Here's a carton of the stuff circa 1935. It was also said to protect you from hangovers.

Nic-o-sin

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -25 points 1 month ago* (12 children)

🤖🤖🤖

Nic-o-sin was a proprietary "nicotine antidote" pastille sold primarily in the late 1920s and 1930s across the United Kingdom, Ireland, and British Commonwealth markets.

How It Was Supposed to Work

Unlike traditional tobacco cures designed to help people quit, Nic-o-sin was marketed as a prophylactic neutralizer to enable unlimited consumption.

  • The Problem It Targeted: During the interwar period, public anxiety grew around "tobacco heart," irregular pulse, coated tongue, morning cough, and tremors caused by excessive cigarette smoking.
  • The Claimed Mechanism: Advertisements claimed the pastilles contained active neutralizers that chemically counteracted nicotine in the mouth, saliva, and digestive tract before it could enter the bloodstream or irritate the mucous membranes. By sucking or chewing a tablet before or during smoking, users were told the toxic alkaloids were rendered harmless.
  • The Physiological Reality: Inhaled nicotine absorbs rapidly through pulmonary alveoli directly into arterial circulation within seconds. Ingesting a lozenge or candy cannot neutralize systemic nicotine delivered to the lungs and bloodstream.

Ingredients and Composition

The manufacturers kept the precise proprietary formula secret on public advertising material, marketing it vaguely as a combination of "harmless herbal extracts" and detoxifying agents.

While Nic-o-sin specifically was sold on proprietary commercial appeal, contemporary chemical analyses of similar interwar "nicotine neutralizers" and "smoker's pastilles" published by medical organizations (such as the British Medical Association and the American Medical Association) typically revealed:

  • Astringents: Tannic acid or catechu, historically used because tannins chemically precipitate alkaloid salts (like nicotine) in a test tube, though this does not detoxify absorbed nicotine in the human body.
  • Digestive Aids and Antacids: Sodium bicarbonate, bismuth subnitrate, or magnesium carbonate to soothe stomach acidity caused by swallowing tobacco-laden saliva.
  • Flavorings & Demulcents: Licorice extract, menthol, peppermint oil, acacia gum, and sucrose to numb throat irritation and mask bad breath.

Documented Sources

  • British Newspaper Archive (1928–1936): Display advertisements carrying the specific slogan "Eat a Nic-o-sin and smoke as much as you like" ran extensively in UK regional and national newspapers during this period, including publications such as the Daily Mirror, The Scotsman, and the Gloucestershire Echo.
  • British Medical Association (BMA): Secret Remedies: What They Cost and What They Contain (1909) and More Secret Remedies (1912). These volumes established the standard chemical profiles for proprietary British nostrums targeting tobacco and nicotine habits.
  • American Medical Association (AMA): Nostrums and Quackery (Vol. I & II, edited by Dr. Arthur J. Cramp), which documented early 20th-century fraudulent "tobacco habit" antidotes and pastilles operating under identical claims.

🤖🤖🤖

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 20 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    From where does that text come? It looks like someone just cut and pasted the output of an LLM, in which case I would suggest deleting it.

    LLMs have their uses, but they will happily confabulate, and sound very confident while doing it, such as referring to fictitious court cases which sound plausible, but were never actually cases. You cannot simply ask an LLM and believe what it says without verification.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    Do you think it's llm output just because it's clearly marked as llm output?

    Yeah, it can be wrong. There are sources cited if you want to do more research.

    At least this saves the same question being asked multiple times to the LLMs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    If your only defense of posting a wall of slop is "it might be wrong, so research to verify" what was the point of posting it to begin with?

    I don't see how that's any more useful than just making up some random bullshit and saying "do some research to verify if this is accurate."

    And wouldn't not asking the LLM at all be more effective at reducing the number of times the question is asked?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    I'm so intrigued by the psychology here... Are these people who previously felt insufficient because they didn't have anything of value to add to conversations, so now they paste LLM output? Like it makes them feel like they're contributing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

    The "sources cited" are some entire books, and I am not going go read 100's of pages to possibly find a sentence or two that may or may not back up what this spew is saying. Also, emojis do not "clearly mark" anything, because they can appear different on different systems and are ambiguous.

    Please delete this post, or I'm going to refer it to the moderators to decide if it should be here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Verifying one of the claims, which is only something very similar, but is a real book citing actual lab tests.

    AMA - Nostrums excerpt

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    This is like claiming an old study of Tylenol proves that Advil is made up of acetaminophen. Two products that are supposed to do the same thing don’t necessarily have the same ingredients.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment