............... Also nicotine has been proven in rats to increase tumor size and increase the chances of the spread of cancer once it's already in your body (which just about anything can give you cancer at this point...). I don't believe that it's 2% dangerous if it could still potentially lead to your death.
There is a difference between the results of a couple of clinical studies, and real-world facts. Here are some of the issues with your statement:
1. Some animal results don't transfer directly to the same result in humans.
2. There are an equal (or greater) number of clinical trials in humans that show benefits.
3. There is a vast data mountain available for long-term human consumption of nicotine, and all of this evidence either proves (the actual statistics and epidemiology) or strongly demonstrates (the hundreds of clinical studies) that long-term ad lib consumption of nicotine by humans has very low risk.
What we are talking about here is the nearly 30 years of Snus epidemiology and clinical study data. Sweden has reduced its smoking prevalence by 45% (55% among men), estimated at 2013, and as a result the disease and death figures are falling in parallel. The epidemiology (national disease and death statistics) cannot be argued with and therefore constitute proof that Snus consumption (and therefore nicotine consumption) has extremely low risk, otherwise the disease and death rates would not be falling at the same rate that smokers switched. Sweden for example now has the lowest smoking prevalence of any developed country, the lowest smoking-related death rate of any developed country by a wide margin, the lowest male lung cancer and oral cancer rate in the EU, and a smoking-related death rate about half the EU average. These are the facts and constitute proof that Snus is an extremely desirable option as an alternative to smoking.
However there is a timelag of about 15 years before the full effects of any given change in smoking prevalence can be seen reflected in the disease and death rate, which will always lag behind the actual progress made. Therefore the significant reduction in death and disease we can presently see will increase, and eventually probably equal the percentage of smokers who switched, but will not reach 45% (for example) for another 15 years or so, at which time the reduction in deaths will clearly be phenomenal. Sweden will eventually have a smoking disease and death rate so low that it will be impossible for the paid liars and propagandists to deny it.
As far as clinical studies go, trials cannot prove anything, but supply evidence for why specific national statistics exist. It is important to realise that no clinical trial can
prove anything, and that 1,000 clinical studies cannot
prove anything - they supply reasons why the epidemiology (the facts) exist. Also there is a general principal in science that you look at all the evidence, and don't just choose some small part that agrees with your own agenda. In this regard we can look at these aspects of clinical studies of nicotine effects and Snus consumption:
1. There are some clinical trials (a very small number) that show negative effects in animals, especially with the effect on existing cancers.
2. There are no such trials in humans.
3. There are even more trials that show positive effects in humans (although the effect on existing cancer was not studied).
4. There is no evidence in humans that increased nicotine consumption [1] can promote cancer; in fact the opposite is the case, and there is a mountain of evidence that shows it does not do so in humans.
5. The hundreds of clinical studies of Snus consumption in Sweden report the following:
a. When meta analyses of very large numbers of trials are conducted, it can be clearly demonstrated that extensive Snus consumption (and therefore nicotine consumption) has extremely low risk, since Snus does not elevate risk for any disease; and that the health outcomes of smokers who totally quit or who switch to Snus are the same. If nicotine consumption was 'dangerous' in any way, these results would not have been obtained.
b. These are statistical results, meaning that the number of persons who did become ill as a result of the investigated activity, if any, was so small that they did not affect the overall result. There is no statistically visible effect from Snus consumption. However it looks as if there is a very small increase of risk for stroke which is just about visible above the background noise but that cannot be verified at this time as the numbers are too low. This effect cannot be verified statistically due to its tiny size. Statisticians say that an effect below 1% is difficult or impossible to verify. And, to be 'clinically significant', the effect has to be demonstrable at about 3% or 4% (opinions vary), a very much higher level. Therefore there is no possible way that risk for stroke from Snus consumption is clinically significant (and certainly not for any other effect as none is even visible statistically).
This is also, by the way, why the benefits of NRT therapy for smoking cessation are not in fact clinically significant, since the success rate can be shown in independent studies (not those run for the manufacturers) to be 2% or less. If the failure rate for a therapy is 98% or greater than it cannot possibly be described as clinically efficacious (no other medicine would be described so).
c. There are equal numbers (in both cases very small) of clinical studies that report Snus consumption as (a) having an elevated risk for, for example, pancreatic cancer, or (b) having a protective effect against such cancers. These types of trials are regarded as outliers and are normally excluded from meta analyses since their methodologies can either be shown to be faulty or are secret (no genuine researchers refuse to reveal their methods, as has been the case for one or two of the Snus trials that reported an increase in risk for pancreatic cancer). The medical statisticians Lee & Hamlin removed such trials from their meta analyses as a result, since they cannot be shown to be both honest and reliable.
Therefore any assertion that nicotine consumption 'is harmful' can be clearly shown to result from paid propaganda, as there is no evidence for it. Indeed, nicotine may be required in small quantities by some people and in larger quantities by others (like its sister compound nicotinic acid or vitamin B3, aka niacin) as it is a normal and natural part of the diet. Everyone tests positive for nicotine unless they eat no vegetables, which would mean they may have other health issues. Everyone tested for nicotine in every large-scale test that ever took place has always tested positive, as it is a normal component of the diet.
Some probably need more than others, as the case for just about every dietary component. Many if not all dietary components are harmful or even lethal in large quantities (as is everything). In fact vitamin A, vitamin D, copper and even iron are more toxic than most nutrients - but try living without them.
[1] Since nicotine is a normal and natural part of the diet and everyone tests positive for it, we know that everyone consumes it as a matter of course. What we are interested in, presumably, is elevated consumption over the long term. The describing of 'nicotine consumption' by a researcher as being 'possibly harmful' can immediately be identified as some form of paid-for campaign, in this context. Everyone consumes nicotine, and it is harmless; even elevated consumption over the long term can be shown to be ultra low risk. Since we know this from the facts, persons who say different can be identified as egregious liars (as such lies cost lives), and their motivation is most likely continued receipt of pharmaceutical industry funding and the protection of pharma profits.
Individuals, though, need to take careful note of their family genetics - your most important health factor of all. Indeed, this factor is so important that it is tempting to say it outweighs all other factors. If your grandparents, parents and close relatives show a tendency to die early from cardiac and vascular issues - then take note, as you are in theory at much higher risk of such issues than other people. Conversely if your folks died at 90 and smoked all their lives, then you could take the opposite view. Everyone is
not the same, and
does not have the same risk profile.
