

While htis is true, the fact still remains that we are greatly reducing our chances of gettign cancer by switchign to vaping simply because we are eliminating all those others- it's like throwing a bunch of tacks on the floor, blindfolding a person and having htem walk across barefoot- Remove all but one, and the chances of stepping on a tack are greatly reduced- while hte person still could theoretically step on the one tack- the chances are greater that they wont- not exactly a perfect scenario I know, but similar.

We have to eliminate the possibility that there are any carcinogens.

Would be nice- no doubt- but for now, I'm satisfied the risk is greatly reduced as I'm still hooked on nicotine, and coem what may, I've made my decision to keep hitting nic.

[SMILIN]

Still gotta be better than Cancer Sticks...My lungs tell me so, every day. I have no idea how much nic I was getting with Kool Kings, but I feel TONS better even with 36ml nic.

[TropicalBob]

We live in a changing world. If tobacco cigarettes were proposed for market today, how far do you think they'd get? Would they be approved for sale to the public? With 40+ known carcinogens in their smoke. With an addictive drug hooking users on an unhealthy practice?

Not a chance. They would be laughed out of existence. But once upon a time, they became legal and hooked millions in the U.S., billions worldwide. They are grandfathered in under many laws today. They have their own regulations, often created by special interests. So, if the product can't be banned, ban the use of the product in public. That's what is being done worldwide.

E-cigarettes must find their place in today's world. Unlike the early days of smoking tobacco in a paper tube, e-smoking must prove it doesn't cause cancer 20 years from now. It must prove, in today's demands, that the liquid doesn't contain any chemical known to be harmful (exception: nicotine, and even that might become an issue for regulators).

This is so different from the many toxic products some users toss into a discussion on safety. Cleansers, solvents, etc. are not meant to be inhaled. Our product produces vapor to inhale, and faces a far more stringent safety test than Liquid Plumber, gasoline or auto exhaust.

I'm pretty sure you know that I think it's safer than smoking regular cigarettes. I think it might even have benefits, after researching "germ-killing vapor" and corresponding with Dr. Laugesen. I don't think PG is a long-term problem. I don't think VG is any problem. I think the drug nicotine has both positive and negative consequences, and I'll take the good with the bad. But the operative word here is "think."

My bottom line remains intact: We don't know and should never make unfounded claims.

[Nazareth]

My bottom line remains intact: We don't know and should never make unfounded claims.

I thought it was clear I wasn't making any claims whatsoever- only giving my own personal opinions on the matter? I only suggest that it is a strong possibility that it is 'safer than' cigarettes- not that it is a 'safe' product.

I don't think PG is a long-term problem. I don't think VG is any problem. I think the drug nicotine has both positive and negative consequences, and I'll take the good with the bad. But the operative word here is "think."

Couldn't agree more.

Unlike the early days of smoking tobacco in a paper tube, e-smoking must prove it doesn't cause cancer 20 years from now.

I'm not sure it has to go quite that far- if it causes cancer- it will be regulated at worst- warning labels on boxes, noone under 18 can buy etc. I think over 20 years, it will be proven to be 'safer than' cigarettes though, and might be a good alternative for htose already addicted.

If tobacco cigarettes were proposed for market today, how far do you think they'd get? Would they be approved for sale to the public?

I suppose it would depend on how many people worldwide were hooked on the blackmarket product. Not sure how the advocacy for legalizing it would go as it's a different drug than other drugs like pot or cocain that alter the mind. We'd probably see Woody Harrelson and Willy Nelson singing love ballards about tobacco instead of pot then