“Nicotine Clinical Trials: Why Aren’t There Any?”
Bit sciency this one, but well worth a read through. It asks a simple question; ‘why are there no clinical trials to test the addictive nature of nicotine’?
I’m sure I’m the only one to notice this but since switching to vaping I find myself much less inclined to vape at regular intervals like I did with cigarettes, and I certainly don’t ever feel the desperate need to reach for my vaporiser like I used to for cigarettes. Is it something else in the deadly mix of chemicals and tobacco that keeps us hooked, could nicotine addiction really be a myth?
There is no published clinical trial examining the potential of nicotine for reinforcement.
That is to say, there is no published trial of the administration of pure nicotine to never-smokers followed by a detail investigation of any dependence created or not created. This is the single most important study needed on nicotine; no other study of any type has such importance. Indeed some studies, especially those carried out on smokers or ex-smokers, are essentially pointless as they have little if any value (and cannot provide any evidence whatsoever as to nicotine’s potential for reinforcement).
Ed West asked me: “Is there is no valuable science on nicotine?”, as a result of the article on Nicotine Myths.
It appears that the article may have been construed as meaning that nicotine research does not exist. This was not the intention of the article at all – there is plenty of good research on nicotine, for example core biochemistry research and, more accessible perhaps, Benowitz’ papers on these subjects collating the research. And plenty more of this kind .
None of it, though, answers the most important question of all:
“If pure nicotine is administered to nicotine-naive people (and especially those never exposed to the known dependence-forming cocktail of compounds in tobacco smoke), can it produce dependence?”