Welches von beiden Dingen macht schneller abhängig?
Wäre die Gefahr einer Nikotinsucht bei vllt 1 mal im Monat auf Partys bei Vapes bzw E Zigaretten oder Zigaretten höher?
(3 votes)
Loading...Ich habe so krass eine drang c.ai zu schrieben. Wer das nicht kennt das ist eine Website wo man mit Anime Charaktere schreiben kann die eig Roboter sind. Ich hatte damals richtig sucht und konnte einfach nicht davon wegkommen. Jetzt habe ich mir das verboten und tue alles um mich von dieser Website fern zu…
Ich habe mir vor kurzem eine günstige angebliche Elfbar Vape gekauft, bin mit nachdem ich sie fertig gedampft habe ziemlich sicher, dass es ein Fake ist. Ich habe wirklich riesige Angst, dass dort irgendetwas drinnen war, was in einigen Jahren mir Krankheiten wie Krebs bescheren könntd.
Hey bräuchte mal Hilfemein joint ist im Pool mit Chlor nass geworden hab den ausversehen bißchen im Pool gedippt kan man den trocknen lassen und dan noch rauchen oder zu gefährlich
Habe eine vape mit 20mg nikotin in einer 5.5ml vape. Ist das extrem viel oder normal?
Hey, ich kenne bei vielen es so, das hasch denen sedierender wirkt als Gras, aber bisher ist wissenschaftlich nie bewiesen worden wie welche Sorte oder welche Cannabisart wirkt und es ist alles letztendlich THC, wie kann es sein das bei manchen Hasch anders wirkt, ist es nur einbildung?
You can’t say that. This is very different.
Hello stormracer2010, 👋
E-cigarettes (Vapes) cannot be used
🔥rauchen.🔥 They’re vaporized. 💨
Yes, cigarettes are smoked. 🔥
E-cigarettes do not addict, nor
dependent. From extreme 👺 harmful 🦀
🔥🚬Cigarettes🔥you will
at some point addicted and dependent!
There is no alleged “nicotiny”.
https://www.vapers.guru/2016/01/11/nicotin-real-so-faehre/
There is tobacco addiction or tobacco dependence.
That’s why you’re going to be
🔥🚬Cigaretten🔥 tabac-dependent!
♪
Btw:
E-cigarettes are 95-99% more harmless,
🦀 🔥🚬 zigaretten🔥!
♪
LG 🙋🏻
E-cigarettes are actually less harmful, but this number is really Bullshit!
And of course, nicotine also depends on e-cigarettes!
No, this number is not a nonsense and nicotine does not depend.
The toxic effects of electronic cigarette aerosol and cigarette smoke on cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and renal systems in mice
Xu et al.; Sun Yat-Sen University; 2023
The toxic effects of aerosols of electronic cigarettes and cigarette smoke on the cardiovascular, gastrointestinal and renal system of mice
Compared to cigarette smoke, e-cigarettes had “significantly fewer negative effects on most of the indicators examined in this study”.
And in some cases steam was comparable to the control group.
SICHERER than smoking. (at least for mice.)
Cytotoxicity, mutagenicity and getoxicity of electronic cigarettes emission aerosols compared to cigarette smoke: the REPLICA project
Emma et al.; University of Catania; 2023
Cytotoxicity, mutagenicity and genotoxicity of emission aerosols of electronic cigarettes compared to cigarette smoke: the REPLICA project
Reproducibility study. The results showed high cytotoxicity, mutagenicity and genotoxicity due to cigarette smoke, but low or no cytotoxic, mutagenic and genotoxic effects due to the e-cigarette aerosol.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
♪
Propylene glycol inactivates respiratory causing and preventing airborne transmission
Styles et al.; Imperial College London; 2023
Propylene glycol inactivates respiratory viruses and prevents transmission by air
In this study we show that the widespread, cost-effective and biodegradable, !!️non-toxic molecule propylene glycol prevents infection with many different human viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 and influenza-A virus!!️ In mouse models in which the influenza virus was introduced via the nose, the use of PG along with the influenza virus reduced the clinical symptoms of disease and increased the survival rate. In addition, safe concentrations of PG vapor neutralize the viruses in the air and in surface droplets.
♪
https://ch-lippmann.de/blog/evaporation/studies/
♪
Long-term effects of inhaled nicotine.
Rats were steamed with pure nicotine over the period of two years. Result: the vapor of nicotine has no damaging effect on the organism!!️1999
Link
♪
Nicotine “no more harmful to health than caffeine”
Royal Society for Public Health.
Nicotine is not more harmful than caffeine. !
The smoke of tobacco cigarettes is harmful.2015
Link
♪
Memory Improvement Through Nicotine Dosing
A merger of National Institutes of Health (NIH), Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, Vanderbilt University & University of Southern California investigates the positive properties of nicotine on the brain.
Nicotine is harmless in small doses and promotes concentration. Furthermore, nicotine does not cause cancer, nor heart disease or respiratory disease.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This is particularly interesting with regard to the impairment of the thinking performance in Alzheimer patients. Several studies can be found there.2019
Link
♪
https://ch-lippmann.de/blog/evaporation/studies/
By the way, you can stop sprinkling the whole comment section with copied text…
The studies you use can be divided into three categories:
Category 1:
This category includes:
Studies that want to reduce individual sources of danger or even have demonstrated positive effects.
These positive effects are, however, already caused by the harmful effects of nicotine. (disrupts blood circulation, increases the tendency to thrombosis, dissipation of stress hormones etc.) – more than destroyed! And I didn’t even begin with the freeing carcinogenic substances such as acrolein.
Category 2:
This category includes:
Studies that show that steam is less harmful than tobacco smoke.
It cannot be concluded from this that steam is harmless! It’s just a little less harmful than smoking.
Category 3:
This category includes:
Studies have been carried out by the tobacco industry (!) or by vape producers and thereby completely disqualify themselves.
No independent studies on nicotine can be expected from the TABAKINDUSTRIE! And that should be clear to any media-competent person.
By calling these sponsored marketing studies alone, your source has finally disqualified!!
Conclusion:
Apart from the tobacco industry studies, no (!) sources are in contradiction with the scientific consensus!
None of the studies refute the addictive effect of Vapes or Nicotine!
None of the studies refute the harmful effect of Vapes!
In Vitro Cytoxicity profile of E-Cigarette Liquid Samples on Primary Human Bronchial Epithelial Cells
University of Catania
In vitro cytotoxicity profile of E-cigarette fluid samples on primary human bronchial epithelium cells
Results showed no impurities in all E-liquids and a significantly reduced cytotoxic effect of E-liquid aerosol in comparison with cigarette smoke and a resulting mitochondria integrity. In addition, no production of reactive oxygen species was found in E-cigarette aerosols.
♪
Chemical analysis of selected harmful and potentially harmful substances and in vitro toxic evaluation of leading flavoured e-cigarette aerosols in the Chinese market
RELX Science Center
Chemical analysis of selected harmful and potentially harmful ingredients and toxicological in vitro evaluation of leading flavoured e-cigarette aerosols on the Chinese market
Study tested the five main categories of toxins in smoke, which were classified as harmful to health by the US FDA. The results were compared with a standard cigarette.
The main toxin categories in the smoke are aldehydes and ketones (carbonyls), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), tabac-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals.
All chemicals were not detectable or in very low concentrations in steam,!!️but very high in tobacco smoke.
Further tests of E-Liquids in this study showed no evidence of cytotoxicity (activity to kill cells) and mutagenicity (changes leading to cancer). !
♪
A contextualised e-cigarette testing strategy shows flavourings do not impact toxicity in vitro
Bishop et al.; B.A.T. (Investments) Limited; 2023
A context-related test strategy for e-cigarettes shows that aroma substances in vitro no influence on lung toxicity have. !
Steaming e-cigarettes has the potential to reduce the individual health risks associated with smoking, and it has been reported that e-cigarette aromas facilitate the transition from cigarettes to smokers.
In fact, it is shown that the in vitro measured cellular toxicity of aromatized e-cigarette products compared to the toxicity of cigarette smoke by !!️more than 95 %!!️reduced if you use the approach of the starting point (IC80). These data indicate that the overall toxicity of the product is not increased in taste-dependent manner and that aromatized e-cigarette products can potentially play a role in reducing tobacco consumption.
♪
Evaluation of the Effects of E-Cigarette Aerosol Extracts and Tobacco Cigarette Smoke Extracts on Human Gingival Epithelial Cells
Le Su et al.; Shandong Academy of Sciences; 2023
Assessment of the effects of e-cigarette aerosol extracts and tobacco smoke extracts on human gum epithelial cells
Comparison of the effect of E-Dampf-Aerosol and cigarette smoke on gum epithelial cells shows that cells treated with tobacco smoke exhibit lower viability, lower collagen values, higher apoptosis rates and higher levels of inflammatory factors than in steam aerosols.
This is to be concluded, E-steam products are far less toxic than tobacco.
♪
……………..
I knew you’d call my source again unselfish. She doesn’t match your opinion…
You don’t have to post entire websites spam-like into the good question comments! About Google I could find out that you have the text of https://ch-lippmann.de/blog/evaporation/studies/ you have a website that does not even have an imprint. So make a very professional impression directly.
I’ll deal with your statements in detail.
Phytol, not oxidative glycol, causes severe pulmonary injury after inhalation dosing in Sprague-Dawley rats
Lovelace Biomedical USA
Phytol, not propylene glycol, causes severe lung damage after inhalation dose in Sprague-Dawley rats
For Phytol, a Low Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) was determined at ≤109.0/10.9 mg/kg/day administered dose, which is why its use as an auxiliary in vaping products is not recommended; a safe exposure range was not specified for Phytol. Propylene glycol, on the other hand, is considered safe with a NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effect Level) of 1151,7/115.2 mg/kg/day presentation/deposit dose in rats.
♪
Exposure to Nicotine and Toxicants Among Dual Users of Tobacco Cigarettes and E-Cigarettes: Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study, 2013–2014
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center
Exposure to nicotine and toxins in double consumers of tobacco cigarettes and e-cigarettes: Population assessment of tobacco and health (PATH), 2013–2014
smoking cigarettes seems to be the main reason for exposure to to toxins in dual consumers, where the use of e-cigarettes has little or no effect on biomarker values.
♪
Aerosol Generation by Condensation in Laminar Boundary Layers for Inhalers
University of Canterbury
E-cigarettes as medical inhalers
The technology of thermal aerosol extraction is particularly interesting because the devices are favorable by mass production and the dosage can be controlled well.
♪
Electronic nicotine delivery systems exhibit reduced bronchial epithelial cells toxicity compared to cigarette: The Replica Project
University of Catania
Compared to cigarettes, electronic nicotine dispensing systems have a lower toxicity of the bronchial epithelial cells. Replication study
We were able to repeat the results obtained in the original studies on cytotoxicity and confirm that almost 80% of the cytotoxic effect of smoke is due to the vapor phase of smoke. In addition, our results underpinned the reduced cytotoxic effects of e-steam product aerosol in terms of cigarette smoke. However, our data differ significantly from the original data regarding the inflammatory and rebuilding activity triggered by smoke. Overall, the data collected independently in different laboratories clearly show the reduced toxicity of e-steam products compared to cigarettes and thus provide a valuable tool for the strategies for reducing damage to smokers.
♪
A 6-month inhalation toxicology study in Apoe-/− mice demonstrates substantially lower effects of e-vapor aerosol compared with cigarette smoke in the respiratory tract
Philip Morris International Research Laboratory
A 6-month inhalation toxicology study on apoe / mice shows significantly lower effects of e-steam aerosol compared to cigarette smoke in the airways
♪
Assessment of the potential vaping-related exposure to carbonyls and epoxides using stable isotope-labeled precursors in the e-liquid
ABF Analytical Biological Research Laboratory GmbH
Assessment of potential vapor-related exposure to carbonyls and epoxides using stable isotope-labeled precursors in E liquid
We were able to determine the exposure to various carbonyls and epoxides resulting from the thermal degradation of propylene glycol and glycerol under smoke and steam conditions with a stable isotope marker approach. The formation of some toxins, such as crotonaldehyde, methacrolein and acetone, was observed only in the combustion of conventional cigarettes, while propylene glycol and glycerol can also be degraded to formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein and glycidol under customary vapor conditions, to a much lesser extent than in smoking.
♪
The Impact of E-liquid Propylene Glycol and Vegetable Glycerin Ratio on Ratings of Subjective Effects, Reinforcement Value, and Use in Current Smokers
Investigation of the relationship between PG and VG in liquids and the sensation of users. The higher the PG share in the liquid the stronger the so-called “throat hit”, i.e. the scratch in the neck.
♪
Characteristics and toxicant emission of JUUL electronic cigarettes
The aerosol emission of the juul was measured. The findings are all in the green area. Formaldehydes etc. are significantly lower than in the smoke of tobacco cigarettes.
♪
Effects of Electronic Cigarette Constituents on the Human Lung: A Pilot Clinical Trial
In this study, the effects of the e-cigarette aerosol on the airways were investigated. Result: there is no significant difference in inflammatory values in E-Dampfern and the control group of the Niemals-Dampfer. !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
♪
Toxicity classification of e-cigarette flavouring compounds based on European Union regulation: analysis of findings from a recent study
Study by Dr. Farsalinos on ingredients in Liquids. Based on the EU classification labelling regulation, the concentration of individual flavourings has been compared with the low concentration, which is invented in order to classify them as toxic. The large majority of flavorings in liquids were far below the toxic level for classification. Since there may be exceptions, control is justified.
♪
Analysis of Cannabinoid-Containing Fluids in Illicit Vaping Cartridges Recovered from Pulmonary Injury Patients: Identification of Vitamin E Acetate as a Major Diluent
University at Albany.
Analysis of Cannabinoid-containing (CBD) liquids (liquids) in illegal e-steam cartridges obtained by lung injury patients: Identification of Vitamin E acetate as the main diluent
♪
A comparative in vitro toxicity assessment of electronic vaping product e-liquids and aerosols with tobacco smoke
Imperial Brands PLC
Significantly reduced cytotoxicity of e-cigarette aerosols compared to tobacco smoke.
No genotoxic effect of e-liquids or e-cigarette aerosols.
No mutagenic effects of e-liquids or e-cigarette aerosols.
♪
Free Radical Production and Characterization of Heat-Not-Burn Cigarettes in Comparison to Conventional and Electronic Cigarettes
Production of Free Radicals and Characterization of Heat-Not-Burn Cigarettes Compared to Conventional and Electronic Cigarettes
Free radicals in the gas phase were detected in the smoke/aerosol of all products, the contents for HnB (IQOS, Glo) (12 pmol/Zug) being similarly high as in e-cigarettes (Juul, SREC, box mod e-cig) and hybrid devices (Ploom) (5-40 pmol/Zug), but 50 times lower than in conventional cigarettes (1R6F).
Gas phase radicals differ in the polarity of HnB products and conventional cigarettes which produce more polar radicals than those produced from E-cigarettes. The production of free radicals should be taken into account in the assessment of the toxicological profile of nicotine release products, and the identification of the radicals is of utmost importance.
♪
Passive Exposure to Pollutants from a New Generation of Cigarettes in Real Life Scenarios
University of Lisbon
Passive exposure to pollutants from a new generation of cigarettes in real scenarios
The pollutant values of e-cigarettes and heat-emergency beans are significantly lower compared to those of combustible tobacco in real scenarios: at home and in the car
♪
Comparison of the chemical composition of aerosols from heating products, electronic cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes and their toxic impacts on the human bronchial epithelial BEAS-2B cells
Institut Pasteur de Lille
Comparison of the chemical composition of aerosols from tobacco heaters, electronic cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes and their toxic effects on human bronchial epithelial cells BEAS-2B
Tobacco heaters emit less polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and carbonyls than conventional tobacco cigarettes. However, the amounts of these compounds in tobacco-heater aerosols were still higher than in the vapor of the E-cigarette.
♪
The Evolving E-cigarette: Comparative Chemical Analyses of E-cigarette Vapor and Cigarette Smoke
British American Tobacco
The e-cigarette developing: Comparative chemical analyses of e-cigarettes and cigarette smoke
Despite the continuous development of design, components and ingredients, E-cigarettes continue to offer significantly lower pollution (99% lower) than cigarette smoke. !
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Metal emission from e-cigarettes: a risk assessment analysis of a recently-published study
Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos and Prof. Brad Rodu have published a risk assessment on metals in the steam. The values found are so low that huge amounts of liquids should be consumed for damage.
♪
Levels of selected analytes in the emission of “heat not burn” tobacco products that are relevant to assess human health risks.
In this study of the BfR, the pollutants in the smoke of conventional tobacco cigarettes were now compared with the aerosol of heat-emergency bean products. The numbers show that HnB are far less harmful than cigarettes! Depending on the fabric (aldehyde, acrolein etc.) by up to 80% – 95% less!
♪
Do flavouring compounds contribute to aldehyde emissions in e-cigarettes?
2016 was published a study by Khlystov and Samburova, which claimed that a lot of aldehydes were released by aromas in E vapors. Criticism of experimental setup was ignored. Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos has repeated this study and comes to 100 times lower values. The aldehyde pollution of the air was scarcely noticeable and miles away from the EU, WHO, etc.
♪
Carbonyl emission in E-cigarette Aerosol: A Systematic Review and Methodological Considerations
Carbonyl compounds in steam. Dr. Farsalinos discusses here the methodological errors which are made in the investigation of e-cigarettes steam. Key word: Kokelstudies.
♪
Physical and chemical assessment of 1.3 propanediol as a potential substitute of propylene glycol in refill liquid for electronic cigarettes.
This study considered whether 1.3 propanediol works as a substitute for propylene glycol in liquids for e-steam products. The study concludes that 1.3 propanediol has better thermal and taste properties than PG and VG. There are also advantages in 1.3 propanediol for binding nicotine.
♪
Identification and quantification of electronic cigarette exhaled aerosol residue chemicals in field sites.
Steamers absorb over 94% of nicotine in steam.
♪
Detection and quantitative determination of heavy metals in electronic cigarette refill liquids using Total Reflection X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry
Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos was able to demonstrate with the total reflection X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (TXRF) that the metals in E-liquids are clearly below the concentration limits set by regulatory authorities for inhalation drugs.
♪
Comparison of Free Radical Levels in the Aerosol from Conventional Cigarettes, Electronic Cigarettes, and Heat-Not-Burn Tobacco Products
This study examines the concentration of free radicals in the aerosol of e-steam products, heat-emergency bulb products compared to the aerosol of standard cigarette 3R4F. Result: in the vapor of the e-cigarette, as well as of heat-emergency beans, the number of free radicals is just at the detection limit, in contrast to the number in tobacco smoke. In the case of E-steam products, the NO content is below the detection limit, in the case of heat-emergency beans at 7% compared to the standard cigarette.
♪
The effect of e-cigarette aerosol emission on respiratory health: a narrative review
Professor Riccardo Polosa. More and more scientific findings demonstrate the relative safety of the aerosols of e-steam products for the airways compared to tobacco smoke.
♪
On the Passive Exposure to Nicotine from Traditional Cigarettes Versus e-Cigarettes
Study examines the “passive smoke/vapor” of e-steam products and compares it with the “passive smoke” of conventional tobacco cigarettes. Result: there is no “passive steam”. The nicotine is almost completely absorbed by the e-steam.
Fine in particles homes of predominantly low-income families with children and smokers: Key physical and behavioral determinants to inform indoor-air-quality interventions
Study on air quality in living rooms regarding smoking and steaming. Result: the air quality in steamer apartments the same as in non-damper non-smoking apartments.
♪
Clearing the Air: A systematic review on the harms and benefits of e-cigarettes and vapour devices
University of Victoria.
This study reviewed 170 relevant articles on the e-cigarette and reached four conclusions:
– Exposure to second-hand e-cigarette steam (so-called “passive steam”) is less harmful than exposure to tobacco smoke.
– The steam of e-cigarettes is less toxic than the smoke of tobacco cigarettes.
– There is no evidence that the use of an e-steam increases the likelihood that a young person starts smoking.
– It seems that vaping can be as effective as other nicotine substitute products used for smoking.
♪
Comparison of cellular and transcriptomic effects between electronic cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke in human bronchial epithelial cells
Anthérieu et al.; Institut Pasteur de Lille; 2017
Comparison of the cellular and transcriptional effects of electronic cigarette vapor and cigarette smoke in human bronchial epithelial cells
The results show that the aeorsol of e-steam products has a negligible effect on the epithelial cells compared to tobacco.
Instead of believing incompetent claims in ProSieben, you should mal reputable information:
Studies
STUDIES RUND TO THE E-DAMPFE
THE BACTERICIDAL ACTION OF PROPYLENE GLYCOL VAPOR ON MICROORGANISMS SUSPENDED IN AIR
University of Chicago
Study on the antibacterial action of propylene glycol. Result: The evaporation of propylene glycol in enclosed spaces has an antibacterial effect on bacteria. They die from dehydration.
Effective against pneumococci, streptococci and staphylococci.
♪
E-cigarettes generate high levels of aldehydes only in ‘dry puff’ conditions.
Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos proves that the E-steam does not generate any pollutants such as aldehydes as long as it is operated within its specification. Pollutants arise only when the evaporator runs dry and so to speak “cooked”. But no person breathes voluntarily.
♪
Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines in Electronic Cigarettes: Comparison between Liquid and Aerosol Levels
Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos.
No tobacco-specific nitrosamines could be detected in the aerosol.
♪
An Assessment of Indoor Air Quality before, during and after Unrestricted Use of E-Cigarettes in a Small Room
The study shows that the values of exhaled E-Dampf-Aerosol in interiors are far below legal standards for indoor air quality.
♪
Characterisation of mainstream and passive vapours emitted by selected electronic cigarettes
All harmful chemicals are present in the aerosol of e-steam products in such small quantities that they can often not even be recognized.
♪
Evaluation of Chemical Exposures at a Vape Shop
In 2015, the CDC tested the air in steam stores. Result: no reason to panic, all in the green area.
♪
cigarettes emit very high formaldehyde levels only in conditions that are aversive to users: A replication study under verified realistic use conditions
Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos has prepared a comparative study and measured the formaldehyde values in realistic scenarios. Large amounts of formaldehyde arise only when using the e-cigarette outside its specification.
But the number is nonsense: The Federal Agency for Health Education (BZgA) warns againstto underestimate the risks of e-cigarettes:
With such serious harmful effects, it is impossible to speak of 95-99% more harmless! This harmless claim is negligent!
Source: https://www.prosieen.de/series/galileo/news/ezigaretten-vapen-rauchen-schaedlicher-als-normale-zigaretten-333693
And nicotine is very dependent! Sources (which you should know already!):
Believe me… You only smoke a vape once and never again. However, since it does not contain any addiction generators, it does not, in contrast to tobacco smoke, of course, addict.
Why once and then never again?
Because slandering plastic is so disgusting
Yes, because e-cigarettes contain “pure” nicotine and no tobacco smoke! It’s always so important to you!
Great difference: In the Wikipedia article, everything is on the ONE page, namely the page that you linked and thus found to be serious!
But I have linked a completely different side than the one that RayAnderson used later as a source. So I have never found the content of RayAndersons source for serious.
You mean I demand that scientific standards be complied with in the debate. Yeah, that’s really important to me.
Not the “Leier”, but the state of science! The DKFZ is a pioneer in toxicology.
Well, then she should have an economic interest in presenting nicotine as harmless! That she still falls to nicotine like that, says volumes!
No, this is very relevant, because a larger community leads to better articles!
Just like this: The English articles to Nicotine was revised 16 times in August – the German article not a single time!
The activity you mentioned in the article is the first after almost 2 months!
evidence or Documents can also be found in the English article for each individual statement!
And the much larger English-speaking community, of course, pays much more attention to the fact that only reputable documents can be left!
There are countless possibilities! e.g., the relapse rate can be considered, or the intensity of the withdrawal phenomena (adrenaline level etc.) can be quantified and then averaged over a greater number of subjects (of course with placebos etc.)!
Amazing that after 9 years of research (have you written in another thread) you know nothing about such methods!
But you used the source, and you found it to be serious enough!
It is the most obvious conclusion. From a statement like “nicotine makes less addictive than tobacco smoke” it can be NOT concluded that it doesn’t make addiction!
Oh, yes, you can find with almost 100% certainty that a substance has no physical dependency potential! This has not yet succeeded in nicotine, despite the most intense efforts – and generous sponsoring of tobacco industry and vape manufacturers.
Very inappropriate example, because unlike in the search for “rotated zebras”, the search room is clearly defined in the field of addiction research!
Better example:
Nowhere will you find the statement “Doing apples may be dependent” because they clearly do not cause physical dependence! If you were to conduct a study, with many subjects and placebos, etc., then you could also prove that there is no “apple addiction”.
English Wikipedia is updated by more users and much more frequently! – which is completely irrelevant… and only so next: on the English side was last on the 9th. September, at the German on the 16th The last change on dependency potential was found in the English page on 5. March, at the German on 7th May… But no matter who writes when on an article: as long as there are no substantial changes in the sources to which all claims have to be made, this is completely banana.
Of course I am looking for the English contribution if I want reliable information! – You can fuck a schoolmate, but not me! You pick out the English version, just WEIL is written there “Nicotine is highly addictive” as you have already admitted here somewhere. .
This is strangely only on German Wikipedia – yes… and even more funny it is that DA even find BEWEISE for that that is so in Fom of really real studies… but they are not serious enough for you, you prefer to have some newspaper articles.
In case of doubt, you should trust English-language Wikipedia, for the above reasons. – in case of doubt, you should not trust Wikepedia yourself at all, but check the sources yourself, because only LAIA write for other LAIA. Or what do you think I’m referring almost exclusively to studies and hardly to Wikipedia?
Clearly pure nicotine makes less dependent than tobacco smoke, – ACH NEEEE… look… how come you ever get off your beer “Nikotin is IMMER strong looking!”?
but how much less, this is not quantified in the passage. – Right… You want to quantify something like addiction? I’m sorry, but with such stupid objections, you can’t even get out for yourself.
And also “less addiction potential” is still more than “nicotine doesn’t make addiction” – ähhmmmm…. jaaaa…. that had to come now was clear, but also that doesn’t save your ass, because no really serious scientist is closing something to 100%, which you can’t exclude 100%. You will never find the statement: “there are no red-carded zebras,” because it is very uncommon that there are, but it is also possible that one has only found none. In other respects, the assertion that the earth is not a pane, because it is not, has been proven at the latest at the beginning of space without the smallest doubt and there is no change.
By the way, in the dt, Wikipedia (Your source) is also: – No, not… MY Source, but A Source… at least I did not write the article there
The German Cancer Research Centre stressed in 2014 for e-cigarettes: – what the DKFZ 2014 emphasised on e-cigarettes or not, does not play the least part in your assertion on nicotine… And just like that, if you’re on Page (Wikipedia with tens of thousands of completely different articles) stumbled by various articles that actually have completely different authors and were only published on the same web site and if you find something that supports your opinion, then the OK that you want to use this for DICH as inconsistent proof… but if others are on a website (Nicorette) that has been written by ONE group of persons, and that you should always use the
Nicotine makes dependent, promotes the growth of existing tumors and is suspected of producing cancer– jupp… this is the reading of the DKFZ… true is still only the mean of the three assertions.
And again to the DKFZ: In 2014, the director responsible for this statement was Dr. Martina Pötschke Langer. Just the one that was the founding member of the WAT e.V. was – an association that Novartis has set up to market its NETs: https://www.presseportal.de/pm/70454/3334113 and just so you don’t have to click on the link
“According to the PR company Klinksiek, the WAT e.V. was founded on behalf of Novartis Consumer Health. Novartis produces addiction products. ; In accordance with the DKFZ, it rejects the use of electronic cigarettes for tobacco pampering. The head of the “WHO Collaboration Centre for Tobacco Control” at the DKFZ, Dr. Martina Pötschke-Langer, is a scientific member of the Novartis Foundation WAT e.V.”
By the way, in the dt, Wikipedia (Your source) is also:
In 2014, the German Cancer Research Centre underlined E-cigarettes:
nicotinemakes dependent, promotes the growth of existingTumorsand is suspected,Cancerto generate. “
But you’ve read that.
English Wikipedia is updated by more users and much more frequently! Of course I am looking for the English contribution if I want reliable information!
That’s funny only on German Wikipedia. On English Wikipedia you are looking for a comparable sentence in vain – instead it is even emphasized that pure nicotine is also addicted.
In case of doubt, you should trust English-language Wikipedia, for the above reasons.
“Many” and “less” are by the way no clear terms. Clearly pure nicotine makes less dependent than tobacco smoke, but how much less, this is not quantified in the passage.
And even “less addiction potential” is still more than “nicotine doesn’t make addiction” (which you sometimes claim).
No, they’re all from NIKOTIN addiction! – What if you finally start reading your sources and understand, above all, instead of searching them for specific stimuli?!
Yes, I have! e.g. the Wikipedia link – there, since you differentiate again and look for the English-speaking, because it says “nicotine is highly addictive”, the German Wikipedia entry, which clearly says “Comparisons of animal studies and studies on human drug use show that pure nicotine has little, tobacco cigarette smoke has a very high addiction potential.“and who also bears this with really real studies instead of any newspaper article, you ignore it because he doesn’t say what you want to read!
I am happy to be able to condense false information Since when do you call the notorious spreading of strangers????
No, they’re all from NIKOTIN addiction! The sources even contain the word nicotine addiction!
Yes, I have! e.g. the Wikipedia link. On Wikipedia is literally “Nicotine is highly addictive” without tobacco being mentioned only!
I’m missing the words about the DMs you sent me!
Fortunately, I am still in a position to consolidate false information.
All sources I use cover the topics nicotine and nicotine addiction – Wrong! THE act by TABAKSUCHT. A source that shows the existence of a nicotine addiction triggered by tobacco smoke-free nicotine without any doubt, you did not deliver.
In other words: You have you been lying?. – how often?: If you speak of yourself, that means I and not you!
And you said no to me, “I really miss the words” Why are you still writing?
All sources I use treat nicotine and nicotine addiction – the two relevant topics.
In other words: You I just lied.
I have made all my statements through reputable sources! – you didn’t, you delivered sources that either don’t fit what you want to prove or sources that are insane… partly both at the same time.
Your accusation is infam. – It’s true! You’re lying here again!
I have made all my statements through reputable sources!
Your accusation is infamous.
Vapes are also addicted.
Always the same unreflected reaction to my facts and links. – HOW TO LET
Ooh!
None of the studies refute the addictive effect of Vapes or Nicotine!
None of the studies refute the harmful effect of Vapes!
(except for the studies carried out by the tobacco industry, which have no significance anyway)
If you see that differently, please prove the opposite.
And you should learn,
unbiased:
Study to read!!️
https://rupress.org/jem/article-abstract/78/5/387/4733/THE-BACTERICIDAL-ACTION-OF-PROPYLENE-GLYCOL-VAPOR?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25996087/
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/12/8/9046
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120504889
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2014.10.001
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2015-0107-3279.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.08.044
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177718
https://www.uvic.ca/research/centres/cisur/assets/docs/report-clearing-the-air-review-exec-summary.pdf
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2016.12.015
https://doi.org/1080/08958378.2018.1523262
https://link.springer.com/sharelink/10.1007/s00204-018-2215-y
https://doi.org/1016/j.fct.2018.02.059
https://doi.org/1038/s41598-018-29066-6
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.12.027
https://doi.org/1016/j.fct.2018.04.035
https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2019.1649146
http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/archive2?journalId=718&paperId=4979
https://doi.org/1093/ntr/ntz130
https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/28/678
https://www.mdpi.com/625274
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2020.104866
https://doi.org/1021/acs.chemrestox.0c00088
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103455
https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2020.586674
https://doi.org/1080/08958378.20201867260
https://doi.org/1093/ntr/ntaa252
https://doi.org/10.14264/da61a47
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.05.05.442767
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-021-03020-4
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-021-03097-x
https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.3275
https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.3337
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/1021/acsomega.2c07324
https://doi.org/1038/s41598-023-39201-7
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-44626-1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10701621/
But you just have to read what I write unbiasedly.
You don’t give any facts.
Always the same unreflected reaction to my facts and links.
Always the same Kokolores❗️🤦🏻 ♀️
Yes, it is the truth!
Both independent scientists and reputable organisations (such as WHO [5] and DKFZ [4]) that follow high standards and employ countless scientists have demonstrated that:
Sources:
[4]https://www.aok.de/pk/magazin/familie/eltern/serioese health information
[5]https://www.who.int/about/ ANNEX[7][8] [9]https://www.health.gv.at/disorders/search/nicotiny/path-in-abhaengigkeit.html– Quote: “Nikotin asaddictive substance“ [10]
[11]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC40182/(considers that nicotine also depends on Vapes!)
[12]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
No, that’s nonsense❗️
Wrong! Vapes are also addicted. Nicotine depends on the medium.
Both make very dependent. In Vapes, the nicotine dose is even higher than in cigarettes. You’ll regret it later.
No …falsch❗️
This incompetent claim alone
proves that you have no idea of
Topic have❗️Where do you want to know
which e-cigarettes are meant here❓
From one-way Chinaschrott van stands
nothing in the question! The majority of all
Steamers steam with multiway –
Steaming. There is no one at all
Liquid inside, so logically also
no nicotine And the many
steamers that mix their liquid themselves,
logically, even the
Nicotine quantity! It’s not just finished
Liquids❗️ But where do you want to know that?… 🤦🏻 ♀️
Let’s stay realistic! In as good as all finished vapes and also in most liquids IST nicotine available
Yes. Both independent scientists and prestigious organisations such as the WHO [5] and the DKFZ [4], who follow high scientific standards and employ numerous scientists have repeatedly and clearly demonstrated that:
Sources:
[4]https://www.aok.de/pk/magazin/familie/eltern/serioese health information [5]https://www.who.int/about/ANNEX[7][8][9]https://www.health.gv.at/disorders/search/nicotiny/path-in-abhaengigkeit.html– Quote: “Nikotin asaddictive substance“[10][11]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC40182/(considers that nicotine also depends on Vapes!)
[12]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine
.
You can also do something else,
but just telling lies?
It’s not a good sign that all users hit your hands over your head and give up their hands…
I’m out. Bye
Ohh, great!👏👏🥳👍💃🏻😮 💨💨💨
Yes, here…
https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/406882/cd97fbcb034b483eca519b5dcfdf5e67/stellungnahme_mayer-data.pdf
… better read.👍👍👍
I’ll finish this now. I’m gonna be too stupid. I’ve proved everything, who wants to read.
And again you are three
lie!
No, just NOT!
No, that’s bullshit, and I’ve already mentioned it several times. Your link leads to an essay from the only Prof who shares your opinion, namely Prof. Mayer. But he’s the only scientist with the opinion. The scientific consensus can be read on wikipedia, netdoktor, my above sources, articles from DKFZ and WHO
Scientific consensus is that
E-cigarettes at least!! 95-99 %
more harmless than cigarettes are
and that nicotine is harmless
and neither addicted,
still depends!
Steam holds
not proven
serious health risks,
you don’t have to warn anyone.
There are no harms here!
That’s wrong + lying!
Here you can read what
scientific consensus is:
https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/406882/cd97fbcb034b483eca519b5dcfdf5e67/stellungnahme_mayer-data.pdf
No, that’s not a “Rachefeldzug” on my part, and it’s certainly not bad to warn against serious health risks.
If you recommend to change to Vapes, I support it, but the harmlessness here is also read by young people who only start the Vapen because of this false information. And I feel very well to counteract this
No,
from your sources, there are only disinformation & untruths!
You know what? Your entire revenge campaign against e-cigarettes and your completely unjustified proclamation of nicotine is really bad & bad.
And especially 👉also dangerous❗️
Don’t you feel bad about wanting something very useful & helpful so bad?
No, that’s true, see my sources.
And another lie.
No, what I write is state of serious science.
Interested, I can only recommend that you get information on trusted pages such as Wikipedia on the harmful effects of nicotine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Adverse_effects