If Women Continue To Use Nicotine During Pregnancy

Status
Not open for further replies.
So let's say for the sake of argument that e cigs deliver no nictotine. Then what about my nicotine addiction for the last 25 years? Was it all in my head?
Patches and pills couldnt get me off cigarettes. The "approved" and "safe" methods were failures. My 510 on the other hand has removed me from cigarettes forever.

Certainly ecigs deliver nicotine.

The problem the medical researchers are running up on, is the mystery -- why isn't it showing up in the bloodstream and other bodily fluids, like traditional cigarettes.

I suppose some studies of how the body metabolizes nicotine might can solve that question...

Discovery Health "How Nicotine Works"
Different people metabolize nicotine at different rates.
Nicotine doesn't stick around your body for too long. It has a half-life of about 60 minutes, meaning that six hours after a cigarette, only about 0.031 mg of the 1 mg of nicotine you inhaled remains in your body.
How does your body get rid of nicotine? Here's the process:
About 80 percent of nicotine is broken down to cotinine by enzymes in your liver.
Nicotine is also metabolized in your lungs to cotinine and nicotine oxide.
Cotinine and other metabolites are excreted in your urine. Cotinine has a 24-hour half-life, so you can test whether or not someone has been smoking in the past day or two by screening his or her urine for cotinine.
The remaining nicotine is filtered from the blood by your kidneys and excreted in the urine.
Different people metabolize nicotine at different rates. Some people even have a genetic defect in the enzymes in their liver that break down nicotine, whereby the mutant enzyme is much less effective at metabolizing nicotine than the normal variant. If a person has this gene, their blood and brain nicotine levels stay higher for longer after smoking a cigarette. Normally, people keep smoking cigarettes throughout the day to maintain a steady level of nicotine in their bodies. Smokers with this gene usually end up smoking many fewer cigarettes, because they don't constantly need more nicotine.
~ health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/drugs-alcohol/nicotine2.htm​

But I think when all the medical research is in and all said and done, there's way more to it than that. The answer is probably complex, like a medical mystery. Sure there's nicotine in e-cigarettes... but it disappeared, if researchers are coming up with negative-results (absent of nicotine in blood/urine samples). That makes no sense, since afterall, tobacco cigarettes leave traces of nicotine in the bloodstream and urine samples.
There's a reason. Something along the line of, since your body isn't burdened with cleaning out those 4000 toxins associated with tobacco smoke, perhaps its metabolizing the nicotine faster... or *insert explanation to phenomena here*.

THE ONLY QUESTION THAT MATTERS, IS: HOW MUCH NICOTINE IS MAKING ITS WAY TO AN UNBORN FETUS?

As in
Surgeon General's Warning: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight.​

How Long Does Nicotine Stay In The Blood?
In a small percentage of people, how your body metabolizes nicotine (or more accurately, how it doesn't metabolize nicotine) will also come into play. ...
~ blurtit.com/q237386.html

In larger quantities, nicotine is a deadly poison, but in small doses it can bring pleasurable feelings. When tobacco is smoked, nicotine is absorbed into the body through the lungs. After roughly 72 hours, nicotine is metabolized, and it becomes a different compound called cotinine.
Cotinine
Cotinine is the compound into which the body metabolizes nicotine. While nicotine is detectable in the blood and urine for 72 hours, cotinine is able to be detected much longer. It is often cotinine that most tests will seek out, since it can determine if a person has been a smoker. This is true even if they haven't had a cigarette in the past three days, and there is no active presence of nicotine in their body.

~ ehow.com/about_5314889_tests-check-nicotine-body.html



lulz... concerning concerns about preventing birth defects from nicotine, women carry the babies ...

Nicotine metabolizes faster in women than in men - Medicine Online
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Women metabolize nicotine faster than men do ... By the same token, nicotine persisted in the body longer in men (132 minutes) ...
~ medicineonline.com › News › 2006 › June › 28

Would be nice if women who use ecigs had *zero* % nicotine risking birth defects.

It's a complex question and they don't have the answers.
I'm positive I get nicotine from my electronic cigarette. Question is, what becomes of the nicotine, once its inhaled. Medical research (at least the source I cited, CNN News) is saying there's no nicotine being delivered. Well, we all know that's not true. There's nicotine, but it disappeared between their lips and the urine or blood samples they drew.
 
Last edited:

VaporingQueen

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 26, 2010
1,120
19
Virginia
This is some of the best reading I have seen in a while. I can first hand say I know something is wrong with the patch delivery system. I tried it many times and on one occasion after putting a patch on I remember getting so ill I vomited, got the shakes cold sweat, and my heart raced and felt like it was going to explode. I knew it had to be the patch so I pulled it off asap, my arm where the patch was felt raw and hurt for a while and I still have a knot in that spot. A few hours later I started getting relief, but was still sick for days.
 

HeatherC

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 30, 2010
1,731
10
52
New York
I don't know about how right that study is....as I've also had great success for almost 53 days now (not one cigarette since praise the Lord!!) But I do know that they do say the delivery is not a quick with ecigs and can't help but think that's good...
Besides...nicotine is NOT as dangerous as the carbon monoxide, tar, and around 4000 additives (including 50 known carcinogens) that were in cigarettes. I also can't help but think that the ONE chemical in eliquid that they've cited as a carcinogen...1 vs 50...I think I'll risk it with ONE LOL
 
This is some of the best reading I have seen in a while. I can first hand say I know something is wrong with the patch delivery system. I tried it many times and on one occasion after putting a patch on I remember getting so ill I vomited, got the shakes cold sweat, and my heart raced and felt like it was going to explode. I knew it had to be the patch so I pulled it off asap, my arm where the patch was felt raw and hurt for a while and I still have a knot in that spot. A few hours later I started getting relief, but was still sick for days.

They sure are dangerous, and people like yourself have probably been overdosed, without even realizing it, and could've potentially killed you.

I tried the patch, years ago when they first came out (prescription only). My arm broke out in a horrible rash. Red, irritated, raw... I couldn't use it. Though, I had no idea that people were actually dying as a result of transdermal patches until the past year or two.

People need warnings about the patch (be it nicotine or pain killers, or *whatever* birth control, etc on who knows what is being administered with patch) so they can make an informed decision for thier own health. Anything with a history of causing numerous deaths, is not "safe".
 
Thanks for those links.

SUCKING WIND: STUDY SAYS E-CIG’s DON’T WORK | Ash Hole
Study Reveals a Need to Evaluate and Regulate 'Electronic Cigarettes' – VCU News Center
These are two places that they talk about this...
and here is the actual clinical study Evaluating the Acute Effects of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Devices Marketed to Smokers. - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov

Here's an interesting, related article.

How interesting "mainstream" media is... as I stated earlier, about it being unreliable. News reports go from "delivers no nicotine" to delivers "almost no nicotine".

Which is it, biased media and sensational university journalism? Don't trust even University websites.. I've seen scientists criticize university "news releases" because its a journalist and not an actual scientist writing the articles!

"...Similarly, unlike smoking real cigarettes, the E-cigarettes did not affect heart rate and had a relatively small (but observable) effect of reducing craving for a smoke..."

...and that "observable" effect to reduce craving is ALL I care about, thanks.

There's more to it, than just ingesting and metabolizing Nicotine... the positive here is, the device could actually ween people off nicotine? Yes? That is, if this research be true, and all its cracked up to be. Not forgetting how stats can be skewed, biased and different researchers can come away with very different conclusions. However, there's more to it, that makes me want to use an electronic cigarette ... that toasty, roasted French Vanilla flavor... yums... keeps me coming back. I just enjoy the vapor experience.

"...Given that it delivers almost no nicotine, it follows that the E-cigarette is unlikely to be effective in reducing nicotine withdrawal symptoms and helping addicted smokers to quit in the long run..."

I QUIT TOBACCO CIGARETTES... and looking back, they're just nasty. They stink. No way do I want to go back to killing myself on purpose..

The point is, if I'm doing this good (completely 100% put down all tobacco cigarettes weeks ago), without withdraw pangs... and with that in mind, the smoker's cough -- GONE! then the device has more than served its purpose. If in the event I had to do without my e-cig, I'd probably suffer far less withdraw, than if I were actually inhaling a full 16 or 18 or 24 mg nicotine.



This is more than a simple, "neat theatre prop" as its called below, by another in the field.

E-cigarettes deliver almost no nicotine.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Jonathan Foulds, MA, MAppSci, PhD
E-cigarettes continue to create a lot of media buzz and chatter among smokers and smoking cessation experts alike. Today, Professor Thomas Eissenberg of Virginia Commonwealth University published an important study demonstrating that E-cigarettes, despite claims on the packaging and advertising, deliver almost no nicotine to the user.

The study is published in the latest edition of the journal, Tobacco Control. Professor Eissenberg had 16 smokers abstain overnight, then come to the lab. on different days and (a) smoke two of their usual cigarettes (b)puff on two unlit cigarettes or (c) “smoke” 2 leading brands of E-cigarette using their “high nicotine” cartridge (16mg), each brand on a separate occasion. On each occasion he measured the blood nicotine levels before, during and up to 45 minutes after using the products.

As expected, the smokers started off with very low nicotine blood levels (around 2 ng/ml) and went up to around 17 and 20 ng/ml after smoking the usual cigarettes. However, when the smokers used 2 E-cigarettes their blood nicotine levels hardly budged, peaking at 3.5 ng/ml (i.e. not significantly different from before they used the E-cigarette or puffing on an unlit cigarette). Similarly, unlike smoking real cigarettes, the E-cigarettes did not affect heart rate and had a relatively small (but observable) effect of reducing craving for a smoke.

What this suggests is that regardless of how much nicotine is supposed to be contained in the E-cigarette cartridge, almost none of it is transferred via the vapor and absorbed in the human body. As I have previously suggested, the E-cigarettes appear to be a good idea, with intuitive appeal, but ultimately have the status of a neat theatre prop which mimics rather well the appearance of smoking.

/ EXCERPT

E-cigarettes deliver almost no nicotine.
 
Last edited:
I don't know about how right that study is....as I've also had great success for almost 53 days now (not one cigarette since praise the Lord!!) But I do know that they do say the delivery is not a quick with ecigs and can't help but think that's good...
Besides...nicotine is NOT as dangerous as the carbon monoxide, tar, and around 4000 additives (including 50 known carcinogens) that were in cigarettes. I also can't help but think that the ONE chemical in eliquid that they've cited as a carcinogen...1 vs 50...I think I'll risk it with ONE LOL


The original citation from the "Why Quit" website, demonstrates (according to the one medical professional cited) states the only component in cigarette smoke that truly poses a risk to a developing fetus, is the nicotine. So in that case, the amount of nicotine matters.

"...As expected, the smokers started off with very low nicotine blood levels (around 2 ng/ml) and went up to around 17 and 20 ng/ml after smoking the usual cigarettes. However, when the smokers used 2 E-cigarettes their blood nicotine levels hardly budged, peaking at 3.5 ng/ml (i.e. not significantly different from before they used the E-cigarette or puffing on an unlit cigarette)."

I've been pregnant... and a heavy smoker a vast part of my life.

We've got the figures I wanted in regard to just how much danger e-cigarettes pose to pregnant women / developing fetus. How much nicotine exposure for the developing fetus.

A Nicotine Patch is 250% x the normal nicotine intake, that is, 17-20 ng of nicotine found in a normal cigarette (??)

The nicotine levels from an e-cigarette, a mere 3.5 ng...

Are there any math whizzes in the house??
Would e-cigarettes serve as a viable alternative to smoking cigarettes if I were pregnant and felt compelled to continue using nicotine? Absolutely, yes. #%*@ straight.

Wonder what the Surgeon General would say in regard to a pregnant woman switching from 250% nicotine overdose, down to 3.5 ng nicotine?
 
Please correct me if I'm wrong:

Pregnant Mother using Nicotine Patch (250% more nicotine than a normal cigarette, assuming 18.5 ng is the median average of nicotine in bloodstream from one cigarette) : Fetus will be exposed to a constant supply of 46.25 ng nicotine.

Pregnant Mother smoking one Tobacco Cigarette: 17-20 ng nicotine, fluxuating nicotine levels.

Pregnant Mother using E-Cigarette: Fetus exposed to 3.5 ng nicotine.

If anyone can point out where my mathematics are wrong, please offer constructive criticism.

----

SOURCES:
"A March 2003 study published in Reproductive Toxicology found that the nicotine concentration in the brains of fetal mice were 2.5 times greater than the nicotine concentration found in the mother's bloodstream when nicotine was continuously administrated, as would be the case with the nicotine patch. A pregnant smoker need only imagine what it would be like if her mind were trapped and forced to constantly endure 250% more nicotine than normal..."
~ whyquit.com/pr/021606.html

-----
E-cigarettes deliver almost no nicotine.
"...On each occasion he measured the blood nicotine levels before, during and up to 45 minutes after using the products.As expected, the smokers started off with very low nicotine blood levels (around 2 ng/ml) and went up to around 17 and 20 ng/ml after smoking the usual cigarettes. However, when the smokers used 2 E-cigarettes their blood nicotine levels hardly budged, peaking at 3.5 ng/ml (i.e. not significantly different from before they used the E-cigarette or puffing on an unlit cigarette).
~ healthline.com/blogs/smoking_cessation/labels/Thomas%20Eissenberg.html


Helllllllooo Surgeon General.
What danger does 3.5 ng nicotine pose to a developing fetus?
 
Looks good to me

I doublechecked what the ng means, since that's the measurements given in the source.

To convert nanogram/milliliter to milligram/deciliter you divide by 10000.
Posted by Administrator at Conversion - ng/ml to mg/dl - OnlineConversion Forums

lol.

http://www.unitconversion.org/weight/milligrams-to-nanograms-conversion.html

Pregnant Mother using Nicotine Patch (250% more nicotine than a normal cigarette, assuming 18.5 ng (nanograms/ 0.0000185 mg) is the median average of nicotine in bloodstream from one cigarette) : Fetus will be exposed to a constant supply of 46.25 ng (nanograms / 0.00004625 mg) nicotine.

Pregnant Mother smoking one Tobacco Cigarette: 17-20 ng (0.000017 mg) nicotine, fluxuating nicotine levels.

Pregnant Mother using E-Cigarette: Fetus exposed to 3.5 ng (0.0000035 mg) nicotine.
 
Last edited:
Looks good to me

Oh BTW, here's that info I mentioned earlier on Propylene Glycol being potentially healthy. The information actually originated from this site. From one of "Tropical Bob"'s 5000+ posts ...

Originally found article on Google and stored at ~ ecigs-today.com/?p=89

Propylene Glycol: An Air Cleaning Germicide
Posted on 28 November 2009.
Far from posing a threat to our health, the propylene glycol in e-smoking liquids might help keep us healthy. It would accomplish that by its germicidal action. It kills many of the major bacteria that threaten lung entry into our bodies.
Until yesterday, I was unfamiliar with this potentially beneficial consequence of propylene glycol vapor.
Back in the late 1930s, researchers at the University of Chicago stumbled onto its effectiveness as a germ-killer, as related in this Time magazine story from Nov. 16, 1942:
“A powerful preventive against pneumonia, influenza and other respiratory diseases may be promised by a brilliant series of experiments conducted during the last three years at the University of Chicago’s Billings Hospital. Dr. Oswald Hope Robertson last week was making final tests with a new germicidal vapor — propylene glycol — to sterilize air. If the results so far obtained are confirmed, one of the age-old searches of man will finally achieve its goal…
“…the researchers found that the propylene glycol itself was a potent germicide. One part of glycol in 2,000,000 parts of air would — within a few seconds — kill concentrations of air-suspended pneumococci, streptococci and other bacteria numbering millions to the cubic foot.
“How did it work? Respiratory disease bacteria float about in tiny droplets of water breathed, sneezed and coughed from human beings. The germicidal glycol also floats in infinitesimally small particles. Calculations showed that if droplet had to hit droplet, it would take two to 200 hours for sterilization of sprayed air to take place. Since sterilization took place in seconds, Dr. Robertson concluded that the glycol droplets must give off gas molecules which dissolve in the water droplets and kill the germs within them.
“Dr. Robertson placed groups of mice in a chamber and sprayed its air first with propylene glycol, then with influenza virus. All the mice lived. Then he sprayed the chamber with virus alone. All the mice died.”
The complete Time story can be read here: Air Germicide – TIME
In a scientific summary of the discovery, it was noted that “Tests on possible deleterious effects of breathing propylene glycol containing atmospheres over long periods of time are being carried out.”
Those tests were done and a second summary report on propylene glycol vapor was released:
“Propylene glycol is harmless to man when swallowed or injected into the veins. It is also harmless to mice who have breathed it for long periods. But medical science is cautious — there was still a remote chance that glycol might accumulate harmfully in the erect human lungs which, unlike those of mice, do not drain themselves. So last June Dr. Robertson began studying the effect of glycol vapor on monkeys imported from the University of Puerto Rico’s School of Tropical Medicine. So far, after many months’ exposure to the vapor, the monkeys are happy and fatter than ever. Dr. Robertson does not expect mankind to live, like his monkeys, continuously in an atmosphere of glycol vapor; but it should be most valuable in such crowded places as schools and theaters, where most respiratory diseases are picked up.”
The monkeys lived in enclosures filled with propylene glycol vapor. No deleterious effect was ever reported. And the concentrations of PG we inhale on a regular basis surely must equal the amount inhaled by the monkeys for this test. Obviously, no scientist saw a time when a device would atomize a PG mist that would then be inhaled for fun. But time and technology has given us the electronic cigarette. With each inhalation, we are washing our lungs with a germicidal agent used today in some “air sanitizers”.
Glycerine, by the way, has some germicidal impact, but not, apparently, to the degree provided by inhaling propylene glycol vapor. Glycerine is now used by dairy farmers to help prevent bacteria entering a cow’s teats after milking. Glycerine both softens the teats and kills bacteria.
One more quote on PG: “The vapour from as little as 0.5 mg of propylene glycol can kill nearly all the microorganisms in a liter of heavily contaminated air within 15 seconds.”
The initial experiments with PG vapor were part of a search to find ways to create clean rooms, so the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic that killed so many millions would never be repeated. Today, researchers have wondered online if propylene glycol vapor might not offer protection against a widely feared coming pandemic of bird flu, tagged H5N1.
Imagine e-smokers being healthier than non-smokers in such a scenario.
Source: Tropical Bob: Ecigarette Forum
 
Cool TY for that!

According to the web, the actual Quit-Rate of the Patch vs. E-Cig success rate, seems to have no official statistics to support it, but one poll provides the following:
View Poll Results: E-Cig Success Rate?, polling 1730 voters, as of August 9, 2010.
I've completely quit analogs with e-cigs 1,434 (82.89%)
I've cut down on analogs use with e-cigs 285 (16.47%)
I only use e-cigs where I can't use analogs 11 (0.64%)

Quit-Rate for the Patch
"Real-World" Nicotine Patch and Gum Rates
In the Shiffman "Real-world" study, only 3% of those using the Rx nicotine patch and 9.2% of those using the OTC patch were not smoking at six months. In the nicotine gum groups, only 7.7% of the Rx gum group and 8.4% in the OTC gum group were not smoking at six months. Sadly, the average for the four groups was just 7%.
The patch rates obtained in this study are frighteningly consistent with the 24 week results produced in the 1998 Davidson OTC patch study (8.2%) and the 1999 Hays OTC patch study (7.7%).​
Just some interesting stats. The patch is not only dangerous, but terribly ineffective.
 

DVap

Nicotiana Alchemia
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 26, 2009
1,548
1,586
There is also a blog on this site that kinda tells why this may not be as true as that test thinks it is....It's by DVap and called "Ecigs as placebos?"

Hmmm? :2cool:

The Eissenberg study showed exactly what I would expect given the design parameters of the study. Intentionally or not, the study was designed in such a way that there wasn't the tiniest chance that ecigs would show efficacy in nicotine delivery.

Perhaps the fundamental flaw in the study design was to attempt to match ecigs -vs- analogs puff per puff using individuals having no idea how to effectively use ecigs. Smoking and vaping are distinct activities, and ecigs work not because we use them exactly like analogs, but because we learn to use them effectively for what they are. We simply vape differently than we smoke, a fact not appreciated by the Eissenberg study.

Here's the blog post you mentioned where I critique the Eissenberg study.

Cheers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread