Cigarules
NSFWThis is so true. At least get a damn vape 😭
If my bf could do it, so can you. Plus, your dick (if you have one) will get bigger! Not joking, it’s true!
This is so true. At least get a damn vape 😭
If my bf could do it, so can you. Plus, your dick (if you have one) will get bigger! Not joking, it’s true!
Well, that sucks… if it’s true. Do you have a citation or source for that? Because furrymemesaccount said they did, too, but then didn’t quote anything about nicotine specifically.
Nothing I can find states nicotine ITSELF as a carcinogen. It’s not harmless, and is delivered by all sorts of harmful methods. But itself doesn’t seem to be cancer causing.
I’m extremely open to dissent on that impression.
I linked it in my other comment, here it is again: Harmful effects of nicotine
It looks like there’s a couple sections focusing on cancer. I’m not medically educated enough to decipher a lot of that or know the nuances around causation and what actually feeds or starts cancer or whatnot.
Like this:
LUNG CARCINOGENESIS A study relates lung carcinogenesis by nicotine due to genetic variation in CYP2B6.[44] Its simultaneous exposure with hyperoxia has been found to induce cancer in hamsters.[45] Cotinine has been found to promote lung tumorigenesis by inhibiting anti-apoptotic pathway.[46] Nuclear translocation of ARB1 gene by nicotine has found in proliferation and progression of nonsmall-cell lung cancer. Several Studies have shown that nicotine has significant role in tumor progression and metastasis via CXCR4 and increased angiogenesis.[36,47] Carriers of the lung-cancer-susceptibility loci in their DNA extract more nicotine. Smokers carrying the gene CHRNA3 and CHRNA5 were found to extract more nicotine and cells were thus exposed to a higher internal dose of carcinogenic nicotine-derived nitrosamines.[48] Additionally modulation of the mitochondrial signaling pathway leads to resistance to the chemotherapeutic agents.[49]
I don’t know what the hell any of that stuff says. I do know that this sort of thing is generally not conclusive, partially because of tobacco lobbying, but also because proving actual direct causation is incredibly difficult for basically anything.
I also know that this subject has a LOT of emotional tension around it on all sides. And while I think I believe technically there is no proof that nicotine is a direct human carcinogen, I’m gonna stay the hell away from it and strongly suggest others do, too. Because looking at what I think are the effects laid out in this paper, there’s nothing but bad that comes from it.
Tldr: maybe, probably, but it’s bad juju in even more ways than I previously knew.
(Edit: i also want to point out that this paper seems incredibly agenda focused and biased, and while i don’t discount any facts in the paper because of this, it does make me question the coherence and intent of the way details laid out, basically, the intellectual integrity of the presentation, itself)
Well… its a medical study. They are usually unreadable to a layperson. I didnt want to link to an article claiming it, since you wanted a source. But the claim that nicotin causes cancer is not really contested. There are lots of studies on it. Here is another one.