There is evidence that nicotine alone is a complete carcinogen. It is pretty damaging on its own.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-nicotine-all-b...
FWIW, my friend's psychiatrist recommends nicotine gum.
> ...
> The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the pathobiologic effects of long-term, high dose nicotine treatment of A/J mice susceptible to tobacco product-induced lung carcinogenesis.
These were mice genetically engineered for increased cancer susceptibility and also given insane dosages. This study is designed to answer whether nicotine is not carcinogenic. That is, if the result was negative then it would suggest any future study would be wasted effort. A positive result doesn't say anything about the safety of nicotine, per se; just that there remains the possibility it may be carcinogenic. That's very different as many absolutely benign substances could also produce this result.
Was this same person? "Reuters’ reporter Kate Kelland, who has a history of cozy relations with a group partly funded by agrichemical company interests," ( https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/monsanto-spin-doctors-t...)
"To our knowledge, there are no relevant study in humans on carcinogenic effects from pure nicotine including products, such as NRT and e-cigarettes." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4553893/
That's the first time I heard that. Do you have any links to this evidence?