The amount of misinformation regarding nicotine is enormous. The following are the most often cited propaganda and lies.
1. “Nicotine is addictive.”
This is a statement that has no basis in reality, and it’s also incorrect on several levels:
There is no evidence that nicotine has any ability to cause dependence in non-smokers. Anyone who asserts that it might lead to addiction is giving an unsubstantiated personal opinion or is badly misinformed.
It may be difficult to avoid the interpretation that the statement is a deliberate lie in the case of a well-informed expert who would know there is no proof that nicotine (by itself) causes dependence and that in contrast, there is a body of anecdotal evidence suggesting it doesn’t.
2. “There’s a lot of evidence that nicotine is ‘addictive’ / dependency-forming.”
No – there is no proof that nicotine causes dependence. There’s plenty of proof that smoking leads to addiction, but because tobacco smoke includes hundreds of chemicals , a claim that one of those compounds causes the dependence (as opposed to being caused by smoking) has no scientific basis until proven.
There are no tests because there is no published clinical trial of nicotine (not tobacco smoke) and, obviously, in never-smokers (because we know that smoking causes addiction; therefore, testing it is not required – this is already well-known), leaving only one conclusion. Indeed, the existing evidence refutes this: according to anecdotal evidence, nicotine has no potential for dependence.
There is no clinical study on nicotine administration to never-smokers for the purpose of assessing its potential for addiction, despite the fact that there are several claims online. Anyone claiming to be an expert in the field who tells you such a thing as a published trial is incorrect (or lying) since they don’t understand the fundamentals, and their knowledge appears to be based on misinformation.
There is no study on whether smoking can lead to dependence in non-smokers, so ask for a reference to a clinical trial that investigates the hypothesis (the only appropriate technique).
Most citations are for studies of smoking addiction or where the participants were smokers (or ex-smokers).
In a study to evaluate the effectiveness of one chemical in tobacco smoke in producing addiction, a person who is already addicted due to smoking cannot be used as a subject – this is an elemental truth of logic that can’t be avoided.
In medical terms, a non-smoker refers to an ex-smoker; a never-smoker, on the other hand, is someone who has never smoked and must be used to evaluate any nicotine addiction potential (pure) tobacco may have.
3. “There have been several clinical tests of nicotine, all demonstrating its addiction-forming potential.”
No, there aren’t any. There are a lot of tests with smokers and ex-smokers, but we’ve already gone over why they’re irrelevant. A trial must be the administration of unadulterated nicotine to never-smokers in order to qualify as “a trial of nicotine.”
However, there have been approximately six clinical trials of this kind in which nicotine was given to never-smokers for other reasons. (Administration to ever-smokers is irrelevant.)
These studies were conducted to evaluate nicotine’s therapeutic advantages on issues such as cognitive dysfunction and auto-immune diseases. Despite being given high doses for many months, no subject reported withdrawal symptoms or evidence of addiction.
Nicotine was found to have no potential for addiction in these studies. It must be stated that this is pure nicotine, not a blend of chemicals or tobacco smoke with nicotine, and the participants had never smoked: we are solely interested in the effects of nicotine, not those caused by a combination of synergens or on persons who were addicted due to prior smoking.
These data are only anecdotal since the trials’ goal was not to address this problem. Whatever the case may be, we now know:
It’s anecdotal evidence, which is the accepted definition of data gathered from other topics; or it may be considered extremely helpful information because there is no additional source of proof.
4. “Nicotine is very poisonous.”
No, it is unlikely to be substantially more poisonous than other common dietary components. In addition, consultant toxicologists have stated that retail e-liquid is equally toxic as washing-up liquid (the detergent used for washing plates).
In 2013, Prof Mayer of Graz proved that nicotine’s toxicity has been greatly exaggerated; that there is no evidence for the current LD50; that no one has ever died as a result of ingesting a dose comparable to the current LD50; and that people regularly survive doses many times the current LD50 without exhibiting any side effects.
The goal of this study was to analyze the existing evidence for the LD50 in order to provide a complete review for the first time; as a result, the LD50 will have to be increased by up to 20 (in accordance with his research on what constitutes a proven fatal dose), according to Mayer.
Still, it only applies to specific delivery methods such as injection because researchers have shown that individuals can consume a huge amount of nicotine without receiving any negative effects; nevertheless, the abdominal discomfort is severe – nicotine ingestion (swallowing it) induces a vomit response in adults, and the material is largely ejected.