70 replies to this topic

[lundabar]

Moderator's Note:

The study below demonstrates that nicotine, regardless of administration method causes Smoker's Melanosis, and it is likely that by extension, whether specifically demonstrated or not, this action will accelerate the visible signs of skin aging by a similar uneven discoloration and an increase in the number of moles which smokers and their families get. 

The long-term effect of nicotine on the oral mucosa.

 

I am trying to find the ultimate nootropic and I was astonished when I read this study of nicotine : http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16902999
all cognitive symptoms induced by hypothyroidism are destroyed by nicotine, this is beyond my comprehension, does someone know the mechanism that allows nicotine to bypass the thyroid?
also the most interesting is that the study says chronic treatment during one month showed the benefits which means that even tolerance to nicotine doesn't impair the benefits, incredible isn't it?
I think using nicotine to solve my brain problems, I wonder why no one ever talks about nicotine on longecity, it seems to have very good nootropic activity, to me it is really an extreme nootropic.
however I have a question for nicotine users or chronic smokers, do you still feel the cognitive effects of nicotine after months of daily use? or does it goes back to baseline?

thanks

Edited by YOLF, 25 March 2017 - 01:21 AM.

[YoungSchizo]

I don't know about the cognitive aspect of nicotine (my cognition is destroyed beyond nicotine to fix it) however, I was a tobacco smoker for more than 10 years and I switched to smoking (vaping) nicotine only, so far, after only one month the changes are superb!

Copy/pasted from another thread:
I think some of the ingredients of tobacco works like THC and CBD in weed, some ingredients of tobacco might have a bad influence on some receptors.

I'm making this conclusion based on my experience of switching from tobacco to vaping pure and only nicotine. I'm almost a month on only vaping nicotine and I notice a great improvement in mental clarity, improved motivation, I'm more talkative (I'm all over this fucking forum for the past month ), lesser mood swings.
Also tobacco would only increase my focus and concentration, the positive things I mention with vaping are added improvements to vaping only nicotine.

My thread on vaping nicotine:
http://www.longecity...in-your-system/

I'm also joining a schizophrenia cognition trial with the drug EVP-6124 which work as a partial agonist on nicotinic receptors. People on this forum are doing a group buy to test this chemical in the hopes it will improve their cognition. You can find it here:
http://www.longecity...6124-group-buy/

[3AlarmLampscooter]

It's alpha-7 nicotinic agonism, almost definitely.

There are a bunch of other drugs that do the same, including EVP-6124 and GTS-21.

One of the big issues with just plain nicotine is it desensitizes the alpha-7 nicotinic receptors fairly quickly, so the effects disappear and you have to stop taking it for a while for desensitization to reverse if you want to see the nootropic effects again. EVP-6124 should desensitize said receptors less quickly, if at all, than nicotine.

But yeah, nicotine definitely is a decent nootropic if you keep the doses low enough.

I've personally noticed taking nicotine orally in the form of carefully measured dilute e-cigarette fluid reduces tolerance buildup a lot. I suspect this is due to the fact that a large portion of it is being metabolized to cotinine before making it to the brain, which is a weaker nicotinic agonist that does not desensitize alpha-7 receptors as quickly. You just can't overdose on that like you did on Sunifiram and not expect another world of hurt, a couple ml of e-cig fluid is enough to kill you.

[Duchykins]

Unlike true nootropics, nicotine can have serious deleterious effects depending on dose, use, diet and lifestyle of the user. Such as addiction and long term negative effects on your brain chemistry (in otherwise healthy people). It is a stimulant and comes with a lot of the same negative things that accompany stimulants. Nicotine is also a fairly effective pesticide.

I have been vaping for almost 18 months now, and I mix my own ejuice. One of the reasons I wanted to keep nicotine in my arsenal (other than being addicted) was because it was a quick stimulant that gave me a huge boost in focus, concentration, and I wanted to 'smoke' indoors while at the computer so I wouldn't have to get up and interrupt my 'flow'. Also wanted to quit smoking period.

Most people don't know that what is killing people in cigarettes, cigars and chewing tobacco is everything BUT the actual nicotine. With smoking, it's the additives and the actual smoke, breathing in tiny particles of burnt stuff, that really hurts you. It also hurts pot smokers, though most will deny it. But unfortunately nicotine gets the bad rep.

Vaping dehydrates you big time, and it creeps on most people. Most noots also dehydrate you. It's very easy to not drink enough water daily, even for us purportedly higher learned people. Even body builders and fitness nuts fail when they know full well that they need to drink beaucoup water with a lot of the supplements they take. Hell, even I fail once in a while and pay the ugly price for it. i'm just saying here that if someone is taking phenylpiracetam, for example, and having trouble keeping up with water intake, then they really should not add another thing that will cause them to need more water. Worse, I'm certain a portion of headaches reported with noots is mistakenly attributed to needing more choline, so they add the choline and still feel like shit and not understand why. So the noots are blamed.

Another thing with vaping is that you can much more easily make yourself sick than you would with cigarettes. This is because with cigarette smoke, nicotine is absorbed much faster and you feel it immediately. So if you're smoking too much and you start getting the signs, you can stop smoking and just wait for it wear off. Nicotine in vapor is more slowly absorbed, and by the time you start feeling sick from puffing too much, it's a little bit too late to stop because you have a little bit more nicotine in your lungs waiting to be absorbed. And because it's flavorful and tasty, you want tend to want to puff on it more than a cigarette. People that are not as attentive to what their body tells them probably should not vape, both for nicotine absorbtion and dehydration.

Another thing: very little is known about the long terms effects vaping has on you. I'm not talking about the nicotine, but other things in your ejuice, PG, VG (those are probably okay... maybe), flavor additives, the coloring that often accompanies concentrated flavors for mixing. You can get flavors that aren't colored but they're not as readily available to the average joe vaper who buys his ejuice at the local smoke shop. It is a fact, however, that darker juices gunk up your atomizers much more quickly than lighter or colorless juices. Just about everything used in ejuice is food grade, the flavors and coloring used for food. Now, people often get the impression that because you can EAT something safely or INJECT into your body, then it's not harmful to INHALE it and put it in your lungs on a regular basis. That is not true, except in the case of propelyne glycol because it is commonly used in prescription inhalers and other medications. Mode of delivery, manner of absorption matters. There really is a ??? with long term effects of flavor additives. Worse, some people vape oil based flavors (such as some flavors in LorAnns, one the most popular sources of ejuice flavoring. LorAnns concentrated flavors also contain food coloring), that were originally made for eating, without realizing they are or that it is bad for you. And even though it's now been shown that vaping alcohol can cause serious lung problems, you will still find idiot vapers knowingly vape it, and RECOMMENDING IT TO OTHERS on vape forums all over the place. Everybody used to think it was okay to vape because you can drink it. Not.

I'm not bashing vaping or trying to be a doomsayer and scare people off, I just feel that there is too much "vaping can't hurt you" happy mentality going on, and not enough cold logic being used.

My opinion is that healthy people should look elsewhere for stimulants unless they are really informed and attentive. If you're already smoking though, then I would say yes turn to vaping.

Also, you may need to take additional choline with nicotine? I forgot the specifics. Not necessarily a bad thing, but just a note.

Edited by Duchykins, 06 February 2014 - 06:12 AM.

[rc897]

Nicotine is not worth it- even if you got 10 points out of it. Too addictive-

[Duchykins]

I'm starting to think that non-smokers who are into nootropics and are willing to add nicotine to their regimen have a pathological attraction to nootropics, cognitive enhancers and/or this whole thing about 'being at their mental best'. Not healthy, from some of the posts I read in various forums. Not speaking of this thread in particular though.

Edited by Duchykins, 06 February 2014 - 07:17 AM.

[Jeoshua]

Whenever this topic gets brought up there are two points that the people who are against it try to bring up. First, is that it's bad for your health. Second, it's so addictive.

Nicotine does not equal Tobacco!

Tobacco is the unhealthy, addictive, noxious, toxic, insecticide that people keep talking about. There are hundreds of chemicals in tobacco that fight off insect infestation, and it is very much so a poison. But the Nicotine in there should not be counted among those poisons. It is part of the plant's "insect defense stack", to be sure. But it has nothing to do with killing the insects. It has to do with modulating their brains in such a way as to produce a lasting impression of the pain and suffering that the rest of the plant is inflicting on said insect. That way, if the insect does not die, it will learn never to eat the leaf, again.

Now, I know that according to the state of California, Nicotine is a carcinogen. I am here to tell you that is not true. Read through these studies, carefully. Don't take the abstract's word for it, actually look into the materials and methods that are in play, here:

http://jnci.oxfordjo...tent/91/14/1194
https://www.jstage.j..._4_348/_article
http://toxsci.oxford...ontent/97/2/279

Now, let's see how well you paid attention. What substance were the studies that showed cancer formation using? Tobacco smoke. Not just nicotine. The studies are compounded by all the other chemicals in burning plant materials, and as any firefighter would be able to tell you, smoke causes cancer. And the studies that showed cancer being aggrivated by the pure nicotine: What material were they testing that on? Already cancerous cells. Beta-adrenergic receptors are actually present in just about every cell in your body, and activation of them causes a myriad of effects. None of them are to "cause cancer".

Not found in the studies listed above are some of the other findings of the mechanism of how nicotine works in the body, and you will find, if you look into the studies done on these mechanisms, vis a vis cancer, that the cells they are testing the nicotine on, in vitro, are actually normal functions of normal cells that these cancer cells, which nicotine did not originally contribute to forming, have hijacked in order to cause disease. None of it is about the molecule, Nicotine, itself, causing cancer, in any way, shape, or form.

It is extremely clear by the objections here that people immediately are associating nicotine with cigarettes. Now, these are not a particularly good, or pure, source for nicotine. In fact, they are highly engineered addiction creating devices. The tobacco is treated with many chemicals, among them a few bases. Now, Nicotine is normally found in dried plant materials as a salt, but does anyone know what happens when you take a salt, add a base, and apply heat? You create a freebase of that salt, generally. And that's what you get with cigarettes, in that first puff: Freebase Nicotine. Crack Nicotine. That causes a huge, immediate rush of Nicotine into the brain of the smoker, and contributes greatly to the addictiveness of cigarettes. Compound that with many chemicals which increase blood flow, absorption, taste, and mix in a bit of MAO Inhibition for length of effect, and you have yourself a guaranteed addiction.

Nicotine, itself, is not the problem.

Edited by Jeoshua, 06 February 2014 - 08:27 AM.

[Duchykins]

Whenever this topic gets brought up there are two points that the people who are against it try to bring up. First, is that it's bad for your health. Second, it's so addictive.

Nicotine does not equal Tobacco!

Tobacco is the unhealthy, addictive, noxious, toxic, insecticide that people keep talking about. There are hundreds of chemicals in tobacco that fight off insect infestation, and it is very much so a poison. But the Nicotine in there should not be counted among those poisons. It is part of the plant's "insect defense stack", to be sure. But it has nothing to do with killing the insects. It has to do with modulating their brains in such a way as to produce a lasting impression of the pain and suffering that the rest of the plant is inflicting on said insect. That way, if the insect does not die, it will learn never to eat the leaf, again.

Now, I know that according to the state of California, Nicotine is a carcinogen. I am here to tell you that is not true. Read through these studies, carefully. Don't take the abstract's word for it, actually look into the materials and methods that are in play, here:

http://jnci.oxfordjo...tent/91/14/1194
https://www.jstage.j..._4_348/_article
http://toxsci.oxford...ontent/97/2/279

Now, let's see how well you paid attention. What substance were the studies that showed cancer formation using? Tobacco smoke. Not just nicotine. The studies are compounded by all the other chemicals in burning plant materials, and as any firefighter would be able to tell you, smoke causes cancer. And the studies that showed cancer being aggrivated by the pure nicotine: What material were they testing that on? Already cancerous cells. Beta-adrenergic receptors are actually present in just about every cell in your body, and activation of them causes a myriad of effects. None of them are to "cause cancer".

Not found in the studies listed above are some of the other findings of the mechanism of how nicotine works in the body, and you will find, if you look into the studies done on these mechanisms, vis a vis cancer, that the cells they are testing the nicotine on, in vitro, are actually normal functions of normal cells that these cancer cells, which nicotine did not originally contribute to forming, have hijacked in order to cause disease. None of it is about the molecule, Nicotine, itself, causing cancer, in any way, shape, or form.

It is extremely clear by the objections here that people immediately are associating nicotine with cigarettes. Now, these are not a particularly good, or pure, source for nicotine. In fact, they are highly engineered addiction creating devices. The tobacco is treated with many chemicals, among them a few bases. Now, Nicotine is normally found in dried plant materials as a salt, but does anyone know what happens when you take a salt, add a base, and apply heat? You create a freebase of that salt, generally. And that's what you get with cigarettes, in that first puff: Freebase Nicotine. Crack Nicotine. That causes a huge, immediate rush of Nicotine into the brain of the smoker, and contributes greatly to the addictiveness of cigarettes. Compound that with many chemicals which increase blood flow, absorption, taste, and mix in a bit of MAO Inhibition for length of effect, and you have yourself a guaranteed addiction.

Nicotine, itself, is not the problem.

I'm assuming there is a reason you brought up cancer and carcinogens?

Who here is demonizing nicotine in association with cigarettes? Which one of us said that additives in cigarettes weren't as bad as the nicotine?

And people who vape synthetic nicotine, why do we experience similar nicotine withdrawal symptoms when we go too long without a puff or two? Is it in our heads? Placebo?

What's the active ingredient in nicotine patches? Tobacco? People can't be addicted to nicotine patches? People can't die if they stick a bunch of patches on their arm? People haven't had heart attacks using patches?


Just wondering.

[Duchykins]

Here's a thought, why don't some of these supplement companies go out and get some synthetic nicotine and add it in with one of their 'nootropic' proprietary cocktails, eh? Who likes it?

[FW900]

Nicotine is also a fairly effective pesticide.

As is Caffeine.

Here's a thought, why don't some of these supplement companies go out and get some synthetic nicotine and add it in with one of their 'nootropic' proprietary cocktails, eh? Who likes it?

Nicotine has a very poor oral bioavaiblility (around or less than 20%). This means a small amount in a pill would be very ineffective, unless taken sublingually .

[Duchykins]

Nicotine is also a fairly effective pesticide.

As is Caffeine.

Here's a thought, why don't some of these supplement companies go out and get some synthetic nicotine and add it in with one of their 'nootropic' proprietary cocktails, eh? Who likes it?

Nicotine has a very poor oral bioavaiblility (around or less than 20%). This means a small amount in a pill would be very ineffective, unless taken sublingually .

As is caffeine, indeed. Which, incidentally, is not perfectly harmless to human brains and hearts with regular long term use.

What's the definition of a nootropic again?

Edited by Duchykins, 06 February 2014 - 04:12 PM.

[3AlarmLampscooter]

Nicotine is also a fairly effective pesticide.

As is Caffeine.

Here's a thought, why don't some of these supplement companies go out and get some synthetic nicotine and add it in with one of their 'nootropic' proprietary cocktails, eh? Who likes it?

Nicotine has a very poor oral bioavaiblility (around or less than 20%). This means a small amount in a pill would be very ineffective, unless taken sublingually .

But it is largely metabolized to Cotinine, which IMO is actually the superior nootropic. Also much slower rise-time in blood concentration.

Also everyone claiming how addictive nicotine is, again is conflating nicotine with tobacco. It's specifically MAO-A inhibition that makes nicotine more addictive, which harman and norharman (two main MAOIs in tobacco) do.

[Duchykins]

You have a good point there.

Still, my only problem here is the straw men being used in the 'you're conflating nicotine with tobacco' argument. I'm sure others have done this before but I twice specifically pointed to the addictive potential of the SYNTHETIC nicotine in ejuice. It's not just placebo. I get the same withdrawals with my ejuice, just less potent, stomach ache, irratibility, anxiety, and a variety of others. And a very strong urge to smoke an analog cigarette. I get them when I forget to take my Ego with me when I leave the house or when I forget to charge my batteries. Why that's being overlooked I don't know, I'm starting to think that some people are hastily scanning my posts and having knee jerk reactions based on previous argments with people harping on tobacco instead of pure nicotine.

I vape and mix juice for others, so you might think that I would sit here and defend nicotine use to the point of inanity and talk about how awesome and harmless synthetic nicotine is, right?


If you don't already smoke, just don't add nicotine for something as silly as a more concentration, turn to caffeine+taurine or dark choclate energy powder or *something else* for your stimulants if you must have them. Leave nicotine as a last resort.

Edited by Duchykins, 06 February 2014 - 07:25 PM.

[lourdaud]

I don't know about the cognitive aspect of nicotine (my cognition is destroyed beyond nicotine to fix it) however, I was a tobacco smoker for more than 10 years and I switched to smoking (vaping) nicotine only, so far, after only one month the changes are superb!

Copy/pasted from another thread:
I think some of the ingredients of tobacco works like THC and CBD in weed, some ingredients of tobacco might have a bad influence on some receptors.

I'm making this conclusion based on my experience of switching from tobacco to vaping pure and only nicotine. I'm almost a month on only vaping nicotine and I notice a great improvement in mental clarity, improved motivation, I'm more talkative (I'm all over this fucking forum for the past month ), lesser mood swings.
Also tobacco would only increase my focus and concentration, the positive things I mention with vaping are added improvements to vaping only nicotine.

My thread on vaping nicotine:
http://www.longecity...in-your-system/

I'm also joining a schizophrenia cognition trial with the drug EVP-6124 which work as a partial agonist on nicotinic receptors. People on this forum are doing a group buy to test this chemical in the hopes it will improve their cognition. You can find it here:
http://www.longecity...6124-group-buy/

Why not just use nicotine gum instead (or patches, if you can afford them)?

[YoungSchizo]

I never ever did plan on stopping with tobacco, not only because it helps my cognition because I simply just like to smoke, therefore vaping is a godsend! (+ I had no idea that the difference between tobacco and pure nicotine was that big!)

I don't know how much gum, patches etc. costs, I bought 200ml liquid for 28EUR, this should last me for about 1,5/2 months, that's a great deal!! With tobacco I always spended 110EUR a month.

[Jeoshua]

The nicotine used to make patches, gum, and e-cig fluid is not synthetic. It is pharmaceutical grade extracts from tobacco. The amounts of chemicals other than nicotine found in these extracts are measured in parts per billion. So while not 100% pure, one still would be exposed to less of the other chemicals in tobacco than they would from merely standing next to a cigarette smoker who isn't currently smoking. More than a few parts per million of the chemicals in cigarette smoke are present in the air around them, wafting off their clothes and being readilly detectable by scent. Not so with e-cig, patch, or gum users.

I would agree, however, that one should not just add nicotine into their stack as a nootropic. The effects of acute nicotine administration are markedly different from those of chronic administration.

We report here that acute and chronic nicotine exposure facilitated the induction of long-term potentiation (LTP), a leading candidate for a cellular mechanism underlying learning and memory, in the hippocampus. Furthermore, acute application of nicotine in chronic nicotine-treated hippocampus further facilitated the induction of LTP, suggesting that acute and chronic nicotine effects on LTP induction are mediated by different mechanisms. These findings not only provide evidence for chronic nicotine-induced synaptic changes in the hippocampus, but also an explanation of the cellular basis of nicotine-induced cognitive enhancement.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10536221

[Constantine Vorobyoff]

so I bought some nicotine patches. Do they work? I disliked the gum coz of the terrible after-taste in the throat, but it's a quicker form than a patch I assume. By the way, gum gives some boost, but it feels terrible after a while, like a short turn withdrawal, I have the same after-effect with real cigarettes too. I take some vinpocetine, and it helps. Constricted blood vessels or acetycholine mess-up, unknown who is to blame.

Edited by Constantine Vorobyoff, 26 May 2014 - 04:40 AM.

[knockout_mice]

I would agree, however, that one should not just add nicotine into their stack as a nootropic. The effects of acute nicotine administration are markedly different from those of chronic administration.
 

We report here that acute and chronic nicotine exposure facilitated the induction of long-term potentiation (LTP), a leading candidate for a cellular mechanism underlying learning and memory, in the hippocampus. Furthermore, acute application of nicotine in chronic nicotine-treated hippocampus further facilitated the induction of LTP, suggesting that acute and chronic nicotine effects on LTP induction are mediated by different mechanisms. These findings not only provide evidence for chronic nicotine-induced synaptic changes in the hippocampus, but also an explanation of the cellular basis of nicotine-induced cognitive enhancement.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/10536221

 

 

Full text: http://libgen.org/sc...9%2901982-4.pdf

 

"These results suggest that the mechanism underlying the effect of acute nicotine exposure remains after chronic nicotine induced changes to nAChRs, and that the effect of chronic nicotine treatment is mediated by a different mechanism.

 

The results also suggest that at least one subtype of nAChR in the local circuits of the hippocampal CA1 region are still functioning as in untreated slices even after chronic nicotine treatment, and there was no indication of tolerance.

 

It appears that the output of the pyramidal cells in the hippocampal CA1 region may be considerably stronger in chronic tobacco smokers than non-smokers."

 

Note, it's a fifteen years old study.

 

Edited by knockout_mice, 26 May 2014 - 10:33 AM.

[Phoenicis]

Nicotine is extremely addictive and will rewire your dopamine pathways, it should therefore not be taken as a nootropic. It also disrupts bcl-2 homeostasis and makes it harder for damaged and potentially cancerous cells to undergo apoptosis (death). 

[rikelme]

Fellas, you should checkout this post:
http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine
 

Gwern is thorough in his research, and has summarized his findings nicely. 

[normalizing]

as fun as nicotine is, it has published articles on how regular consumption downregulates dopamine so there is that sadly

[xks201]

Are EVP-6124 and GTS-21 for sale anywhere or are any other effective agonists for sale?

[Dazzcat]

It also disrupts bcl-2 homeostasis and makes it harder for damaged and potentially cancerous cells to undergo apoptosis (death). 

 

In vitro yes, but animal studies struggle to show a correlation between cancer rates and chronic nicotine intake alone. I don't think we will know if nicotine is an in vivo human carcinogen until there are some long term human studies, most likely long term NRT users.

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/22052338
 

Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) for up to 12 weeks is well established, safe and efficacious for fostering smoking cessation. Some smokers at a high risk of relapse may benefit from long-term use, and so long-term NRT safety and efficacy have become a paramount question for the FDA and others. Laboratory studies have indicated a carcinogenic potential of nicotine. Animal model studies reported in this issue of the journal by Maier and colleagues (beginning on page 1743) and Murphy and colleagues (beginning on page 1752), however, provide additional reassurance that NRT does not promote lung cancer. Very long-term studies of NRT effects do not yet exist and would be needed to definitively answer the question about NRT efficacy and cancer risk and some decision making will need to be made based on limited human data and experimental studies. The overall NRT safety question is complex and requires consideration of three contexts and comparator groups (long-term NRT/abstinence vs. smoking, long-term intermittent NRT/reduced smoking vs. smoking, and long-term NRT/abstinence vs. abstinence without long-term NRT). Although the data on these issues are insufficient, the first comparison seems intuitive and may be compelling enough to allow the FDA to approve a long-term indication for NRT. An important public health goal is to help smokers and their health care providers understand the implications of potential long-term NRT risks in the context of its potential benefits and the far greater risks of continued smoking.

 

 

Edited by Dazzcat, 28 May 2014 - 09:10 AM.

[knockout_mice]

Well, I first used nicotine patches and I loved its stimulant effects. Afterwards I started smoking, and it never gave me the same feeling... Only an awkward / numb headspace. It was a really bad decision to continue this habit.

 

By the way It's my fourth day without the smoke inhaling hell and I feel a lot better. You should change to NRT if you're currently smoking. Pure nicotine is far better stimulant than cigarettes, but not a nootropic as it has a lot of side-effects.

 

In vitro yes, but animal studies struggle to show a correlation between cancer rates and chronic nicotine intake alone. I don't think we will know if nicotine is an in vivo human carcinogen until there are some long term human studies, most likely long term NRT users.

 

 

"For the first time we report the effect on the rat of long-term (two years) inhalation of nicotine. The rats breathed in a chamber with nicotine at a concentration giving twice the plasma concentration found in heavy smokers. Nicotine was given for 20 h a day, five days a week during a two-year period. We could not find any increase in mortality, in atherosclerosis or frequency of tumors in these rats compared with controls."

 

http://libgen.org/sc...6%2900100-2.pdf

 

[Dazzcat]

 

It also disrupts bcl-2 homeostasis and makes it harder for damaged and potentially cancerous cells to undergo apoptosis (death). 

 

In vitro yes, but animal studies struggle to show a correlation between cancer rates and chronic nicotine intake alone. I don't think we will know if nicotine is an in vivo human carcinogen until there are some long term human studies, most likely long term NRT users.

 

 

After further research, I'm going to have to eat my words and say that I was wrong to suggest there ain't a strong correlation between  nicotine and cancer growth within animal models of human cancer. I came across quite a few studies using specific rat/mouse cancer models, such as implanting human cancer cells or inducing cell proliferation with knockout oncogenes or other carcinogens. It appears nicotine stimulates angiogenesis and promotes metastasis.

What's not clear to me is how relevant the levels of nicotine administered in these studies are to NRT users or doses used for cognitive enhancement. I suspect the risk is more relevant to those that already have a high cancer risk (for example, ex smokers) and end up on long term NRT use, oral nicotine poses further problems as it may metabolize into the group 1 carcinogen NNN (N-Nitrosonornicotine).
 

Edited by Dazzcat, 30 May 2014 - 12:22 AM.

[Major Legend]

 

 

It also disrupts bcl-2 homeostasis and makes it harder for damaged and potentially cancerous cells to undergo apoptosis (death). 

 

In vitro yes, but animal studies struggle to show a correlation between cancer rates and chronic nicotine intake alone. I don't think we will know if nicotine is an in vivo human carcinogen until there are some long term human studies, most likely long term NRT users.

 

 

After further research, I'm going to have to eat my words and say that I was wrong to suggest there ain't a strong correlation between  nicotine and cancer growth within animal models of human cancer. I came across quite a few studies using specific rat/mouse cancer models, such as implanting human cancer cells or inducing cell proliferation with knockout oncogenes or other carcinogens. It appears nicotine stimulates angiogenesis and promotes metastasis.

What's not clear to me is how relevant the levels of nicotine administered in these studies are to NRT users or doses used for cognitive enhancement. I suspect the risk is more relevant to those that already have a high cancer risk (for example, ex smokers) and end up on long term NRT use, oral nicotine poses further problems as it may metabolize into the group 1 carcinogen NNN (N-Nitrosonornicotine).
 

 

Damn, and I have been telling people it's a great nootropic.

[Major Legend]

Angiogenesis is the physiological process through which new blood vessels form from pre-existing vessels.^[1] This is distinct from vasculogenesis, which is the de novo formation ofendothelial cells from mesoderm cell precursors.^[2] The first vessels in the developing embryo form through vasculogenesis, after which angiogenesis is responsible for most, if not all, blood vessel growth during development and in disease.^[3]

Angiogenesis is a normal and vital process in growth and development, as well as in wound healing and in the formation of granulation tissue. However, it is also a fundamental step in the transition of tumors from a benign state to a malignant one, leading to the use of angiogenesis inhibitors in the treatment of cancer. The essential role of angiogenesis in tumor growth was first proposed in 1971 by Judah Folkman, who described tumors as "hot and bloody."^[4]

 

Nat Med. 2001 Jul;7(7):833-9.

Nicotine stimulates angiogenesis and promotes tumor growth and atherosclerosis.

Heeschen C1, Jang JJ, Weis M, Pathak A, Kaji S, Hu RS, Tsao PS, Johnson FL, Cooke JP.

Author information

 

Abstract

We provide anatomic and functional evidence that nicotine induces angiogenesis. We also show that nicotine accelerates the growth of tumor and atheroma in association with increased neovascularization. Nicotine increased endothelial-cell growth and tube formation in vitro, and accelerated fibrovascular growth in vivo. In a mouse model of hind-limb ischemia, nicotine increased capillary and collateral growth, and enhanced tissue perfusion. In mouse models of lung cancer and atherosclerosis, we found that nicotine enhanced lesion growth in association with an increase in lesion vascularity. These effects of nicotine were mediated through nicotinic acetylcholine receptors at nicotine concentrations that are pathophysiologically relevant. The endothelial production of nitric oxide, prostacyclin and vascular endothelial growth factor might have a role in these effects.

Comment in

 

Am J Pathol. 2002 Jul;161(1):97-104.

Nicotine accelerates angiogenesis and wound healing in genetically diabetic mice.

Jacobi J1, Jang JJ, Sundram U, Dayoub H, Fajardo LF, Cooke JP.

Author information

 

Abstract

Recently, we have discovered an endogenous cholinergic pathway for angiogenesis mediated by endothelial nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs). Since angiogenesis plays a major role in wound repair, we hypothesized that activation of nAChRs with nicotine would accelerate wound healing in a murine excisional wound model. In genetically diabetic and control mice full-thickness skin wounds (0.8 cm) were created on the dorsum and topically treated over 7 days with either vehicle (phosphate-buffered saline, PBS) or nicotine (10(-8) mol/L, 10(-9) mol/L; each, n = 5). Wound size was measured over 14 days followed by resection, histological analysis, and quantitation of vascularity. In diabetic animals an agonist (epibatidine, 10(-10) mol/L) or antagonist (hexamethonium, 10(-4) mol/L) of nAChRs as well as the positive control basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF, 25 microg/kg) were also tested. To further study the role of endothelial nAChRs in angiogenesis, we used an ex vivo vascular explant model. In diabetic mice wound healing was markedly impaired. Nicotine significantly accelerated wound healing as assessed by closure rate and histological score. The effects of nicotine were equal to bFGF and were mimicked by epibatidine and blocked by hexamethonium. Histomorphometry revealed increased neovascularization in animals treated with nicotine. Furthermore, capillary-like sprouting from vascular explants was significantly enhanced by nicotine. In conclusion, agonist-induced stimulation of nAChRs accelerates wound healing in diabetic mice by promoting angiogenesis. We have discovered a cholinergic pathway for angiogenesis that is involved in wound healing, and which is a potential target for therapeutic angiogenesis.

PMID:   12107094   [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]    PMCID:   PMC1850685    

 

 

Chronic Nicotine Consumption Does Not Influence 4-(Methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-Pyridyl)-1-Butanone–Induced Lung Tumorigenesis

1. Sharon E. Murphy1,2, 
2. Linda B. von Weymarn1,2, 
3. Melissa M. Schutten2,3,
4. Fekadu Kassie2,4, and 
5. Jaime F. Modiano2,4

+Author Affiliations

1. Authors' Affiliations: ¹Department of Biochemistry Molecular Biology and Biophysics, ²Masonic Cancer Center, and ³Department of Veterinary Population Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, and ⁴Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota

+Author Notes

• Current address for M.M. Schutten: Genentech, Inc., 1 DNA Way, South San Francisco, CA 94080.

1. Corresponding Authors:
   Sharon E. Murphy, Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, 420 Delaware St SE-MMC 806, Minneapolis, MN 55455. Phone: 612-624-7633; Fax: 612-626-5135; E-mail:murph062@umn.edu; and Jaime F. Modiano. Phone: 612-625-7436; Fax: 612-626-4915; E-mail: modiano@umn.edu

Abstract

Nicotine replacement therapy is often used to maintain smoking cessation. However, concerns exist about the safety of long-term nicotine replacement therapy use in ex-smokers and its concurrent use in smokers. In this study, we determined the effect of nicotine administration on 4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone (NNK)-induced lung tumors in A/J mice. Female mice were administered a single dose of NNK (10 μmol) and 0.44 μmol/mL nicotine in the drinking water. Nicotine was administered 2 weeks prior to NNK, 44 weeks after NNK, throughout the experiment, or without NNK treatment. The average weekly consumption of nicotine-containing water was 15 ± 3 mL per mouse, resulting in an estimated daily nicotine dose of 0.9 μmol (0.15 mg) per mouse. Nicotine administration alone for 46 weeks did not increase lung tumor multiplicity (0.32 ± 0.1 vs. 0.53 ± 0.1 tumors per mouse). Lung tumor multiplicity in NNK-treated mice was 18.4 ± 4.5 and was not different for mice consuming nicotine before or after NNK administration, 21.9 ± 5.3 and 20.0 ± 5.4 tumors per mouse, respectively. Lung tumor multiplicity in animals consuming nicotine both before and after NNK administration was 20.4 ± 5.4. Tumor size and progression of adenomas to carcinomas was also not affected by nicotine consumption. In addition, nicotine consumption had no effect on the level of O⁶-methylguanine in the lung of NNK-treated mice. These negative findings in a commonly used model of human lung carcinogenesis should lead us to question the interpretation of the many in vitro studies that find that nicotine stimulates cancer cell growth. Cancer Prev Res; 4(11); 1752–60. ©2011 AACR.

See Perspective on p. 1719 and p. 1724

 

http://www.aerzteini....at/NicVasc.pdf

 

 

 

Nicotine Stimulates New Blood Vessel Formation; Also Promotes Tumor Growth And Atherosclerosis

Date:

July 31, 2001

 

Source:

Stanford University School of Medicine

 

Summary:

Nicotine promotes the growth of new blood vessels and can also stimulate tumor growth and the build up of plaque inside arteries, say researchers at Stanford University Medical Center. The finding is the first proof that nicotine affects blood vessel formation. It suggests that while nicotine treatment may be useful to revive tissue deprived of blood by a stroke or heart attack, physicians should exercise caution when considering the long-term use of nicotine as a treatment.

 

 

 

So is there a doubt that nicotine is carcinogenic if it's pro angiogensis? or are the two processes not necessarily related.

Edited by Major Legend, 30 May 2014 - 04:29 AM.

[Jeoshua]

 

 

 

After further research, I'm going to have to eat my words and say that I was wrong to suggest there ain't a strong correlation between  nicotine and cancer growth within animal models of human cancer. I came across quite a few studies using specific rat/mouse cancer models, such as implanting human cancer cells or inducing cell proliferation with knockout oncogenes or other carcinogens. It appears nicotine stimulates angiogenesis and promotes metastasis.

 

Damn, and I have been telling people it's a great nootropic.

 

 

And you can keep telling them that. Nootropics, despite their reputation, aren't 100% safe. Look at all the different noots that people have OD'd on and had lasting negative side effects. Nootropics help you think better, and they're not, by definition, completely safe at any dosage, despite what many people around here seem to think.

 

Need proof? Isochroma. Nuff said.

 

Also, Dazzcat, those studies were on already created cancerous cells. There is nothing to suggest that nicotine causes cancer, only that if there is already cancer present, that Nicotine might make it worse. The same thing could be said for many vitamins, food, and even pure water. Cells need water to live, right? So if you were to do a study on cancerous cells, and your control got a normal amount of water, and two experimental populations were given either less water or more water than normal, I'd be willing to bet the cells that were better hydrated would grow more. That doesn't mean that Water is a carcinogen, tho.

Edited by Jeoshua, 01 June 2014 - 06:22 AM.

[Dazzcat]

 

So is there a doubt that nicotine is carcinogenic if it's pro angiogensis? or are the two processes not necessarily related.

 

 

I believe the real definition of nicotine is that it's a co-carcinogen, while it does not initiate cancer it promotes the growth of existing tumors. I never meant to imply that it alone is a carcinogen, but remember that it metabolizes into NNN when taken orally and the combination of the two could pose some real risks.

 

Even if nicotine use proved to be an insignificant risk in humans, there is still that dependance potential that urges caution.

Edited by Dazzcat, 02 June 2014 - 01:44 AM.

[Constantine Vorobyoff]

 

So is there a doubt that nicotine is carcinogenic if it's pro angiogensis? or are the two processes not necessarily related.
 

 
I believe the real definition of nicotine is that it's a co-carcinogen, while it does not initiate cancer it promotes the growth of existing tumors. I never meant to imply that it alone is a carcinogen, but remember that it metabolizes into NNN when taken orally and the combination of the two could pose some real risks.
 
Until we see some long term human NRT studies, I would urge caution, especially in ex-smokers or those that are at higher risk of cancer due to age.

You are boring. Do you really believe that nicotine is so dangerous. I can't imagine a significant number of people chewing gum for fun. It's so not recreational. I assume chewing gum for smokers still is better than smoking gum.