Nicotine. The life saving miracle natural substance. Pharma trying to remove by 2030

[quintessentone]

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...092764.jpg]

[Image: https://denyignorance.com/uploader/image...478769.png]

What's not to understand?

I wasn't going to respond because...way way way out and off topic to the max.

I stand corrected. I was confusing searing with getting the Maillard flavor, but searing is not cooking the food right through, whereas the Maillard effect can occur with cooking the food right through, as in donuts.

As for nicotine being healing or not. Well a friend vapes nicotine and in a discussion with his partner she insisted nicotine is healing while I did a quick search and found that 'yes' in very low doses it can be healing, but it still is an addictive substance and using it as a long-term treatment seems counterproductive.

[rickymouse]

Well, i have the coffee and weed covered.

But help and cure are not the same.

As to this socalled "Dr Adris", it was not me that brought him up mate.

The entire thread is built around the man's dubious claims.

And i think it's plain to most people that Nicotine can't cure Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Glioblastoma, Hypothyroidism, or MS.

Making those sorts of claims is silly, or worse, as it may equate to false hope, or stop people from seeking proper medical attention.

A lot of people read science articles and interpret it by their beliefs.  They also interpret the articles by their knowledge of the concensus of the time, the beliefs of the field of science it is in.  So some of the people up high, so they do not lose the respect of their peers in the field will be bias in their interpretation of the belief in the science of that time.  I understand that, I know so many people who do that in their lives.

I read a lot of science and will try to identify why people are seeing it different, identifying the differences on both side of the coin.  Doing this and trying to be unbias about it I stumble into a more pure opinion of the research.  Then I try to verify my conclusions....and surprisingly my conclusions are pretty much correct if you take everything into consideration...but hardly ever completely right.

You need to have an open mind when doing this.  It brings me deep into studying the medicines they make for the symptoms and where the basis of the medicines and method of action of the medicines came from.  I find that there are ways to actually adjust the diet to make it so the disease does not progress or even come to fruit.  The conditional part of that is the diet of the ancestors....epigenetic traits and gene expression.  So I test on myself for things in my own genetic ancestral line and try to see if it applies to me.  But this does not mean it will help others who are not mostly Finn or swedish or in my rare case, one point seven percent Inuit genetics.  I cannot eat like the inuit either, because the metabolic genes I have left  are paternal, and there are only four of them that are strongly related to diet.  and other epigenetic changes occurred to cancel out most of the problems but still don't allow me to eat much of those troublesome foods.

When I started this, over eighteen or so years ago my daughters bought me alchemy books for Christmas.  Most of what I read in those was related to diet experimentation.  try things on yourself to see the outcome and then investigate it more.  I tell you, I did do some tracking of changes that were really bad, and that is when I started researching genetics, I think I read over forty thousand gene snp research articles over the next four years, not believing what I was reading lots of times, but then because I have an open mind...I went on to test on myself.  Those gene snps were relevent, and doing a trail on trying to figure why they did not effect me most of my life, I discovered I had eliminated some chemistries from my diet because of my new epilepsy and those were the antidote chemistries.  So, I had to start giving up some of the changes they said were supposed to be healthy and/or add back some of the protective food chemistries into my diet that I discovered.  It worked.

My beliefs in the research articles is not there unless I know why they were funded, and who funded it, and if the conclusions were relevant to what was researched...which often is not relevant or only applies to a small amount of people from a specific genetic pool from around the world.  

But I cannot say something that makes me better will have the same effect on others, so I will not state something definite, I will just say try this, it may help with your problem.  Knowing what I do know about genetic ancestral links to epigenetics and gene expression, I cannot help people from ancestral pools much from even areas like Italy, they have to eat different than Finns and Swedes to be healthy.

On my ancestry site, it says I have about one percent scottish ancestry, but I cannot find any relevant info on there being any.  I have more relatives in Cornwall than in Scotland, but remember, about six hundred AD a lot of the people from Scotland and England moved to the Norway area when a comet or something hit somewhere in upper England or some other big disaster happened.  I know some people who researched this and found it was pretty true, but they were not sure of what actually happened to cause the exodus.  The Anglosaxons then moved into parts of England and settled there from what was said in the conference.  That alliance is how England got control of North America, in international court at the time...yes there was some kind of court system from world history I read, they gave the new world to the English.  WE only adopted that columbus discovered America because the US broke away from English control.  And that was what was taught in our schools.  Actually, itr was the norwegans who were here, the vikings were here first and were alies of England...and England had colonies here before Columbus too.  The truth is now coming out, and the USA was forced to accept the fact that there were Europeans here before Columbus....we were led to believe a lie long ago that columbus discovered America.

So if you dig deep into things, you find out this deceiving people for a reason has been going on in all cultures for thousands of years.

But to finish this, yes, the guy they are talking about is using his personal beliefs to interpret research.

I hate the saying everyone knows cigarettes cause cancer.  It is only pertinent to less than ten percent of the population, but we have to respect that ten percents right not to have to breath our smoke.  I have no problem with smoking outside or in the basement, I do not smoke in others houses, I go out and have a butt.  Because we do not know who it will hurt, and it is bad for people who have asthma most times.

It is nie discussing this with someone who is somewhat open minded.  I myself am closed minded about some things, like wasting money on things we want and skimping on things we actually need.  I roll my own cigarettes, they cost about a buck and a quarter for a pack of twenty, including the tobacco and zig-zag tube filters.  Because it is reasonable, I smoke only half the cigarette, and smoke between twelve and fifteen cigarettes a day usually.  So, actually, since the leftover tobacco acts like a filter, I am probably only smokiing half of that number, wasting the rest.

Treating yourself to a want occasionally, makes that treat so much sweeter, if you do it all the time, it just raises the bar on the high jump and sooner or later you will crash.

[andy06shake]

A lot of people read science articles and interpret it by their beliefs.  They also interpret the articles by their knowledge of the concensus of the time, the beliefs of the field of science it is in.  So some of the people up high, so they do not lose the respect of their peers in the field will be bias in their interpretation of the belief in the science of that time.  I understand that, I know so many people who do that in their lives.

I read a lot of science and will try to identify why people are seeing it different, identifying the differences on both side of the coin.  Doing this and trying to be unbias about it I stumble into a more pure opinion of the research.  Then I try to verify my conclusions....and surprisingly my conclusions are pretty much correct if you take everything into consideration...but hardly ever completely right.

You need to have an open mind when doing this.  It brings me deep into studying the medicines they make for the symptoms and where the basis of the medicines and method of action of the medicines came from.  I find that there are ways to actually adjust the diet to make it so the disease does not progress or even come to fruit.  The conditional part of that is the diet of the ancestors....epigenetic traits and gene expression.  So I test on myself for things in my own genetic ancestral line and try to see if it applies to me.  But this does not mean it will help others who are not mostly Finn or swedish or in my rare case, one point seven percent Inuit genetics.  I cannot eat like the inuit either, because the metabolic genes I have left  are paternal, and there are only four of them that are strongly related to diet.  and other epigenetic changes occurred to cancel out most of the problems but still don't allow me to eat much of those troublesome foods.

When I started this, over eighteen or so years ago my daughters bought me alchemy books for Christmas.  Most of what I read in those was related to diet experimentation.  try things on yourself to see the outcome and then investigate it more.  I tell you, I did do some tracking of changes that were really bad, and that is when I started researching genetics, I think I read over forty thousand gene snp research articles over the next four years, not believing what I was reading lots of times, but then because I have an open mind...I went on to test on myself.  Those gene snps were relevent, and doing a trail on trying to figure why they did not effect me most of my life, I discovered I had eliminated some chemistries from my diet because of my new epilepsy and those were the antidote chemistries.  So, I had to start giving up some of the changes they said were supposed to be healthy and/or add back some of the protective food chemistries into my diet that I discovered.  It worked.

My beliefs in the research articles is not there unless I know why they were funded, and who funded it, and if the conclusions were relevant to what was researched...which often is not relevant or only applies to a small amount of people from a specific genetic pool from around the world.  

But I cannot say something that makes me better will have the same effect on others, so I will not state something definite, I will just say try this, it may help with your problem.  Knowing what I do know about genetic ancestral links to epigenetics and gene expression, I cannot help people from ancestral pools much from even areas like Italy, they have to eat different than Finns and Swedes to be healthy.

On my ancestry site, it says I have about one percent scottish ancestry, but I cannot find any relevant info on there being any.  I have more relatives in Cornwall than in Scotland, but remember, about six hundred AD a lot of the people from Scotland and England moved to the Norway area when a comet or something hit somewhere in upper England or some other big disaster happened.  I know some people who researched this and found it was pretty true, but they were not sure of what actually happened to cause the exodus.  The Anglosaxons then moved into parts of England and settled there from what was said in the conference.  That alliance is how England got control of North America, in international court at the time...yes there was some kind of court system from world history I read, they gave the new world to the English.  WE only adopted that columbus discovered America because the US broke away from English control.  And that was what was taught in our schools.  Actually, itr was the norwegans who were here, the vikings were here first and were alies of England...and England had colonies here before Columbus too.  The truth is now coming out, and the USA was forced to accept the fact that there were Europeans here before Columbus....we were led to believe a lie long ago that columbus discovered America.

So if you dig deep into things, you find out this deceiving people for a reason has been going on in all cultures for thousands of years.

But to finish this, yes, the guy they are talking about is using his personal beliefs to interpret research.

I hate the saying everyone knows cigarettes cause cancer.  It is only pertinent to less than ten percent of the population, but we have to respect that ten percents right not to have to breath our smoke.  I have no problem with smoking outside or in the basement, I do not smoke in others houses, I go out and have a butt.  Because we do not know who it will hurt, and it is bad for people who have asthma most times.

It is nie discussing this with someone who is somewhat open minded.  I myself am closed minded about some things, like wasting money on things we want and skimping on things we actually need.  I roll my own cigarettes, they cost about a buck and a quarter for a pack of twenty, including the tobacco and zig-zag tube filters.  Because it is reasonable, I smoke only half the cigarette, and smoke between twelve and fifteen cigarettes a day usually.  So, actually, since the leftover tobacco acts like a filter, I am probably only smokiing half of that number, wasting the rest.

Treating yourself to a want occasionally, makes that treat so much sweeter, if you do it all the time, it just raises the bar on the high jump and sooner or later you will crash.

The thing is, science doesn't care what we believe.

I've even got the T-shirt. 

Scientific truths are based on objective evidence and repeatable results. 

Not personal belief or opinion. 

I do enjoy your responses all the same. 

Well thought out and full of personal experience.

As to smoking, i knocked that demon on the head about 5 years ago, tobacco anyhoo. 

I think i will leave the weed demon alone, as he keeps me sane. LoL

Yeah, moderation and treats are the ticket. 

Oscar Wilde's old saying springs to mind all the same. 

"Everything in moderation.... including moderation" 

[Knows]

Harvard’s 2015 study proved that pure nicotine does not cause addiction.



Background: Nicotine is known as the drug that is responsible for the addicted behaviour of tobacco users, but it has poor reinforcing effects when administered alone.

[Quantum12]

I've heard of nitocine equated to heroin as far as addictive levels.   I'm a former smoker who still vapes but I have quit cold-turkey before.  It's certainly not an easy thing to quit.  Some people have no issues quitting.  Props to em!

I quit smoking 8 years ago cold turkey. The withdrawal was awful for 7 days. After that I had to deal with the physical addiction. Lots of fun. If you make the decision to quit and never ever smoke again you will win!

[Kurokage]

I really do think the opening post is a master class in dis-information and ignorance. 
https://nida.nih.gov/publications/resear...-addictive

A transient surge of endorphins in the reward circuits of the brain causes a slight, brief euphoria when nicotine is administered. This surge is much briefer than the "high" associated with other drugs. However, like other drugs of abuse, nicotine increases levels of the neurotransmitter dopamine in these reward circuits,[sup]20,21,27[/sup] which reinforces the behavior of taking the drug. Repeated exposure alters these circuits' sensitivity to dopamine and leads to changes in other brain circuits involved in learning, stress, and self-control.
For many tobacco users, the long-term brain changes induced by continued nicotine exposure result in addiction, which involves withdrawal symptoms when not smoking, and difficulty adhering to the resolution to quit.[sup]28,29[/sup]
The pharmacokinetic properties of nicotine, or the way it is processed by the body, contribute to its addictiveness.[sup]24[/sup] When cigarette smoke enters the lungs, nicotine is absorbed rapidly in the blood and delivered quickly to the brain, so that nicotine levels peak within 10 seconds of inhalation. But the acute effects of nicotine also dissipate quickly, along with the associated feelings of reward; this rapid cycle causes the smoker to continue dosing to maintain the drug's pleasurable effects and prevent withdrawal symptoms.[sup]30[/sup]

 https://www.bat-science.com/nicotine-explained

Nicotine is the major alkaloid commercially derived from tobacco leaves and is the primary substance in tobacco responsible for the addictive properties of tobacco products.

Once nicotine has entered the bloodstream, it is distributed throughout the body to the tissue and organs, including the brain. Nicotine exerts its effects by binding to nicotinic acetylcholine receptor’s (nAChR’s), a family of ligand gated ion channels that are widely expressed and present throughout the body’s central and peripheral nervous system. Nicotine’s interaction with nAChRs in the brain causes the release of neurotransmitters, such as dopamine, GABA (Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid), glutamate and noradrenaline, which contribute to the psychopharmacological effects of nicotine.

[Knows]

I really do think the opening post is a master class in dis-information and ignorance. 
https://nida.nih.gov/publications/resear...-addictive
 https://www.bat-science.com/nicotine-explained

In your link it says at the bottom of the page something that backs up exactly what I have been saying.

Smoking is linked with a marked decrease in the levels of monoamine oxidase (MAO), an important enzyme that is responsible for the breakdown of dopamine, as well as a reduction in MAO binding sites in the brain.[sup]42[/sup] This change is likely caused by some as-yet-unidentified ingredient in tobacco smoke other than nicotine, because we know that nicotine itself does not dramatically alter MAO levels. Animal research suggests that MAO inhibition makes nicotine more reinforcing, but more studies are needed to determine whether MAO inhibition affects human tobacco dependence.[sup]42[/sup]
Animal research has also shown that acetaldehyde, another chemical in tobacco smoke created by the burning of sugars added as sweeteners, dramatically increases the reinforcing properties of nicotine and may also contribute to tobacco addiction.[sup]43[/sup]
  

In the Harvard Study they couldn't get the animals addicted to Nicotine alone. Most of the study has been buried after Dr Ardis reported this fact a couple years back.

[Kurokage]

In your link it says at the bottom of the page something that backs up exactly what I have been saying.

In the Harvard Study they couldn't get the animals addicted to Nicotine alone. Most of the study has been buried after Dr Ardis reported this fact a couple years back.

You're trying to misrepresent that quote, maybe you should re-read it

dramatically increases the reinforcing properties of nicotine 

[Knows]

You're trying to misrepresent that quote, maybe you should re-read it

Has pure nicotine without anything else added. Proven to be addictive?

AI Overview 

 Pure nicotine, on its own, is recognized as an addictive substance, though its addictive potential is significantly lower than when consumed via tobacco products. While nicotine stimulates the brain's reward system, studies suggest pure nicotine is only weakly addictive on its own compared to the high, rapid addiction associated with tobacco smoking, which involves other chemicals. Key findings regarding pure nicotine addiction:

• Addiction Potential: Pure nicotine is addictive and can cause withdrawal symptoms, but it is not the sole cause of smoking-related diseases.
  
• Evidence of Weak Addiction: Research indicates that without the additives in tobacco, nicotine is only weakly addictive, and studies with nicotine patches showed little to no addiction in patients over six months.
  
• Role of Other Factors: The high addiction rates from smoking are often due to the combination of nicotine with other compounds found in tobacco smoke, such as monoamine oxidase inhibitors.
  
• Dependence: Although addictive, it is possible to stop using pure nicotine, and millions of people successfully quit nicotine use annually. 
  

Evidence of Weak Addiction: Research indicates that without the additives in tobacco, nicotine is only weakly addictive, and studies with nicotine patches showed little to no addiction in patients over six months.

[Knows]

And if you ask similar questions about caffeine:

Has caffeine. proven to be addictive

AI OverviewCaffeine is a widely consumed, psychoactive stimulant that is proven to be addictive, causing physical dependence, tolerance, and withdrawal symptoms. It acts on the central nervous system to increase alertness, but habitual use can lead to cravings, headaches, and fatigue upon cessation. While not as addictive as drugs like cocaine, it is recognized as a substance of dependence. Key Facts on Caffeine Addiction

• Mechanism of Addiction: Caffeine stimulates the brain by blocking adenosine receptors and promoting dopamine release, which reinforces its rewarding effects.
  
• Evidence of Dependence: Studies show users can develop tolerance—needing more for the same effect—and experience withdrawal symptoms within 12–24 hours of quitting.
  
• Withdrawal Symptoms: Common symptoms include headache, fatigue, irritability, difficulty concentrating, and muscle pain.
  
• Defining Addiction: While some debate if it is a true "addiction" or just "dependence," the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) recognizes "Caffeine Use Disorder" and "Caffeine Withdrawal".
  
• Withdrawal Management: The best way to break dependence is to gradually reduce intake to avoid severe withdrawal.
  
• Risk Factors: High consumption, particularly exceeding 750 mg per day (roughly 5-7 cups of coffee), increases the risk of dependence.