Become a Patron!

Study says e-cigarettes may lead to cancer and heart disease - No matter how you get your nicotine, it damages your DNA.

Hello everyone,,
Couple of points:

  1. "The study does also acknowledge that the tobacco nitrosamines (known carcinogens) found in body fluids of e-cigarette users are 97 percent lower than in cigarette smokers (but states this is "significantly higher than in nonsmokers")."
  2. How does this compare to nicotine gum and patches, which are both available OTC?
  3. How does the amount of nicotine they used in the study correlate to the amount e-cig users actually typically use(Bullshit Spam Links Removed)
  4. Nobody is claiming that e-cigs are 100% safe. They are a form of harm reduction, and most studies I've seen indicate they work very well for that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

wildgypsy70

“Widgy Pidgy”
Staff member
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Platinum Contributor
VU Challenge Team
Member For 5 Years
VU Patreon
Hello everyone,,
Couple of points:

  1. "The study does also acknowledge that the tobacco nitrosamines (known carcinogens) found in body fluids of e-cigarette users are 97 percent lower than in cigarette smokers (but states this is "significantly higher than in nonsmokers")."
  2. How does this compare to nicotine gum and patches, which are both available OTC?
  3. How does the amount of nicotine they used in the study correlate to the amount e-cig users actually typically use?
  4. Nobody is claiming that e-cigs are 100% safe. They are a form of harm reduction, and most studies I've seen indicate they work very well for that.
Hey! Welcome to VU! What’s the study you’re citing? I’d be curious to read it.
 

Carambrda

Platinum Contributor
ECF Refugee
Member For 5 Years
Hello everyone,,
Couple of points:

  1. "The study does also acknowledge that the tobacco nitrosamines (known carcinogens) found in body fluids of e-cigarette users are 97 percent lower than in cigarette smokers (but states this is "significantly higher than in nonsmokers")."
  2. How does this compare to nicotine gum and patches, which are both available OTC?
  3. How does the amount of nicotine they used in the study correlate to the amount e-cig users actually typically use?
  4. Nobody is claiming that e-cigs are 100% safe. They are a form of harm reduction, and most studies I've seen indicate they work very well for that.
  1. I presume you are referring to this study: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/7/E1560
  2. About the same AFAIK. Not all tobacco specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) are "known carcinogens", though, and, their individual risk level also varies, i.e., among those specific TSNAs that ARE known carcinogens, the level of risk with regards to carcinogenesis also varies greatly between them. That plus the fact the total level of risk is part determined by their individual quantities, or the amount of each different TSNA that's found in the mix.
  3. The amount that e-cig users typically use translates to about 99.75% less, not 97% less, TSNAs found in the aeorosol from e-cigs, or "vapor". The bottom line is, vaping has been shown to be very significantly more effective than patches or gum, when it comes to helping people give up smoking combustible tobacco cigarettes. The whole purpose of vaping nicotine is based purely upon this established fact, as opposed to is based upon multiple tens of thousands of personal testimonies from vapers all over the world being mass delusional, and having been systematically ridiculed for years about that.
  4. Breathing air that is 100% clean is not safe either. Part of the effectiveness of our immune system relies on the presence of certain types of inhaled contaminants, and, carbon monoxide, although it is highly poisonous if inhaled, can nonetheless be used in medical treatment to actually promote health, if the dose is kept sufficiently low. The same also applies to nicotine. The addictiveness of nicotine depends on the delivery system, and, the addictiveness of nicotine delivered by e-cigarettes has never been proven to exist in any way, shape, or form. To the contrary, most ex smokers who switched completely from smoking to vaping are spontaneously lowering the nicotine level of their e-liquid. In addition, studies have shown that vaping freebase nicotine causes nicotine to cross the blood-brain barrier at a similar slow rate, comparable to patches or gum. Personally, I, keep vaping nicotine at about 3mg/ml or slightly below. That's simply because doing so is what reduces my risk of relapsing back to normal cigarettes to zero risk. Reducing this risk to zero is something that can not easily be said about those who have quit by using only patches or gum.
 

JuicyLucy

My name is Lucy and I am a squonkaholic
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
ECF Refugee
VU Challenge Team
Member For 5 Years
Let's not forget the numerous studies showing possible health benefits of nicotine and also the numerous studies which demonstrate nicotine in and of itself is not a carcinogen

Nicotine: It may have a good side - Harvard Healthwww.health.harvard.edu › newsletter_article › Nicotine...

"Most experts say nicotine itself does not cause cancer. It's addictive, which gets people hooked on cigarettes, but the prevailing view has been that it is other substances in tobacco smoke (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, tobacco-specific nitrosamine) that cause DNA damage and therefore cancer."

Cognitive Effects of Nicotine: Recent Progress - NCBIwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pmc › articles › PMC6018192
 

MyMagicMist

Diamond Contributor
ECF Refugee
Member For 5 Years
Long and short the government/s can, will and do lie. Further they can, do, will manipulate science and data if they need to do so to lie. Big corporations are no better, either. Listen instead to the People, to the voiceless. When leaders fail the People lead. We'll share what we know, or don't know. Hope you can be as candid in return.

Apologies if this reads like "Join the People, be assimilated." That was not the intention at all but while you're here, ... *grinning & chuckling*
 

Carambrda

Platinum Contributor
ECF Refugee
Member For 5 Years
The proof of the fact that nicotine per se is NOT an addictive substance is in this other fact, that nicotine patches are specifically designed to be NOT addictive. Whereas combustible tobacco cigarettes are nicotine delivery devices that are specifically designed to be addictive.

Nicotine has the capacity to suppress withdrawal symptoms, or cravings resulting from a person being addicted to combustible tobacco smoke. That's the whole paradox... take away the alkaloids and take away the copious number of other substances that also are part of the combustible tobacco smoke, and what you've got left is something non addictive. They insist that it is still addictive, when the reality is that it is not. It's what's called the billion dollar lie. It's fraud.
 

MyMagicMist

Diamond Contributor
ECF Refugee
Member For 5 Years
If you do a cursory search online, you find that cancer is recorded as existing back to 1600 B.C. in Egypt. It seems after the 1940's though it took a drastic uptick. This is when humanity started exploring atomic power. Could there be some connection? In my humbled lay opinion, I think there may be. People can conclude what they desire regarding cancer's rise to prominence. What I opine and think may not make what I opine and think so.
 

Carambrda

Platinum Contributor
ECF Refugee
Member For 5 Years
As for the non nicotine related biomarkers of exposure (BoE),
 

VU Sponsors

Top