Something strange is happening in the world of wellness. More and more patients are walking into my office, not to quit smoking, but to start. They're asking about nicotine gum, patches, and even cigarettes as part of their daily health routine. Why? Because social media influencers and self-proclaimed biohackers are calling nicotine a miracle cure. Dave Asprey, a well-known figure in the biohacking world, hails nicotine as the “fountain of youth,” a supposed shield against cognitive decline, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s. Meanwhile, Dr. Bryan Ardis has taken the hype to wild extremes, claiming “all cancers have been cured by tobacco since the 1500s,” and that “nicotine is the antidote for all venom… of every snake, spider, and scorpion.” He even refers to nicotine as a super nutrient.
As bizarre as it sounds, many people are now slapping on a nicotine patch right alongside their daily multivitamin. And here’s the kicker: for the first time in decades, cigarette smoking is on the rise.
The Addiction Lie
One of the most misleading narratives being peddled by charismatic influencers and doctors on social media is the claim that nicotine isn’t addictive. Seriously? That’s easily debunked; ask anyone who’s ever struggled to quit nicotine gum, lozenges, or patches. The method of delivery doesn’t change the core reality; nicotine is addictive, whether it’s inhaled, chewed, or absorbed through the skin.
Take Dr. Bryan Ardis, for example. In multiple interviews, he proudly states:
“People around the world ask me how long I’m going to wear a nicotine patch, and I tell them, every day for the rest of my life.”
His reason? “The patch protects me from 29 variants of the flu, so why would I stop?”
I'll tell you why he won’t stop...because he’s addicted. That's not a health hack, it’s a textbook example of chemical dependence.
I know what real nicotine addiction looks like. My grandmother was addicted to cigarettes and died from the horrible habit. I’ll never forget visiting her a month before she passed. There, beside her bed, sat an ashtray filled with bloodstained cigarette butts. She’d cough up blood, then light another. With every drag, she was slowly extinguishing her life, one puff at a time. That’s not just a bad habit. It’s not a “choice.” It’s the ruthless grip of addiction, a substance so powerful that it overrides even the human instinct to survive.
Dr. Ardis further revealed in a recent episode of the Myers Detox Podcast:
“Any day that I forget to put a nicotine patch on, three or four in the afternoon when I'm deep into research studies, building out my PowerPoints, I'm like, wait, how come my brain's not working as fast as normal? Oh man, I forgot my nicotine patch! I put it on, and within 30 minutes, I feel great, and everything becomes clear.”
If that doesn’t sound like withdrawal, I don’t know what does.
What I find ironic is how many of these pro-nicotine influencers also tell their followers to avoid sugar because it’s addictive (and science supports that). Yet both sugar and nicotine hijack the same dopamine reward pathways in the brain, stimulating the nucleus accumbens and reinforcing cravings through identical neurochemical loops. Sugar has even been shown to alter dopamine and opioid receptors in ways strikingly similar to addictive drugs like nicotine.[1]
But the difference is, no credible doctor is going viral saying, “Sugar is a superfood! It gives you energy! Your ancestors ate it!” And yet somehow, nicotine gets a free pass?
Even worse, many of these nicotine advocates ignore entirely or downplay the real harms: the cardiovascular strain, the blood vessel constriction, the oxidative stress, and the heightened risk of addiction that has been well-documented in thousands of peer-reviewed studies.[2] Withdrawal symptoms are often a definitive sign that what you’re taking is not beneficial. It's a flashing red light that your body has become dependent on nicotine. This addiction remains a severe public health crisis, contributing to hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Researchers have pinpointed the exact brain pathways, molecular mechanisms, and behavioral patterns that fuel nicotine dependence and withdrawal.[3] This isn’t some benign lifestyle choice. This is addiction, repackaged and rebranded for the wellness crowd.
Dr. Bryan Ardis frequently cites what he calls a “2016 Harvard study” as proof that nicotine isn’t addictive. However, no such study appears to exist. After a thorough review, his claim seems to be a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of a 2015–2016 report published by the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at UCSF, led by Dr. Stanton Glantz. That report analyzed internal tobacco industry documents and revealed how cigarette manufacturers used additives like pyrazines to enhance flavor, reduce harshness, and potentially increase the appeal of smoking. [4] Importantly, the report does not claim that nicotine is non-addictive. In fact, it reaffirms nicotine’s well-established role in fostering dependence. And while UCSF researchers authored that report, not Harvard, Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and its faculty have consistently produced research confirming that nicotine is highly addictive and a major driver of tobacco-related disease. Harvard research shows that lowering the nicotine content of cigarettes reduces dependence and makes quitting easier.[5] They also found that e-cigarettes with added nicotine foster greater dependence than any other ingredient.[6]
The Science is Clear: Nicotine Is Addictive
There is overwhelming evidence that nicotine is addictive, regardless of the source! Nearly every major health authority, including the U.S. Surgeon General, CDC, FDA, AMA, World Health Organization, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse, classifies nicotine as the primary addictive compound in tobacco products.[7] Clinical reports have documented patients who, despite never smoking, developed severe dependence on nicotine gum. Some consumed up to 200 mg daily, far beyond the therapeutic dose, and required medical intervention to stop.[8] Others described classic signs of addiction: uncontrollable cravings, repeated failed attempts to quit, and withdrawal symptoms that disrupted their daily lives.[9]
The neuroscience behind this is indisputable. Nicotine binds to a specific receptor in the brain called the alpha-4-beta-2 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, which triggers a release of feel-good neurotransmitters. This reward flood creates a euphoric "high," but the brain quickly adapts by reducing receptor sensitivity, causing tolerance. Soon, you need more to feel normal, and when the nicotine wears off, withdrawal symptoms like anxiety, irritability, fatigue, and brain fog kick in.[10] Nicotine appeases all these withdrawal symptoms because it increases levels of dopamine in our reward circuits.[11] [12]
That brings me to something I’ve seen far too often in practice. I have a friend who's a chronic smoker. After just three drags of a cigarette, he tells me, “My thoughts become clear, and I feel great.” (Hmmm, sounds a lot like what Dr. Ardis says.) But that clarity is short-lived, it’s just the fleeting relief of satisfying a chemical craving. And it came at a cost for my friend, who now suffers from COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), directly linked to his nicotine addiction.
I ask my patients who are using nicotine pouches, patches, gum, or melts, “Can you stop if you wanted to?” Almost every one of them answers the same way, “I’ve tried. I can’t. I get too tired, lightheaded, and can’t concentrate.”
That’s not vitality. That’s called dependency.
Even more alarming is the neurological risk to youth. The adolescent brain is especially vulnerable to nicotine’s effects, particularly in regions that govern decision-making, judgment, and impulse control. Research shows that nicotine exposure during this critical developmental window doesn’t just cause temporary changes; it rewires the brain, making it far more prone to long-term addiction and risk-taking behavior.[13]
So, let’s be clear, nicotine isn’t some misunderstood “nootropic” or “biohacking secret.” It’s a highly addictive substance that hijacks your brain’s reward system, alters your biology, and, when used long-term, can cause irreversible harm.
Biohackers and health influencers love to shock audiences because freaking people out on social media brings views and engagement, and that brings in cash. One of their latest tactics is quoting tiny, cherry-picked studies that suggest nicotine has benefits. However, the reality is that just because a substance produces a desired effect doesn’t make it safe, therapeutic, or advisable for everyday use.
Need an example? Consider another natural, plant-derived compound: cocaine. It’s been shown to elevate mood, boost energy, relieve fatigue, enhance focus, reduce pain, increase confidence, and even improve physical strength. Sounds impressive, right? But would any credible physician recommend snorting it? Of course not. Because those short-term effects come with devastating trade-offs: addiction, heart damage, neurological deterioration, and death, and that’s the same trap people fall into with nicotine. Sure, nicotine activates specific receptors in the brain. Yes, some preliminary studies show possible short-term cognitive effects. But the influencers hyping nicotine are leaving out the rest of the story, the powerful addiction, the cardiovascular strain, the neurological risks to adolescents, and the mountain of research confirming long-term harm.
A favorite talking point of pro-nicotine influencers is that smokers supposedly have lower rates of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. But this is a classic case of cherry-picking and misrepresenting the science.
Here’s what the research shows:
In short, there's no reliable evidence that nicotine prevents or cures Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s. And there’s plenty of evidence that it does far more harm than good.
As author of the #1 bestselling book Food Sanity, I’ve spent years debunking myths, half-truths, and health hype. But one of the most manipulative arguments I’ve seen recently is this:
“Nicotine must be safe because it’s found in healthy foods like tomatoes, potatoes, and eggplants.”
This claim is not just misleading, it’s scientifically dishonest!
Yes, trace nanogram-level amounts of nicotine exist naturally in some vegetables from the nightshade family. But here’s the truth these influencers conveniently leave out:
To match the nicotine content of just one cigarette, you'd need to eat 122 pounds of eggplant, or 220 pounds of tomatoes in a single sitting.[19]
I call that nutritional gaslighting, not food-based comparisons!
Here’s an analogy for you that exposes the absurdity: arsenic and formaldehyde also naturally occur in small amounts in some foods (like apples, rice, and pears). But nobody in their right mind is slapping on an arsenic patch or chewing formaldehyde gum to boost brain performance. Why? Because dose matters. This is basic toxicology 101, a foundational principle every first-year med student learns:
“The dose makes the poison.” —Paracelsus, the father of toxicology.[20]
Just because something occurs naturally in trace amounts doesn’t mean it’s safe or beneficial in highly concentrated, pharmaceutical-like doses. The nanogram levels of nicotine in vegetables are so minuscule they’re biologically irrelevant! They don’t stimulate receptors, alter brain chemistry, or trigger addiction.
Anyone who claims otherwise is either profoundly misinformed or deliberately deceiving their audience.
I’ve combed through the medical literature, including PubMed, clinical trial registries, peer-reviewed journals, and found zero credible scientific support for the following claims promoted by certain influencers:
Let’s break this down with facts, not fantasy.
FALSE!
Influenza viruses do not target nicotine receptors. Infection begins when the virus’s hemagglutinin (HA) protein binds to sialic-acid receptors on airway epithelial cells, not to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs). This is well-established virology confirmed across decades of immunological research. [21] [22]
In fact, nicotine exposure and smoking worsens flu outcomes rather than improve them. Smokers have a significantly higher risk of influenza infection and hospitalization.[23] [24] How high? The Medical Journal of Infection found it’s 34% more likely![25] In addition, exposure to e-cigarette vapor has been shown to increase viral load and amplify inflammatory responses.[26] [27]
The bottom line: nicotine does not protect against influenza. It impairs the body’s defense and increases disease severity.
FALSE!
If nicotine truly neutralized venom, emergency rooms across the country would be stocked with nicotine patches. Paramedics would carry vials of tobacco extract in their trauma kits. They don’t. Why? Because it doesn’t work.
Let’s play this out: Your neighbor is bitten by a rattlesnake. You offer to rush him to the ER. He declines your offer and instead, he grabs a pack of Marlboro Reds, tears one open, and dumps the tobacco onto the wound because he heard on a podcast that "tobacco cures snake bites."
This isn’t folk medicine; it’s medical misinformation at its most dangerous.
Real venom treatment involves antivenom therapy, such as CroFab or Anavip, which are highly specialized antibodies that bind and neutralize venom proteins. If nicotine worked, hospitals would charge $450 to apply a $5 patch and make a fortune (and they wouldn’t hesitate to do so; this is the same industry that charges $48 for a single dose of Advil). The fact that they don’t use it tells you everything you need to know.
When someone dies from a rattlesnake bite because they applied a nicotine patch instead of going to the emergency room, the influencers who spread these lies should be held accountable.
Claim: Nicotine cures and prevents cancer
FALSE!
This one is perhaps the most brazen of all. If nicotine had cancer-curing properties, then smokers, who consume the most nicotine of any population, should be among the healthiest cancer-free people alive. Instead, smoking remains the #1 preventable cause of cancer-related death worldwide, with lung cancer leading the charge.[28] Smokers are at significantly increased risk for many cancers beyond lung cancer, including cancers of the bladder, pancreas, kidney, cervix, head and neck (oral cavity, larynx, pharynx), and acute myeloid leukemia.[28b] There is no peer-reviewed evidence that nicotine patches, gum, or pouches cure or prevent cancer. On the contrary, nicotine has been shown to promote tumor growth, stimulate angiogenesis (blood vessel formation that feeds tumors), and reduce the effectiveness of standard chemotherapy drugs. One study found that nicotine blunted the anti-proliferative and pro-apoptotic effects of chemo agents in colon cancer cells, making treatment less effective. [29] Other research confirms nicotine’s role in enhancing cancer cell survival, proliferation, and migration.[30]
Nicotine is not a cure! In fact, it worsens the disease and sabotages treatment. Promoting it as a cure-all for viruses, venom, or cancer without proof is morally reckless. These claims are dangerous fantasies that convince vulnerable people to reject proven treatments in favor of ineffective alternatives.
Influencers love to highlight nicotine’s “focus” and “cognitive enhancement” benefits. But they conveniently ignore nicotine’s cognitive damage, especially in young people, the most vulnerable population. Nicotine use during adolescence is linked to reduced performance on memory, learning, and attention tests. But it’s not just about test scores; it’s about structural damage to the brain. Research has shown that adolescent nicotine use is associated with reduced cortical thickness and smaller volumes in key brain regions involved in decision-making and impulse control.[31] We're talking about visible, measurable, neurological harm, not a theory.
And if you’re pregnant or have children, this next part should make you pause:
Prenatal nicotine exposure increases the risk of miscarriage, premature birth, low birth weight, stillbirth, and SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Laboratory and clinical studies confirm that nicotine during pregnancy causes permanent changes to developing brain circuits, alters neurotransmitter responses, and reduces brain volume in offspring.[32]
Here’s a simple rule I live by:
If a chemical is toxic enough to kill a fetus, damage a baby’s brain, and increase infant mortality, why would I believe it’s “healthy” for my adult body?
And yet, people are popping nicotine gum and melts like they’re daily multivitamins.
Nicotine Patches for Children?!
Yes, you read that correctly.
In a 2024 interview on Turning Point USA, Dr. Bryan Ardis recommended nicotine patches for children. Host Alex Clark, visibly stunned, pressed him for clarification.
His justification?
“Parents out there with small children, I don’t know why you'd be shocked hearing that. Every single one of you who takes your kids to Chick-fil-A, McDonald’s, Burger King, Dairy Queen... you are giving them two doses of nicotine every day in those foods they eat. You just didn’t realize you were buying them nicotine.”
So, by this logic, trace amounts of naturally occurring nicotine in tomatoes and potatoes somehow justify slapping a pharmaceutical-grade nicotine patch on a 6-year-old? That’s like saying the natural caffeine in chocolate justifies giving your third grader an espresso IV drip.
Here’s what that argument deliberately leaves out:
If nicotine is so catastrophically toxic to a developing fetus, killing thousands and altering brain development, how, by any stretch of logic, could it possibly be “healthy” for a young child whose brain is still under construction? It can’t be. And it isn’t.
Suggesting nicotine patches for children is irresponsible and a complete rejection of established pediatric neuroscience. Hiding behind misleading “French fry” comparisons doesn’t make it clever. It makes it reckless.
Nicotine doesn’t just keep people hooked; it directly harms the heart and blood vessels, with or without smoke.
For years, the tobacco industry tried to paint nicotine as “harmless as caffeine.” But that’s a deliberate distortion of the science. Multiple studies have now confirmed that nicotine, independent of other tobacco chemicals, causes measurable harm to the cardiovascular system.[35] Nicotine alone triggers immediate and potentially dangerous changes in blood flow, heart rate, and heart rate variability, within minutes of use. [36] These effects have been documented in both traditional smokers and e-cigarette users, proving that even in the absence of combustion, nicotine damages vascular function and reduces cardiac efficiency.[37]
And it’s not just smoking or vaping. According to the American Heart Association, even smokeless nicotine products like pouches, gum, and patches are addictive and have been associated with increased cardiovascular risk markers. Some forms have even been linked to higher mortality in individuals with pre-existing heart disease or stroke.[38]
This all proves, even without smoke, nicotine is toxic to your heart.
Nicotine Promotes Cancer Growth and Metastasis
Now here’s where things get even more disturbing: Nicotine doesn’t just damage your heart; it also feeds cancer. Research has shown that when nicotine binds to nicotinic acetylcholine receptors on cells, it activates signaling pathways that accelerate tumor growth and promote unchecked cell division.[39] Even worse, it helps cancer cells resist apoptosis, the body’s natural self-destruct system designed to eliminate damaged or abnormal cells.
In a mouse model of lung cancer, nicotine administered through transdermal patches (the same over-the-counter patches humans use) caused tumor recurrence rates of 59.7% compared to just 19.5% in control mice. [40] That's a threefold increase in cancer coming back from nicotine patches alone. In human studies, the pattern is alarmingly similar. Cancer patients who continue smoking or using tobacco after diagnosis experience significantly worse outcomes, including increased tumor progression, higher rates of developing a second cancer, greater recurrence following treatment, and increased cancer-related mortality. Approximately 30% of lung cancer patients continue smoking after diagnosis, and those patients consistently show larger, more vascularized tumors with higher rates of metastatic spread.[41]
And it gets worse! In animal studies where mice were injected with cancer cells and then exposed to nicotine, via injection, oral ingestion, or transdermal patch, every single delivery method resulted in significantly larger tumors and faster metastasis. [42] It didn't matter how the nicotine entered the body. The result was always the same… more aggressive cancer. Even cotinine, the compound your body produces in excess when breaking down nicotine, has been shown to accelerate tumor growth. Nicotine also facilitates what’s known as epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT,) a process where cancer cells gain mobility and become more invasive. This transformation enables tumor cells to migrate more easily to the lungs, lymph nodes, and beyond.[43]
Bottom line? Nicotine itself, separate from tobacco smoke, activates cancer, speeds up tumor progression, increases spread, and makes cancer cells harder to kill. This is not a debate about smoking versus vaping or gum versus patches. This is about nicotine, a highly addictive compound that causes real, measurable harm to your heart, brain, and cancer risk.
Shame on the influencers, doctors, and so-called “biohackers” who promote nicotine as “safe” and “healthy.” They’re not optimizing their own cognition while wearing those nicotine patches, but rather, promoting tumor growth in innocent people falling for this hype. They are damaging their cardiovascular system, and creating a dangerous dependency, day after day, pack after pack, year after year, decade after decade.
They love to call this nicotine fad biohacking. I call it biosabotaging!
The Truth Behind “It’s Not the Nicotine, It’s the Tar”
One of the most insidious claims being pushed today is that “nicotine isn’t the problem, it’s the tar.” First, let me say for the record, tar, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and hundreds of toxic byproducts from combustion are the primary culprits behind lung cancer and respiratory disease. No one’s denying that. But concluding that nicotine is harmless, or worse, beneficial, is like saying, “The cocaine in crack isn’t the issue—it’s just the impurities and the smoke.” It completely misses the point.
For decades, the tobacco industry promoted the narrative that “tar kills, not nicotine.” Internal documents released through litigation prove they understood nicotine’s addictive grip all along but lied about it to protect profits. Now, in 2025, that narrative is resurfacing, except this time, it's influencers dressed in white lab coats, filtered Instagram reels with click-bait captions, and the charismatic words on podcast microphones.
Nicotine is not just a passenger in cigarettes that contain tar; it’s the driver, the agent of addiction that keeps people returning to the source of their destruction. If nicotine weren’t so addictive, people would simply stop smoking the moment they learned it was killing them. But they can’t because nicotine rewires the brain’s reward system, hijacks dopamine pathways, alters receptor density, and creates tolerance and withdrawal.[44]
Okay, let's review the science-backed FACTS:
Let me be blunt about why I spent weeks researching and writing this science-backed article: Your "nicotine is healthy" content is causing real harm. Whether you realize it or not, when you promote nicotine as a cure-all, you're not just selling patches and gum, you're driving people back to cigarettes. I'm seeing it in my practice. Patients who quit years ago are smoking again because YOU are sharing all the “benefits” of tobacco.
I urge you to read the references below and prioritize people over profits. If you care about your followers' health as much as you claim, you'll stop promoting content that contradicts decades of peer-reviewed medical research.
The data is clear. The harm is real.
When you casually say things like:
…and then fail to clearly and repeatedly state that you are not advocating smoking, guess what happens? People smoke.
When you cherry-pick historical data on tobacco’s effects, long before the patches or gum existed, you're not just praising nicotine, you’re romanticizing smoking. And let’s be honest, many aren’t running out to buy pharmaceutical-grade nicotine gum after watching your viral reel. They’re buying Marlboros.
You never mention ANY adverse effects of smoking cigarettes:
I now see more new patients marking “yes” to “Do you smoke?” than I have in years. When I ask why, many point to a podcast, a viral clip, or a “biohacker” who said nicotine is healthy.
They started smoking because of you.
If you're going to claim that “nicotine is nature's nootropic,” placed in the same category as caffeine or omega-3s, then you have a moral obligation to clarify, with boldness and repetition, that you're not recommending people smoke or vape. Because if you don't, people will die. And deep down, I think you know that.
But I suspect some of you won’t make that clarification. Maybe it’s pride. Perhaps it’s ignorance. Or maybe it’s something worse: a side deal with the very industry that profits from addiction.
#FollowTheMoney
#ProfitsBeforePeople
As a holistic doctor, #1 bestselling author, and host of the award-winning To Your Good Health Radio, I’ve built a platform to expose the lies that cost people their health. Over the years, I've challenged the food industry, called out supplement scams, and exposed pharmaceutical spin. I've taken on artificial sweeteners, fad diets, and propaganda masquerading as science.
So, believe me when I tell you: the "nicotine is a superfood" trend isn't just bad cherry-picked science, it's dangerous.
Trust real science and common sense, not social media clickbait. Rely on decades of peer-reviewed research, not controversial podcast clips designed for their shock value engagement. Your brain, your lungs, your heart, and your future children are counting on you to see through the “smoke” and mirrors.
Your health isn't a life hack. It's a responsibility.
REFERENCES:
[1] Avena NM, Rada P, Hoebel BG. Evidence for sugar addiction: behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32(1):20-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.04.019
[2] Benowitz NL. Nicotine addiction. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(24):2295-303. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra0809890
[3] Picciotto MR, Mineur YS. Molecular mechanisms underlying behaviors related to nicotine addiction. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2013;3(1):a012112. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a012112
[4] Mejia AB, Ling PM, Glantz SA. Quantifying the effects of adding flavors to cigarettes: a systematic review of research findings. Tob Control. 2015;24(e2):e176–e184.
[5] Low-nicotine cigarettes may help determine smokers cut back. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/low-nicotine-cigarettes-may-help-determined-smokers-cut-back-201510018373?
[6] https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/pod-based-e-cigarettes-may-foster-greater-nicotine-dependence-than-other-devices/
[7] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2014.
[8] Mendelsohn, C.P. (2016). Three decades of high-dose nicotine gum dependence treated with nicotine patches. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 18(5), 1220-1221.
[9] Schneider NG, Olmstead R, Franzon M, Lunell E. The nicotine content of common nicotine replacement therapies. Nicotine Tob Res. 2001;3(2):111-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14622200110050477 ?
[10] Picciotto MR, Mineur YS. Molecular mechanisms underlying behaviors related to nicotine addiction. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2013;3(1):a012112. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a012112
[11] Picciotto MR, Mineur YS. Molecules and circuits involved in nicotine addiction: The many faces of smoking. Neuropharmacology. 2014;76 Pt B:545-553. doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.04.028.
[12] Balfour DJK. The role of mesoaccumbens dopamine in nicotine dependence. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2015;24:55-98. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13482-6_3.
[13] Goriounova NA, Mansvelder HD. Short- and long-term consequences of nicotine exposure during adolescence for prefrontal cortex neuronal network function. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2012;2(12):a012120. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a012120
[14] Nordberg A, Svensson AL. Cholinesterase inhibitors in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: a comparison of tolerability and pharmacology. Drug Safety. 1998;19(6):465–480. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-199819060-00004
[15] Cataldo JK, Prochaska JJ, Glantz SA. Cigarette smoking is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease: an analysis controlling for tobacco industry affiliation. J Alzheimers Dis. 2010;19(2):465–480. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-2010-1240
[16] Villafane G, Duran R, Massano J, Mestre T, Thobois S. A multicentre double-blind trial of transdermal nicotine in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2007;22(7):992–996. https://doi.org/10.1002/mds.21479
[17] Domino EF, Hornbach TW, Demana T. The nicotine content of common vegetables. N Engl J Med. 1993;329(6):437. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199308053290623
[18] Löffler M, Lutz WK. Estimation of exposure to nicotine from food. Food Chem Toxicol. 2000;38(7):639–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0278-6915(00)00049-9
[19] Vidarholen.net. The nicotine contents of vegetables (10kg eggplant = 1 cigarette); Snusboss. (2023). 9 foods you did not know contain nicotine (100kg tomatoes = 1 cigarette).
[20] Klaassen CD. Casarett & Doull’s Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. 9th ed. McGraw-Hill Education; 2018.
[21] Luo M. Influenza virus entry. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 2012; 726: 201-221.
[22] Wilks S, de Graaf M, Smith DJ, Burke DF. A review of influenza haemagglutinin receptor binding as it relates to pandemic properties. Virology Journal. 2012; 9: 271. doi:10.1186/1743-422X-9-271
[23] Lawrence H, Hunter A, Murray R, Lim WS, McKeever T. Cigarette smoking and the occurrence of influenza—systematic review. Journal of Infection. 2019; 79(5): 401-406. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2019.08.014
[24] Arcavi L, Benowitz NL. Cigarette smoking and infection. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2004; 164(20): 2206-2216.
[25] Lawrence H, Hunter A, Murray R, Lim WS, McKeever T. Cigarette smoking and the occurrence of influenza - Systematic review. J Infect. 2019 Nov;79(5):401-406.
[26] Schaunaman N, Crue T, Cervantes D, et al. Electronic cigarette vapor exposure exaggerates the pro-inflammatory response during influenza A viral infection in human distal airway epithelium. Archives of Toxicology. 2022; 96(8): 2319-2328.
[27] Agrawal H, et al. Electronic cigarette exposure increases the severity of influenza A virus infection in human precision-cut lung slices. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 24(5): 4295.
[28] U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General. 2014. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK179276
[28b] Lee YC, Cooper NJ, Stuart D, et al. Tobacco use and risk of cancers of the lung, head and neck, nasopharynx, oesophagus, liver, kidney, bladder, pancreas and cervix, and of leukaemia — a review. Annals of Global Health. 2014;80(5):378-383
[29] Heeschen C, Weis M, Aicher A, et al. Nicotine stimulates angiogenesis and promotes tumor growth and atherosclerosis. Nat Med. 2001;7(7):833–839. https://doi.org/10.1038/89961
[30] Dasgupta P, Rizwani W, Pillai S, et al. Nicotine inhibits apoptosis induced by chemotherapeutic drugs by up-regulating XIAP and survivin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006;103(16):6332–6337. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0601449103
[31] Yuan M, Cross SJ, Loughlin SE, Leslie FM. Nicotine and the adolescent brain. J Physiol. 2015;593(16):3397–3412. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP270492
[32] Bruin JE, Gerstein HC, Holloway AC. Long-term consequences of fetal and neonatal nicotine exposure: a critical review. Toxicol Sci. 2010;116(2):364–374. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfq103
[33] Dempsey DA, Benowitz NL. Risks and benefits of nicotine to aid smoking cessation in pregnancy. Drug Saf. 2001;24(4):277–322. https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200124040-00004
[34] Slotkin TA. Fetal nicotine or cocaine exposure: which one is worse? J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1998;285(3):931–945. https://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/285/3/931
[35] Benowitz NL. Pharmacology of nicotine: addiction, smoking-induced disease, and therapeutics. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2009;49:57–71. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.48.113006.094742
[36] Middlekauff HR, Park J, Moheimani RS. Adverse effects of cigarette and noncigarette smoke exposure on the autonomic nervous system: mechanisms and implications for cardiovascular risk. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64(16):1740–1750.
[37] Cossio R, Hong E, Luevano M, et al. Short-term cardiovascular effects of e-cigarettes: a meta-analysis. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021;32(7):1961–1969. https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.15062
[38] American Heart Association. Statement on Oral Nicotine Products and Cardiovascular Risk. 2022. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/12/15/oral-nicotine-products-carry-addiction-cardiovascular-risks
[39] Saal C, Chellappan S. Nicotine-Mediated Regulation of Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors in Non-Small Cell Lung Adenocarcinoma by E2F1 and STAT1 Transcription Factors. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0156451. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0156451.
[40] Davis, R., et al. (2009). Nicotine Promotes Tumor Growth and Metastasis in Mouse Models of Lung Cancer. PLOS ONE.
[41] Grando, S.A. (2014). Nicotine: Carcinogenicity and Effects on Response to Cancer Treatment – A Review. Frontiers in Bioscience, 19, 1329-1359.
[42] Grando, S.A. (2014). Nicotine: Carcinogenicity and Effects on Response to Cancer Treatment – A Review. Frontiers in Bioscience, 19, 1329-1359.
[43] Xu M, Luo J, He RR, et al. Effects of nicotine on epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and metastasis in cancer: a narrative review. Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2021;10(4):2051–2063. https://doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-20-1022
[44] Benowitz, N.L. (2008). Neurobiology of nicotine addiction: implications for smoking cessation treatment. The American Journal of Medicine, 121(4 Suppl 1), S3-S10. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18342164/
|
Sign up to get Dr. David Friedman's health and wellness tips, featured videos, articles and podcasts!
© 2025 DrDavidFriedman.com All rights reserved. Website created by Dotlogics
About the Author
Dr. David Friedman is the author of the award-winning, #1 national best-selling book Food Sanity, How to Eat in a World of Fads and Fiction. He's a Doctor of Naturopathy, Chiropractic Neurologist, Clinical Nutritionist, Board Certified Alternative Medical Practitioner, and Board Certified in Integrative Medicine. Dr. Friedman is a syndicated television health expert and host of To Your Good Health Radio, which has changed the face of talk radio by incorporating entertainment, shock value, and solutions to everyday health and wellness issues.
Read more hereFOODSANITY.COM .