twitter: @rolygate

References: Nicotine

A page of references, citations and resources related to nicotine.

 

Nicotine

1. Prof Mayer:
Archives of Toxicology 10.1007/s00204-013-1127-0, 4th Oct 2013.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00204-013-1127-0/fulltext.html

2. The nicotine addiction myth - multiple clinical trials of nicotine administered to never-smokers report zero withdrawal effect or dependence potential. No trial has ever shown any potential for dependence:
a. Clinical trial examining the effect of nicotine on cognitive impairment (that utilised never-smokers given high doses of daily nicotine for 6 months):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3466669/
b. [as above] http://www.neurology.org/content/78/2/91
No withdrawal symptoms or dependence potential were noted (as for all clinical trials of nicotine with never-smokers including the following examples).
Prof Etter states that these nicotine trials with never-smokers showed zero dependence effect for nicotine:
c. Davila et al, 1994 - Nicotine treatment for sleep-disordered breathing
http://www.gwern.net/docs/nicotine/1994-davila.pdf
d. Sandborn et al, 1997a - Nicotine enema treatment for ulcerative colitis
http://www.gwern.net/docs/nicotine/1997-sandborn.pdf
e. Sandborn et al, 1997a - Nicotine transdermal treatment for ulcerative colitis
http://www.icdrc.org/documents/nicotine%20and%20ibd%20uc.pdf
f. Bittoun, 1991 - Nicotine treatment for apthous ulcers
http://www.gwern.net/docs/nicotine/1991-bittoun.pdf
Etter 2007: "Furthermore, there was no report of subsequent nicotine dependence in never-smokers who were treated with nicotine for ulcerative colitis, apthous ulcers and sleep-disordered breathing."
g. Kumari et al, 2003 - Cognitive effects of nicotine in humans: an fMRI study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12880828

3. Assorted nicotine-related resources:
http://www.gwern.net/Nicotine

4. Nicotine in diet:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10552617

5. Survey of doctors revealing widespread ignorance about nicotine; 44% of UK doctors thought nicotine was associated with cancer, directly opposite to the facts (see NICE guidance: NICE PH45 - no association with cancer):
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1745-9265&volume=13&issue=2&articleid=17091176&show=abstract
http://www.nursinginpractice.com/article/nicotine-most-harmful-cigarette-ingredient-gps-think#.UazOzc8dGyE.twitter
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-05/raba-aso053113.php
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/261323.php

6. Nicotine in medicine:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/nicotine

7. Long-term effects of nicotine inhalation:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8614291/

8. 2 year rat trial inhaled nicotine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8614291

9. Nicotine inhaler trial:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16920653

10. Anti-inflammatory effects of nicotine in obesity and ulcerative colitis
http://www.translational-medicine.com/content/9/1/129
[data collation and discussion - not a trial]

11. DFG nicotine research library:
www.nicotine-research.com

12. FDA Consumer Updates: the FDA no longer considers nicotine either dependence-forming or dangerous with overdose:
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm345087.htm
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/UCM346012.pdf

13. MCDA briefing:
http://www.drugscience.org.uk/external-resources/nicotine-mcda-briefing/

14. Prof P Killeen of ASU:
http://www.statepress.com/archive/node/7194

15. Prof P Hajek, UKNSCC, 2013
http://www.uknscc.org/uknscc2013_presentation_200.php?show=archive

16. Molimard - the myth of nicotine addiction:
http://www.formindep.org/The-myth-of-nicotine-addiction.html
An explanation of the reasons why nicotine dependence is not an issue, and how in his opinion Fagerstrom is partly responsible for reinforcing the myth for commercial reasons.

17. Nicotine and Health
Laugesen / ACSH 2013
http://www.scribd.com/doc/195347257/The-effects-of-nicotine-on-human-health
An interesting document as it reveals a historical, establishment view of nicotine as inseparable from smoking and almost always conflated with it in all respects; and riddled with errors as a result. It is unfortunate that people with practical experience of daily working with nicotine are never consulted for these papers, such as ecig refill chemists and lab staff; they are written by people with no experience of the materials they describe. Some of the material appears ridiculous to those who work with nicotine.
There are far too many errors due to a rigid historical view of nicotine, such as the farcically low LD50 quoted for nicotine, and the description of nicotine as 'highly addictive' when there is zero evidence for even marginal dependence potential for nicotine without exposure to tobacco.
This statement is wrong on multiple counts: "Nicotine is the drug in tobacco that causes addiction." It certainly is not worthy of a scientist, since the basic premise has no independent evidence for it; and since it is obvious that there are multiple (and variable per individual) factors in the chemical dependency profile for smoking.
"Nicotine is highly and rapidly addictive..." Another statement with zero evidence for it. After reading one-quarter of the document there is no room to list further mistakes.
In general this is a paper about smoking; and there is altogether too much conflation of nicotine with smoking in an era when we know the two must be considered as and researched as completely different entities. There are so many errors in this paper that realistically it would be better if it had not been written.

18. A good article on cognitive enhancement research:
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/29/sciences_obsession_the_search_for_a_smart_pill/

19. Nicotine is useless for suicide:
http://blog.rursus.de/2013/12/attempting-to-commit-suicide-with-e-liquids-witless/

20. 2-year trial of huge doses of inhaled nicotine with rats (no effects):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8614291

21. Prof Molimard's overview of nicotine, its potential for dependence, and the gradual pharmaceuticalisation of smoking cessation treatment with little success.
Good list of citations.
http://www.formindep.org/The-myth-of-nicotine-addiction.html

22. The infamous CDC nicotine trial that they tried so hard to conceal - but as it had already been extensively cited, that proved impossible. They also conveniently named it to try and create the impression that dietary nicotine is instead absorbed from ETS.

Preliminary data: Exposure of persons aged = / >4 years to tobacco smoke - United States.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993
Journal of the American Medical Association. 1993;269:852

All 800 subjects in this clinical trial to determine the presence of nicotine in the population tested positive for nicotine metabolyte (cotinine), despite the majority being non-smokers and many having zero contact with smokers. The result so surprised the scientific community that another large-scale test was carried out, with 136 subjects, with the same result (everyone tests positive for nicotine).
Later, better knowledge of nutrition provided the explanation: nicotine is a normal ingredient in the diet, being present in many vegetables and contributing to a measurable plasma nicotine level in anyone with a good diet, although this was not widely known at the time (nutrition has always struggled for recognition as an important life science).
The CDC subsequently tried to hide this trial because it became clear to everyone that nicotine was a normal dietary ingredient, and this didn't agree with their agenda.
Many thanks to Dr Farsalinos for unearthing it.

 

Nicotine - business

AmeriNic, Inc. "expects to begin production of liquid nicotine before the end of the calendar year" (2013):
www.pharmachemlabs.com/divisions/avoca
[This is of interest because all liquid nicotine originates in Asia (there are no western sources despite what may be read on this topic). AmeriNic will, if it gets off the ground, and if it survives more than a few months, be the first US source. This is not by any means a certainty since its product will be many times the price of Asian pharmaceutical grade nicotine and will have to be marketed on some kind of 'luxury' basis since the quality will not be an improvement (you can't improve on 99.9% purity) - but B2B buyers don't care about that.]

 

Nicotine - positive

1. Positive effects of nicotine:
http://journals.lww.com/neurotodayonline/Fulltext/2012/01190/Growing_List_of_Positive_Effects_of_Nicotine_Seen.8.aspx

2. Nicotine treatment for UC:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2014383/


 

Nicotine - online resources

1. Germany-based online nicotine resource:
www.pronik.org

2. Stimson, Bates, Farsalinos:
http://nicotinepolicy.net

3. IHRA:
www.ihra.net/contents/698

4. Bates:
www.clivebates.com/?p=697
(comments from Sweanor, Hajek, etc.)