For prophylactic effect (attempted prevention and mitigation of degenerative diseases and auto-immune / inflammatory diseases), nicotine is recognised as effective due to the epidemiology and various additional clinical data such as therapeutic effects. However it is too soon to say if nicotine is the sole active compound in tobacco that provides these benefits, since although we do know that nicotine has an anti-inflammatory action, at least one of the other active tobacco alkaloids, anatabine, is a more powerful anti-inflammatory, and is used in rheumatism meds for this reason.
For a non-smoker using nicotine for cognitive function benefits, we know that, clinically, there is a group of subjects who obtain significant benefit while most show no measurable improvement. However, most people report some benefit for mild cognitive impairment when affected by temporary environmental factors (e.g. lack of sleep, end of a very long working day, inconvenient shifts, working under pressure, etc.). This is why I have suggested that people in professions such as air traffic control and surgery, and who therefore hold many lives in their hands, consider nicotine supplementation as against other materials if they find their performance is slightly below par on certain shifts. Nicotine is probably the best cognitive function normaliser when measured on the safety vs efficacy scale.
We know of several dozen studies that show clinical benefits of various kinds, and many can be found by a search on PubMed. Anyone trying this needs to learn how to phrase complex search queries effectively.
We know of around 8 published studies where large doses of nicotine were administered daily to never-smokers for several months, without the slightest evidence of any reinforcement. If Dr Newhouse's work is added to this, although there is much unpublished work, the body of evidence for pure nicotine having zero potential for dependence in never-smokers is about doubled. Due to its volume and recent date, Newhouse's work appears to make him the leading authority on the administration of nicotine to never-smokers [1].
Some references for these statements can be found below in the Notes, at [2].
Some advice
To anyone new to the nicotine supplementation game [3] we might give this advice:
1. If you are a never-smoker then pure nicotine should not create dependency unless you are of a specific, rare, vulnerable type (with a predilection for dependence that you will probably already know of). However, any form of tobacco can create dependence, as it is the co-administration of MAOIs and possibly WTAs (and other materials) that creates the dependence on nicotine. Smoking is the most potent of all due (probably) to the much greater aldehyde load including the pyrolytic aldehydes, but smokeless tobacco has been implicated. Therefore, pure nicotine is advised rather than a tobacco vehicle delivery of any kind.
2. Pure nicotine is available in ecig vapour, pills, and NRTs - in descending order of effectiveness according to our experience and that of helpful guinea-pig psychologists who have tried the various approaches for research. However, increased efficiency does raise the possibility of an increase in the theoretical potential for dependency (without prior tobacco consumption).
Although no one has ever clinically demonstrated any potential for nicotine to create dependence (with pure nicotine in never-smokers, of course), none of the delivery systems are anywhere near as efficient as EVs (electric/electronic vapourisers: my preferred term for ecigs). It is demonstrated that EVs can be set up to deliver the same fast effect as cigarettes (although most are far, far less efficient), and therefore there is a theoretical possibility that there may be a non-zero dependence potential for (some types of) EVs in (some) never-smokers. This may, in theory, be amplified by elevated atomiser temperatures, if such elevated temperatures produce significant quantities of aldehydes and if non-tobacco aldehydes are subsequently confirmed as having a role in the potentiation of nicotine leading to dependence.
3. If a never-smoker or non-smoker is considering supplementing their nicotine intake then they would be advised to:
a. Consume pure nicotine and not tobacco in any form.
b. Also supplement nicotinic acid (vitamin B3, 'niacin'), since most of the effects are the same; and since these active dietary compounds are co-located in the same vegetables, it follows that both should be considered in a similar manner. Members of ECF have reported that B3 is efficacious for certain conditions related to minor cognitive impairment, but that the amount of B3 required is significantly more than the RDA advised.
c. Reduce the amount of nicotine consumed to that required for mitigation of symptoms, in case of the uncommon but nevertheless non-zero risk for persons with a genetic predisposition to CVD [5].
4. Despite the propaganda, nicotine has no association with cancer at all, and very limited evidence indeed for any effect on CVD. Any effect is almost certainly limited to those with a genetic predisposition to, or active, vascular disease. Part of the rationale for this is the huge Snus data resource, plus the very small (in comparison) NRT data resource. For example it is well-demonstrated that long-term Snus consumption in Sweden has an average life expectancy reduction of 6 weeks (the range is 2 to 10 weeks in the literature), which is almost certainly less than for long-term coffee consumption of an equivalent volume.
Newhouse has documented that the only identifiable widely-observable effect of long-term nicotine consumption is a
reduction in blood pressure. (The other beneficial effects are of a smaller scale and tend to apply to small sub-groups who apparently benefit from nicotine supplementation).
5. ECF is, in effect, the largest smoking cessation community in the world, with many millions of visitors every month. As a result we have accumulated considerable anecdotal evidence, even on issues that appear unknown to the medical profession. Some are outlined in the Health section stickies and the Library - see [4].
___________________________________________
WARNING TO MEMBERS
Please
do not post 'facts' about nicotine unless
you have personally read ALL the research (not just the media version) and
you have a very good appreciation of the issues.
This is because there is more propaganda published about nicotine than any other health-related topic. Everything the man in the street 'knows' about nicotine is almost certainly wrong - see the references below. Please DO NOT repeat propaganda as you are only helping the world's largest and most profitable black propaganda machine, and contributing to unwarranted restrictions on vaping.
For example, 44% of doctors in one survey [7] revealed they were completely ignorant of the facts and
the advice from their national clinical guidance authority on these issues, and believed instead in the propaganda. Don't make the same mistake. Nicotine is not associated with cancer, and is rarely associated with CVD and then only in exceptional circumstances. Read the quotes from the professors of medicine and doctors who advise us, such as Hajek, West, Polosa, Philips and Farsalinos.
Nicotine doesn't cause cancer or heart disease. Even ongoing consumption of tobacco for multiple decades will only take 6 weeks off your life on average, providing it is not smoked and providing the product is properly manufactured. Please
do not repeat propaganda.
Thank you.
____________________________________________
Notes
[1] Dr Paul Newhouse of Vanderbilt Uni.
[2] Quotes:
Vaping Quotes
References:
References
[3] Nicotine is a normal dietary ingredient; an active dietary ingredient with recognised benefits; everyone consumes it; everyone tests positive for it; and supplementation is as normal as for any other nutrient. It can be more closely compared with vitamin B3 in this regard. Persons with a demonstrated or suspected need for supplementation should probably consider supplementing both, rather than just one of these two closely-related compounds.
[4] Ecigs and health:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...hen-quitting-tobacco-changing-ecigarette.html
The ECF Library
All You Need To Know About Nicotine
[5] It is probably safe to say that if more than one of your parents and grandparents died comparatively early from stroke or heart attack that you could have a family (genetic) predisposition to vascular disease, and this may rarely be increased by high-volume nicotine consumption. It is clearly not a major consideration when millions of Snus consumers [6] demonstrate an average 6-week reduction in lifespan - but it is a risk, though not of sufficient size to be statistically measurable (never mind clinically significant).
[6] Snus is the special Swedish oral tobacco that is specially-treated to remove most of the carcinogens. It has no association with cancer, which is why Sweden has the lowest male lung cancer and oral cancer rates in the EU even though they have double the number of Snusers than smokers.
[7] In a recent survey of British and Swedish doctors, 44% of British doctors answered that they thought nicotine is associated with cancer (meaning that it causes it or assists it in some way). This is directly opposite to the official guidance from NICE, their national clinical guidance authority, which states clearly and unambiguously that nicotine has no association with cancer (in humans; it may have, in some animal models). Note carefully that animal nicotine models do not transfer to humans: we have two very good reasons we can state this with confidence -
i) We know beyond doubt that nicotine has no association with cancer in humans - the facts and data confirming this are inarguable (and remember it must be absolutely certain, for a national clinical guidance authority to state this, when that position is directly contradicted by all the propaganda and commercial pressures). Animal models may appear to show different (although their methodology / agenda has been called into question in some cases).
ii) We know that it appears impossible to clinically create dependence on nicotine. Animal models may appear to show different (although, again, their methodology / agenda has been called into question in some cases).
