WOW - Alarming Data on Nicotine and NRT's

[WILDJC]

Seems like the FDA has a lot of work ahead of them.

"But imagine their horror upon discovering levels of NNN in the urine of nicotine gum and lozenges users that were 7, 31, 36 and 728 times higher than when smoking."


Studies need to be done on electronic cigarettes to answer this question.

"How does the human body transform nicotine into nornicotine and then NNN? Does the e-cigarette's nicotine vapor mist cause massive NNN urine spikes too, or like the transdermal nicotine patch (which the October study also evaluated), will spikes be far less frequent and vastly less profound? And why does the method of nicotine delivery affect NNN levels? We're left with vastly more questions than answers."


And what's really alarming is this statement.

October 20, 2009 PLoS One Nicotine Study - Not only is nicotine transformed via nornicotine into the potent carcinogen NNN, nicotine itself promotes cancer. It does so by preventing diseased cells from dying (a natural process known as apoptosis) and by actually forming new blood vessels that nourish and feed tumors (angiogenesis). Now, for the first time, a study suggests the gravity of nicotine use while having a tumor."

Here is the link.

Nicorette, Commit lozenge and NicoDerm CQ cancer scares

 

[rkh3]

You have to take into consideration the author's motive. They are against NRT and only in favor of the cold turkey method. You can make data prove any point that you want.

 

[cliff5550]

I would believe that organization and it's motives as much as they believe someone who vapes saying there is no problem of any type associated with e-cigs. The best stats come from those not involved, have no bias, and have nothing to gain or lose from those stats.

 

[WILDJC]

You have to take into consideration the author's motive. They are against NRT and only in favor of the cold turkey method. You can make data prove any point that you want.

True, but knowing Dr. Siegel's advocacy for e cigarettes, it's interesting that they include him in their studies, especially concern number 8.

"On July 17, 2009, Boston Univeristy School of Public Health Professor Michael Siegel, MD outlined ten concerns about NRT research and policy:

(1) financial conflicts of interest; (2) biased presentations; (3) biased study conclusions; (4) inadequate conflicts disclosure; (5) ignoring pregnancy NRT safety and ineffectiveness findings; (6) ignorning population based studies showing cold turkey more effective than NRT; (7) recent studies showing unplanned quitting attempts twice as successful as planned attempts; (8) unusual pharmacology industry worry over the e-cigarette sales; (9) serious NRT blinding failure concerns; and (10) pharmaceutical industry reluctance to pit NRT against real cold turkey quitters.

Professor Siegel closes by asserting, "In light of these 10 problems, I believe that it is time for a serious re-examination of both the effectiveness of nicotine replacement therapy and the role of NRT as part of a national strategy for the promotion of smoking cessation."

 

[telsie]

And what's really alarming is this statement.

October 20, 2009 PLoS One Nicotine Study - Not only is nicotine transformed via nornicotine into the potent carcinogen NNN, nicotine itself promotes cancer. It does so by preventing diseased cells from dying (a natural process known as apoptosis) and by actually forming new blood vessels that nourish and feed tumors (angiogenesis). Now, for the first time, a study suggests the gravity of nicotine use while having a tumor."

Promoting the growth of an existing tumor is different than causing cancer and I'm not aware of any studies that show nicotine is a carcinogen.

That NNN thing is interesting, though. Wikipedia says "NNN is produced by the nitrosation of nicotine during the curing, ageing, processing, and smoking of tobacco. Roughly half of the NNN originates in the unburnt tobacco, with the remainder being formed during burning." If wiki is correct, we're at least in less danger than if we were smoking and that assumes the nicotine in e-liquid comes from cured/aged/processed tobacco (anyone know?).

 

[grimmer255]

most eliquids are synthetic nicotine.

 

[CHUCKLEHEAD]

most eliquids are synthetic nicotine.

SYNTHETIC NICOTINE WTF?????????? I USE TO SMOKE SYNTHETIC ANALOUGES AS WELL RIGHT?????????? WHERE DID YOU FIND THIS INFO?

 

[SLDS181]

Promoting the growth of an existing tumor is different than causing cancer and I'm not aware of any studies that show nicotine is a carcinogen.

To my understanding, its also never been proven.

Not to mention, of course, that everything has been shown to cause cancer in rats.

 

[TaketheRedPill]

I would believe that organization and it's motives as much as they believe someone who vapes saying there is no problem of any type associated with e-cigs....

Unfortunately you'll find a lot of the latter on this forum - the younger they are, the less apt they are to believe there is any danger - cardiac or otherwise. I've brought stuff up like this before for intelligent discussion and was pretty much treated like a leper. The younger crowd don't want to hear anything bad about the adult toy they've claimed as their own and the older addicts want plenty of company so very little negative information is shared objectively. I've seen claims over and over again that nicotine is 'no more harmful than caffeine'. So, now I just mostly offer info on e-cig models I'm familiar with, spend my time reading without comment, shop for bargains and call it a day. In three months I've gone from (what is usually called a "wimpy") 6mg to 0mg, while some have gone from 18mg to 36mg/ml and beyond, in the same time period. Sad, really.

TTRP

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

There are some risks with nicotine consumption, but then again, there are risks with alcohol, sugar, fats, caffeine, prescription drugs, etc.....

Nicotine does accelerate existing tumors....it does nothing to CAUSE a tumor. Sugars do the same thing, if I recall correctly.

The underlying theme in this piece, really, is nicotine prohibition - the tide is beginning to turn to this point against smokers. The anti crowd is no longer content in painting smokers into smaller and smaller little boxes....now they want to REALLY make them suffer by taking their addictive chemical and making it illegal.

 

[kinabaloo]

Regarding the topics raised in sunsequent posts, this article explores the case against nicotine:

More than a kick: on its own, nicotine might promote tumors

There are quite a few 'mights' and 'maybes', but it does need to be considered. And balanced; it is one side of the complete picture. Demonstrating a theoretical in a lab dish is a big step, but still not the same as demonstrating it in the body.

Both the NNN and other by other mechanisms tumor promotion are worrying, but no cause for alarm. The complete picture might turn out to be quite different.

 

[Jherek]

According to Professor Hecht, "There are many factors which can influence nitrosation by generating relatively high levels of nitrite in the acidic environment of the stomach, together with nornicotine. These could include diet, infections, and others."

Still, today, we do not know which oral NRT users will experience massive NNN spikes, what causes them, how high the spikes will go, how frequently they'll occur, whether they will cause cancer, and if so, where in the body cancer will result."

Hmmm... perhaps that subject with the 59,400 ppm score had a big barbequed steak and a bag of fried pork skins, right before the test? Could the subject's urine have been concentrated by drinking very little water that day?

This is still kinda alarming, though.

 

[Caesarea]

Regarding the topics raised in sunsequent posts, this article explores the case against nicotine:

More than a kick: on its own, nicotine might promote tumors

There are quite a few 'mights' and 'maybes', but it does need to be considered. And balanced; it is one side of the complete picture. Demonstrating a theoretical in a lab dish is a big step, but still not the same as demonstrating it in the body.

Both the NNN and other by other mechanisms tumor promotion are worrying, but no cause for alarm. The complete picture might turn out to be quite different.

Well worth reading the article through to the very end. Thanks, Kinaba.

C.

 

[kinabaloo]

Well worth reading the article through to the very end. Thanks, Kinaba.

C.

Science / medicine will often simplify a system to just a few factors to see what happens without any interference from the myriad of other factors. We do this all the time in the experimental forums here when looking at what happens inside the atomiser. But in medicine especially (i.e. the body), the finding can only applies in the simplified setting and not in the complete system. The body as a biochemical system is many magnitudes more complex than any machine.

One can also pull up a list of articles showing nicotine as a 'wonder drug'.

Parts of both sides will be true. No body chemical is one-sided (only good or bad).

But the whole biochemical body system has many checks and balances. It's hard to make the body ill with a single cause, unless the whole system is compromised (poor nutrition, stress, toxic load).

So these worries might be far more applicable to people with the toxic load of smoke day after day, and much less so to vapers. The toxic load of smoke is significant not only for potential carcinogens it contains, but all the other stuff too - the body needs to use up valuable resources to detoxify, metabolise and otherwise clear it out, then recreate those used up resources.

 

[solaar]

Don't you all feel utterly flattered, guys? I feel so bloody flattered that a bunch of high profile scientists are so worried about my health and well-being and fight for us against the naughty nicotine that's holding us hostage.

Let me make a bet. Even if a nicotine prohibition will ever see daylight and we will be vaping away zero nic juice, they will still keep on 'researching' (only for our own good, of course) until vaping is also prohibited.

Then the next step - putting anything cigarette shaped, like a pen or so, in your mouth will be prohibited in public. Most definitely to suck on it and to simulate a puff.

Sorry I coulnd't resist

 

[SheerLuckHolmes]

Statistics never lie.......

Only Staticians.

 

[kinabaloo]

Hmmm... perhaps that subject with the 59,400 ppm score had a big barbequed steak and a bag of fried pork skins, right before the test? Could the subject's urine have been concentrated by drinking very little water that day?

This is still kinda alarming, though.

It's not widely known just how much toxic load is created by cooking methods that cause burning / browning; it's considerable, with some of the same or similar toxins to smoking (only not inhaled, but potentially greater in amount).

ps: this report on rats who beathed a haevy dose of nicotine for two years with no ill effects is a nice counterbalance : http://www.tji-java-ide.com/e-cigar...ith-rats&catid=40:technical-aspects&Itemid=41

 

[toddmori]

Statistics never lie.......

Only Staticians.

I am so stealing that quote...

 

[ladyraj]

Statisticians can prove anything via correlational studies. This article claims that smokers who eat fruits and vegetables INCREASE their risk for colon cancer:

Smokers may boost cancer chances by eating fruit: study | World News | News.com.au

Which totally defies logic!