Overuse of gums, how does it affect you?

Inky15880
Inky15880

July 23rd, 2007, 4:17 pm #1

Since I started my quit, I've come to known several people who quit quite some time ago (1 year+) but are still using gums. I am wondering, are there any articles that link nicotine gums directly to oral cancers/esophagel cancers? I would assume it has the same risks as chewing tobacco. Is this the case?

Thanks in advance,
Ingrid
Quote
Share

JoeJFree Gold
JoeJFree Gold

July 23rd, 2007, 6:08 pm #2

Ingrid,

The long-term use of nicotine has the most serious negative consequence to our circulation system. The method of delivery does not change how nicotine effects our Blood Flow?

There are several articles listed on the Health - Environmental Tobacco Smoke board that you can read to learn more of the answer to your question.

Joe J Free 2 and a half years by keeping nicotine out of me.
Quote
Share

Just Hannes
Just Hannes

July 23rd, 2007, 10:04 pm #3

Hi Ingrid,

Terrible to see these people still use nictione.

Here are some articles about NRT (NRT= Nicotine Replacement Therapy like the gum, patches, etc.):


It's not only cancer or circulation diseases, they still have nicotine in their body.
Here are some more articles what nicotine does:

The theory behind the gum or patch is to slowly deminish the amound of nicotine, just like Quitting by gradual withdrawal.

Prolonging withdrawal symptoms . Horrible I think.

Frits (7 months +)
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

July 24th, 2007, 10:07 am #4

Video
My first encounter with NRT
Dial Up
3.99mb
High speed
16.1mb
Audio
2.13mb
Length
14:37
11/16/06


NRT and quit meters, how do you count?
I occasionally get emails from people inquiring why I have such a critical view on the use of nicotine replacement products. Being that it takes time to personally answer all of these emails, I have assembled a series of articles that address different issues involving the use of nicotine replacement products for smoking cessation.
Pharmacological Aids to Smoking Cessation
Pharmacological Aids Part II
40 Years of Progress?
Quitting Methods: Who Should You Believe?
So How Did Most Successful Ex-Smokers Actually Quit?
Most expert say "Don't quit cold turkey"
Hooked on the Cure
Is Cold Turkey the Only Way to Quit?
Wall Street Journal article explores pharmaceutical industry "Nicotine Fix"
Quote
Share

FZ6SPORTBIKERIDER
FZ6SPORTBIKERIDER

July 24th, 2007, 12:39 pm #5

I started to quit with the losenges and the patch. I am a addict what can you say?
Grin.

I found this site, and it mad me angry. What do you mean I cant be a part of it if I am still using nicotine? Again I am a addict.

I kept reading that all I was doing was extending the torture. In one of the things I read here, they discussed smoking 40 ciggarettes a day, and slowly weaning my self off. The first day 39 no problem, second day 38 no problem, but then later on when I have to smoke just 5 or 3 that would be torture, just enough to keep me addicted but not enough to make my inner junkie shut up.

Anyway long story short, I just stopped. I didnt follow the instructions with the NRT. I am sorta of the opinion that they just maybe might want people to keep going back to smoking, and then keep coming back to NRT.
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

July 24th, 2007, 12:48 pm #6

From above:
"In one of the things I read here, they discussed smoking 40 ciggarettes a day, and slowly weaning my self off. The first day 39 no problem, second day 38 no problem, but then later on when I have to smoke just 5 or 3 that would be torture, just enough to keep me addicted but not enough to make my inner junkie shut up."
From the string Quitting by gradual withdrawal
Quitting by Gradual Withdrawal

Quitting by the gradual withdrawal method. I discuss this method quite extensively in my seminars. I always tell how if there is anyone attending who knows a smoker who they really despise they should actively encourage them to follow the gradual withdrawal "cut down" approach. They should call them up ever day and tell them to just get rid of one cigarette. Meaning, if they usually smoke 40 a day, just smoke 39 on the first day of the attempt to quit. The next day they should be encouraged to smoke only 38 then 37 the next day and so on. Then the seminar participant should call these people every day to congratulate them and encourage them to continue. I must reemphasize, this should only be done to a smoker you really despise.

You see, most smokers will agree to this approach. It sounds so easy to just smoke one less each day. Thirty-nine cigarettes to a two pack a day smoker seems like nothing. The trick is to convince the person that you are only trying to help them. For the first week or two the one downside is you have to pretend to like the person and you have to talk to them every day. They won't whine to bad either. When they are down to 30 from 40, they may start to complain a little. You really won't be having fun yet. When the payoff comes is about three weeks into scam. Now you've got them to less than half their normal amount. They are in moderate withdrawal all the time.

A month into the approach you've got them into pretty major withdrawal. But be persistent. Call them and tell them how great they are doing and how proud you are of them. When they are in their 35th to 39th day, you have pulled off a major coup. This poor person is in peak withdrawal, suffering miserably and having absolutely nothing to show for it. They are no closer to ending withdrawal than the day you started the process. They are in chronic withdrawal, not treating him or herself to one or two a day, but actually depriving him or herself of 35 to 40 per day.

If you want to go in for the kill, when you got them down to zero, tell them don't worry if things get tough, just take a puff every once in a while. If you can get them to fall for this, taking one puff every third day, they will remain in withdrawal forever. Did I mention you really should despise this person to do this to them? It is probably the cruelest practical joke that you could ever pull on anyone. You will undercut their chance to quit, make them suffer immeasurably and likely they will at some point throw in the towel, return to smoking, have such fear of quitting because of what they went through cutting down, that they will continue to smoke until it kills them. Like I said, you better really despise this person.

Hopefully there is no one you despise that much to do this to them. I hope nobody despises themselves enough to do this to themselves. Quitting cold turkey may be hard but quitting by this withdrawal technique is virtually impossible. If you have a choice between hard and impossible, go for hard. You will have something to show at the end of a hard process, but nothing but misery at the end of an impossible approach. Quit cold and in 72 hours it eases up. Cut down and it will basically get progressively worse for weeks, months, years if you let it.

I should mention, this is not a new technique. It has been around for decades. Talk to every long-term ex-smoker you know. Try to find one person who successfully used the cut down approach, gradually reducing to eventual zero over weeks or months. You will be hard pressed to find even one person who fits this bill. One other perspective that should help you see the flaw in the approach. Look at people here who had once quit for months or years and then relapsed. One day, after such a long time period, they take a drag and are smoking again. If one puff can do this after years or decades, guess what it will do after days or hours of being smoke free. It puts the smoker back to square one. All that any ex-smoker has to do to avoid relapse or chronic withdrawal is to - NEVER TAKE ANOTHER PUFF!

Joel


Video version of this string
Video Title
Quitting by gradual withdrawal
Dial Up
2.35mb
High Speed
7.54mb
Audio
1.03mb
Length
07:13
Added
10/18/06
Quote
Share

FZ6SPORTBIKERIDER
FZ6SPORTBIKERIDER

July 24th, 2007, 12:51 pm #7

This message has been deleted by the author.
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

July 24th, 2007, 9:23 pm #8

This message has been deleted by the author.
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

July 24th, 2007, 9:25 pm #9

This message has been deleted by the author.
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

July 24th, 2007, 9:27 pm #10

This message has been deleted by the author.
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

July 24th, 2007, 9:32 pm #11

Sorry about the three deletions above--I had some embedded coding problems and dropped text:
I just realized I forgot to address your original question here.

Your assumption that the risks of using nicotine gum at causing oral or esophageal cancer are equivalent to the risks of using chewing tobacco is probably wrong. Chewing tobacco contains lots of extra chemicals, many of them known and confirmed carcinogens, chemicals that nicotine gum does not. There may be long term consequences that we do not know fully at this point, but in all likelihood, the dangers posed in regards to these two cancers are going to be significantly less than using a tobacco based product. There are two real problems though that needs to be considered when writing off the use of the product as "safer" than smoking. First, if you read the links I referred to above it should become pretty clear that the use of these products are in all likelihood, undercutting the users long-term prospects of quitting and many people are going to probably end up reverting back to the more dangerous forms of tobacco--people who if they had gone cold would have eliminated the risk of nicotine exposure completely. Then there is the issue that these people are never breaking free from the actual grip of an constantly fed nicotine addiction.

The following comment from the string NRT - the beginning of the end? addresses this concern:



I have met numerous people who were still using NRT products for many years and have even encountered a few who were using them for almost 20 years now. If these studies end up being accurate I suspect that these people are at higher risk of disease. Sure the risk is likely to be lower than if they were still smoking, but still they are facing problems that were totally avoidable.

But the other point that needs to be recognized by these people is that they never were truly allowing themselves to get totally free of nicotine. Most people who get off nicotine totally for years and decades will go great lengths of time where desires for cigarettes just don't happen--eventually reaching the point where days, weeks and eventually months may pass where they really don't even think about cigarettes--at least not in any positive sense. I think if you read the Tell A Newbie Thread you will see this fact even from our members who are off much shorter time periods.

People using these products never reach these levels of comfort where the body is no longer demanding nicotine thus creating its own desires independent of what the mind even wants. The original article here discusses the implication that the products may not really be improving the long-term success rate of people using them. Combining this fact with what is being said here, the message should start to be that not only are the products not helping but that they might even be hurting people. Hopefully the more that is learned about these long-term risks, the more people will start to think seriously about what they are doing.

Hopefully people needing to quit will realize to get the full benefits of not smoking they should just quit smoking, and, hopefully, over time our medical professionals will realize this too and advise their patients accordingly. We are not there yet and not likely to be there for a long time, but as more and more gets known about the long-term effects of these products, hopefully they will likely start to lose their appeal with the masses.

People have been successfully quitting smoking for decades now and achieving long-term quits that have lasted decades too. Every study has shown that risks of smoking related diseases decrease with time not smoked. I don't think that there was ever a credible study done anywhere saying that people who quit cold turkey ever suffered any long-term consequence from a disease or condition caused because they quit cold turkey. It is not likely that other products will be able to make such claims decades from now.

Everyone here should recognize that your quits are going to become easier, that your life is going to become overall easier too than it would be if you were still using nicotine. Besides this, your health will likely continue to improve and your risks of smoking related illnesses will continue to drop as long as you simply remember from this day forth to never administer nicotine via any NRT product and to also remember that as far as cigarettes, cigars or pipes go, to just know to never take another puff!

Joel
Quote
Share

Inky15880
Inky15880

July 25th, 2007, 3:07 am #12

Thanks for so much information! Yes, I was specifically wondering about the risks of cancers. Because chewing tobacco sits in the mouth for longer periods of time and so does the gum. And at the same spot too for that matter. Chew and park..

What brought me to ask this was a person who quit 18 months ago, after a blocked carotid and is still on the gums.. I could "inform" him of what I know about how nicotine affects blood ciculation, but it also dawned to me that there is very little information about NRT in regards to cancer.

I also got very upset when another person told the man not to worry about still chewing the gum (after already having had a blocked carotid, geeez..) I realized I best stick to Freedom, keep my nose out of other people's quits and chew my own sugar- and nicotine free gum. ;-)

Ingrid,

Free since 22/06/07. One month, two days, 13 hours, 51 minutes and 2 seconds. 977 stinkers not smoked, saving € 103,60.
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

July 25th, 2007, 4:28 am #13

This message has been deleted by the author.
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

July 25th, 2007, 4:34 am #14

We know a lot about the effects of nicotine on the circulatory system. As far as for the role nicotine itself plays in carcinogenesis, there is conflicting data. For all practical purposes there is no clear consensus in the scientific community about nicotine itself and the cancer risk it poses.

We need to be careful though when broaching subjects like this. Here is a comment from the string Scare tactics that disccusses why we never want to make claims that can be interpreted as an exaggeration of risks:


Scare tactics have a bad reputation because of how they were used or more misused in the past. When you exaggerate the risks of anything, and a person finds out the real facts, it makes the whole message appear to be an exaggeration, if not an outright lie. Saying a dangerous substance does something that it does not do makes the listener disregard what the substance really does.

By this definition, quit smoking materials needs no scare tactics materials developed. The truth is scary as ****. Smoking kills! Smoking causes more preventable deaths than anything else does in America, and the rest of the world is catching up. To illustrate the relative risk of dying from smoking as compared to the risk of dying from other factors, for every thousand 20 year olds that smoke today and don't quit, 6 will die from being murdered, 12 will die from accidents, 500 will die from smoking! This is scary stuff.

But is this a scare tactic? No, it is a fact. Is giving the message to the masses a scare tactic? No it is education. We need education. We need education to prevent the next generation being where smokers are now, we need education getting those of you who are now smoking to break the grip nicotine now holds on them. We need continued education to keep reminding those who have controlled it up to this point to remember, they are a puff away from being a smoker again.

Is that concept scary to you? It better be. You have all got to be terrified of the grip cigarettes can pose on you once again if given the opportunity. Don't ever give them that chance again. Cigarettes are an unrepentant serial killer. Open your door to them and they will slowly poison you until they accomplish their ultimate goal, they will kill you. Scary stuff-you bet. There is only one way to stop this killer-it is simply knowing to never take another puff!

Joel

Again, the connection between nicotine and cardiovascular damage is widely accepted and understood. The article Smoking and Circulation spells out the cardiovascular effects of nicotine. There is good evidence out there about other harmful effects of nicotine, including its potential carcinogenic implications, but it is premature to come out and make any blanket claims, and making the claim that it is as dangerous as using tobacco products is likely a great exaggeration of the risk and will often result in any other information that you are disseminating as being exaggerations of the truth.
Quote
Share

John (Gold)
John (Gold)

July 25th, 2007, 5:03 am #15

Ingrid, in regard to nicotine's relation to cancer, you might find the following quoted language from a recent literature review of interest to you. On this paper I had the honor of being a contributor regard cessation issues, while Dr. Ginzel, a retired pharmacology professor, had the lead and did the lions share of the work. John
Title: Critical Review - Nicotine for the Fetus, the Infant and the Adolescent?
Nicotine and carcinogenesis
One of the reasons for protecting the developing and growing organism from exposure to nicotine is the prominent role nicotine plays in both 'initiation' and 'promotion', the two cardinal stages in carcinogenesis. Nicotine can be transformed to one of the most potent lung carcinogens, the tobacco-specific nitrosamine, NNK. As an initiator, NNK is a prime candidate among the many carcinogens in cigarette smoke responsible for starting the process toward cancer in active and passive smokers (Hecht, 2004; Hecht, Hochalter, Villalta, & Murphy, 2000). NNK and its metabolites are found in the first urine of infants born to smoking mothers, supporting the hypothesis that in utero exposure to tobacco carcinogens could be carcinogenic later in life (Lackmann et al., 1999). Transplacental carcinogenesis associated with smoking during pregnancy may involve, in addition to nicotine and NNK, other carcinogens from cigarette smoke. Reduced detoxification capabilities and increased susceptibility to DNA damage render the fetus especially vulnerable to carcinogenic risk (Whyatt et al., 2001). NNK and metabolites have also been recovered from elementary school children and adults exposed to ETS (Hecht et al., 2001), attesting to the fact that even the relatively small amounts of nicotine in ETS can be transformed to NNK in the recipient. Added to this are the minute concentrations of NNK in ETS that had been formed earlier in stored and burning tobacco. Nicotine ingested from NRT can also undergo transformation to NNK (Hatsukami et al., 2004). Fetal pulmonary neuroendocrine cells as well as lung cancer cells express nAChRs that bind NNK and nicotine which, in turn, stimulate the growth of these cells (Minna, 2003). The fact that human lung cancer cells of all histological types carry nAChRs suggests that nicotine itself may also play a direct role in the pathogenesis of lung cancer (Minna, 1993).
Tumor growth occurs when the critical balance between cell proliferation and programmed cell death (apoptosis) in normal healthy tissues is disturbed. At blood concentrations achieved by smoking, ETS exposure, or NRT, nicotine activates via nAChRs the cellular signalling pathway Akt, a protein kinase, which stimulates cell proliferation and inhibits apoptosis (Tsurutami et al., 2005). Activated Akt has been identified in all lung cancer samples taken from smokers. By this mechanism nicotine promotes unregulated growth and tumor formation, an effect that is not limited to the lungs but can also occur in cancers of other organs. Nicotine in NRT can be expected to act in a similar way (Heusch & Maneckjee, 1998).
Nicotine from cigarettes or NRT might also confer a proliferative advantage to already existing tumors. At concentrations even lower than those in smokers' blood, nicotine stimulates proliferation of endothelial cells and the formation of new blood vessels (angiogenesis), a basic requirement for tumor growth and metastasis (Villablanca, 1998). Furthermore, through activation of protein kinase C, nicotine accelerates migration and invasion of human lung cancer cells (Xu & Deng, 2006). All these actions define nicotine as an effective tumor promoter. As smoking-related promotion is now being recognized as the primary etiologic mechanism in carcinogenesis dominating over smokingrelated initiation (Hazelton, Clements, & Moolgavkar, 2005), nicotine, implicated in both processes, ought to be a major aim for intervention instead of a tool advocated for use in smoking cessation.
New research using human tissues raised the question whether nicotine is 'potentially a multifunctional carcinogen' (Campain, 2004), since it produces concomitant genotoxic and antiapoptotic effects, first steps in the neoplastic process. In human gingival fibroblasts nicotine induced rapid DNA damage at in vitro concentrations equivalent to those found to occur in the plasma of tobacco users (Argentin & Cicchetti, 2004). Genotoxicity observed in human tonsillar tissue and lymphocytes as well as in upper aerodigestive tract epithelia also suggests a direct tumor-initiating effect of nicotine (Kleinsasser et al., 2005; Sassen et al., 2005).
Smoking is now recognized as the second most significant cause of cervical cancer after human papilloma virus (International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2003). Nicotine which accumulates in cervical mucus after active and passive smoking and smokeless tobacco use (McCann et al., 1992), and which is also highly concentrated in the cervical mucus of women who use nicotine patches (Cancer Weekly, 1995), was found not only to promote rapid tumor growth and its lympho-angiogenic spread but also to inhibit an anti-proliferative factor (Lane, Gray, Mathur, & Mathur, 2005).
Although the preceding experimental data focus largely on adult cancer incidence implicating nicotine as a causative factor, similar scenarios can be expected to play out over time following fetal or childhood exposure to nicotine. Transplacental carcinogenesis associated with smoking during pregnancy may also involve, in addition to nicotine, other carcinogens found in cigarette smoke.
Quote
Share

Joel
Joel

July 25th, 2007, 5:06 am #16

You will see here that there are some studies that are starting to implicate nicotine itself as posing a risk to cancer patients or maybe even playing a role in causing cancer. This should not be confused though with the risks that are known about smoking and tobacco as it relates to cancer. There are dozens of confirmed carcinogens in tobacco products and there are very few people in the science or public health field that question the link between smoking, tobacco and cancer.
Quote
Share