backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 34 comment(s) - last by Mercury17.. on Jan 6 at 8:13 AM
Vaccine stops cocaine from producing addicting high

According to estimates the number of Americans with some sort of substance abuse or dependence is 22.2 million and -- a cost estimated at three times more than the War on Cancer.

Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine have developed a vaccine that is currently in clinical trials that doesn’t fight what most consider to be a real illness or disease like cancer or AIDS. Rather, this vaccine stimulates the inoculated immune system to combat the illegal drug cocaine.

The scientists took cholera proteins and bound inactive cocaine molecules to the surface of the protein. After inoculation the body’s immune system is able to build antibodies against cocaine and blocks the drug from reaching the brain when ingested, thereby preventing it from producing the addicting high.

Dr. Tom Kosten, professor of psychiatry told the Houston Chronicle, “For people who have a desire to stop using, the vaccine should be very useful. At some point, most users will give in to temptation and relapse, but those for whom the vaccine is effective won't get high and will lose interest.”

Some argue that the vaccine would raise ethical issues surrounding who would get inoculated. Others see the vaccine as something everyone should get along with childhood vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella.

The researchers say that if the vaccine proves to be effective and passes its clinical trials leading to FDA approval for widespread use it would lead to more drugs for combating addiction such as vaccines for combating heroine and nicotine addiction. That would mean at some point in the future we could chose to be inoculated against smoking.

Another unique approach to combating a medical problem with medication was reported on earlier this week by DailyTech. Researchers have developed a nasal spray that combats against sleepiness partly funded by DARPA. The medication is being looked at to help keep troops alert and will likely be used to treat the sleep disorder narcolepsy if it gets FDA approval.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Another Side Effect
By othercents on 1/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another Side Effect
By jtesoro on 1/2/2008 9:06:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think the truth is that if someone doesn't get high they will take more and possibly lead to overdosing.

I think without the high, cocaine would be just like any other thing a person is not addicted to. As an example, pick anything you're not addicted to, like apples maybe. You'll eat one or two because it's delicious and/or you're hungry, but you'll stop after a while. Given that cocaine's not even delicious as apples and it's not satisfying hunger or any other thing at all, you'd lose interest pretty quickly.


RE: Another Side Effect
By othercents on 1/3/2008 10:59:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
without the high, cocaine would be just like any other thing a person is not addicted to

Are you sure? And can you be sure that they won't try more? If they do try more how much more are they going to try? How much more can you overdose on?

The reality is that when your addicted to something you will do anything to get the feeling you once had. Steal, kill, lie, take a whole bag of cocaine just for a fix, try something new, etc. Most addicts are saying "one more time". The effects might be the same as an apple, but it still doesn't stop someone from eating a whole bag of apples to get that feeling. Or buying something else.

Other


RE: Another Side Effect
By Yames on 1/3/2008 11:40:45 AM , Rating: 2
You obviously have never been addicted to cocaine, or any other drug. Please don't pretend that you know what's going on inside an addicts head and then generalize it.

Every addict is different and every addiction play differently for those affected.

Not every addict will go looking for something else, otherwise they would already have done so. Most addicts have a drug of choice, but do many other drugs. Take away that drug of choice and you are now in a much better position to recover. This could very well work for many addicts looking for help.


RE: Another Side Effect
By mindless1 on 1/3/2008 9:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
You have probably never been addicted to illicit drugs either.

We can reasonably assume that someone who does coke would just do more if they did't get high (enough, more below-). They'd think it was cut too much, maybe go after the dealer depending on the situation, but generally would just consume more. If that didn't work the typical fallback position would be taking a different drug. One of my best friends and his druggy circle went through this cycle for years, with some of them now abstaining, some using, and some dead. Never was it just a matter of not having their preferred drugs.

Now IF this vaccine is completely effective (which I find unlikely, because they're talking about completely blocking ALL of the dosage with antibodies when it's normally either smoked, snorted, or injected (all very fast paths to the brain so in all likelihood the user would just get less high per dosage) the typical user isn't getting their craving satisfied and will typically find a different drug. It doesn't necessarily matter if the other drug isn't their drug of choice because they are feeling the physical or psychological pain (or both) of withdrawl.

That (and often a simultaneous lack of coping skills) will push the user towards a position of seeking other drugs, not seeking recovery. Addicts have an addictive personality, it isn't just a matter of using one drug without any other factors until they couldn't stop, particularly with stimulant abuse this is the case.

I'm suggesting it may still help, but is not a solution for the problem and as mentioned above I doubt it is entirely effective at preventing the high, at least not right away, I suppose it might be possible that continued use of coke would cause the body to increase antibody production to the point where it became more effective, but even then we're talking about a very short path or amount of time between consumption and effect on the brain.


RE: Another Side Effect
By DigitalFreak on 1/3/2008 3:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does that really happen when someone doesn't get high? They just loose interest? I think the truth is that if someone doesn't get high they will take more and possibly lead to overdosing .


The gene pool needs an occasional cleaning now and then.


Injectable Parenting
By Ringold on 1/2/2008 7:24:42 PM , Rating: 5
Don't want to talk to your kids about smoking?

Don't want to warn them about hard drugs?

Don't want the responsibility of providing a good moral example, monitoring their behavior, and being actively involved?

<Insert Pharma Company> has just the solution for you!!




By Master Kenobi (blog) on 1/3/2008 8:19:44 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. We have drugs for everything these days.
Parenting.
Concentrating.
Feeling Good.
Feeling Tired.
Feeling Hyper.
Feeling Lonely.
Feeling Crazy.
Can't get it up.
Won't go down.
You name it, we got a drug for it.


This came out of Baylor?
By OxBow on 1/3/2008 10:44:11 AM , Rating: 2
Regardless of the moral/ethical questions raised by this study, the irony of the instution that did the study is to ripe not to pick.

My wife went to Baylor, so if I offend anyone out there, I'm just speaking from the recounting of her experience.

Ultra-Baptist and radical right Baylor is anti-everything fun. The finally allowed dancing about 10 years ago, but it's still not condoned, just tolerated. With that said, in such a repressive environment, the off campus activities tend to the extreme, with alcohol and drug abuse rampant. Such a vacine would be well suited to such an establishment.




RE: This came out of Baylor?
By Mercury17 on 1/6/2008 8:13:18 AM , Rating: 2
This came out of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas which has no association with Baylor University in Waco--at least, not in the last 40 years.


Like Rick James said....
By Vanilla Thunder on 1/3/2008 10:13:46 AM , Rating: 2
Cocaine is a helluva drug!!

Vanilla




We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By wrekd on 1/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By Ringold on 1/3/2008 1:06:41 AM , Rating: 5
First of all, a university made this, not a pharma company -- though they'll be happy to sell it if theres a market, but that's not a given.

Second of all, if you can't see the difference between the social ills caused by cocaine and the good that, say, diabetes medication does, you'd be a tool.

Third, those that rail again free enterprise tend to be those on the political left, exactly the people that think government should help protect us from so many other things in life -- such as the rigor and uncertainty inherent in free enterprise! Oh, but drugs, that's somehow fundamentally different, and government should get their hands off.

Why do we have public funded education? Asides from a means of mass indoctrination, I mean? Because it provides a positive net effect to society by ensuring at least some minimum level of education and job skills throughout the population. Why do we have safety standards on vehicles, and require all to follow them? For the public good. One could debate the methods, but the idea of trying to severely curtail drug abuse provides just the same positive societal benefits as any other government adventure.

If you'd just couched it in terms of one having the right to do whatever to ones body that one pleases, that'd of been one thing and the libertarian in me wouldn't of let me reply, but the random attack on patents and free enterprise was a little bit far afield. If you think about it, corporate interests would probably love to sell these illegal drugs; it'd be a huge business!


By wrekd on 1/3/2008 8:49:56 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps because my initial comment was short, you completely missed my point. But actually when I read your last paragraph it showed that you did understand, you just picked apart my post because I did not cover all the bases and left some avenues of approach.

I chose the term free enterprise because it is now a myth. It no longer exists in the global market. The simple fact that corporate lobbyists even exist, is in itself verification that the "free" in free enterprise has been corrupted.

As far as the social ills go, I have not seen them, and do not care. I am a big boy, and do not need the government to tell me what I can or cannot put in my body and further more I don’t care what others put in theirs. I believe it is a basic concept of human rights that we just have not evolved to yet. Our culture is still subjected to social control mechanisms like religion or government programs like the war on drugs, that do actually want to control how people behave.

If a person infringes on another’s rights then our laws should (and do) punish. This should cover murders, rapes, theft, and the likes and should only be reactive not preventative. Also, laws do not need to protect us from ourselves. The simple fact that alcohol, tobacco, and vicodin are legal (when properly purchased) yet marijuana, mushrooms, and coca extracts (cocaine) is illegal, is a total contradiction. You can't have it both ways...unless corporate interests are getting involved and the government allows it to happen. Which most of us agree has happened.

And if you don’t believe that there are corporate interests behind this University’s discovery, future patent, testing and possible distribution…then you’re turning a blind eye to the little libertarian hidden inside. It must be deep inside.


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By Nik00117 on 1/3/2008 6:43:27 AM , Rating: 2
This "illegal" drug is far from natural. Its not weed here folks it has to be extracted and purified and modified chemically. This does not happen in nature but in labs.

I've researched coke, and how its produced and if you see whats honsetly put into the stuff you'd know that it was anything but natural.


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By Darkskypoet on 1/3/2008 9:45:01 AM , Rating: 5
If it wasn't for the war on drugs, illicit drugs would not be :
a) concentrated to all hell
b) cut with dangerous substances
c) lack any form of quality control whatsoever
d) easier to get then legal drugs for those under age
e) the source of the majority of violent crime in urban centers
f) a demonized counter point to the many (just as harmful) legal meds that are abused daily w/o social stigma

You can argue the societal ills of illicit drug use all you like, however, the drug war has not made them better, and in fact has made the situation much, much, much, worse.

Just say no??? BuFuSh! Yes we'll arm our children with absolutely no knowledge, or reality and then send them off chanting a government marketing slogan.

The fact that we bomb and ravage drug producing countries to attack the supply side of the equation, while exporting cigarettes to these same countries is utterly insane. More people die from cigs then cocaine, crack, and heroin put together. On top of this, the notion that making them illegal has some how slowed their useage is also laughable.

I only hope that this sort of vaccine is THOROUGHLY tested over the long term before injected into our children, and not fast tracked as a 'cure' to cocaine addiction. seriously, how about attacking the diease itself, rather then the symptoms all the bloody time. If people slives weren't so sh*tty, chances are less would utilize drugs as an escape. On top of that, realize that youwill nevr completely eliminate bad behaviour. Period. Accept it, make progressive, and less dangerous policy decisions to deal with such issues, and move on.

The money spent on the war on drugs could easily have paid for millions to get a better education, and better access in the U.S to medical care.

Instead, we send thousands, and thousands of people to jail every year for simple possesion. Unless of course, you are famous, then you simply go on vacation in rehab.

One last comment: A university may have discovered this, but who funded the research? Big pharma? or the gov?


By rdeegvainl on 1/3/2008 10:10:43 AM , Rating: 2
I absolutely agree that this needs to be thoroughly tested before implemented. I hope that it isn't just pushed through cause someone wants some good publicity.

I do think if used correctly along with education it can greatly reduce the societal problems that go with drug addiction. Lower the money needed to rehabilitate, or imprison those selling/using illegal drugs. The DARE program they force down everyones throats IS UTTER CRAP.

But if this works well, and is safe for usage, I think it could be a good thing. DISCLAIMER (DO NOT USE THIS AS A COP OUT TO PROPER PARENTING AND TALKING TO YOUR KIDS ABOUT THE FACTS OF IMPROPER DRUG USE)


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By Yames on 1/3/2008 11:30:11 AM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree with the your point about the dangers of these drugs. Yes, cigs kill more than coke and heroin, but the latter are far more dangerous.

Have you ever heard of a anyone getting a teen high/addicted to cigarettes to take advantage of them and rape or force them into a life of prostitution. This happens everyday with cocaine and heroin.

I have seen first hand what these drugs do lives; it is not pretty.


RE: We need a vaccine for the war on drugs
By roadrun777 on 1/3/2008 5:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have to disagree with the your point about the dangers of these drugs. Yes, cigs kill more than coke and heroin, but the latter are far more dangerous. Have you ever heard of a anyone getting a teen high/addicted to cigarettes to take advantage of them and rape or force them into a life of prostitution. This happens everyday with cocaine and heroin. I have seen first hand what these drugs do lives; it is not pretty.


So basically you think no one should have the right to choose what they put into their own body? We are all stupid little monkeys that need people like you to control everything we say, think, and do? Because we don't know whats really good for us?

Just because you know someone who has abused a substance, that makes them feel good, to the point of it ruining their lives doesn't make it all right to take away the "right" of us all to choose for ourselves.

I know people that have loved doughnuts so much that they have killed themselves eating it (I know 2 people that have died from severe obesity). That is the truth. Obesity kills more than any drug every could. And people eat to feel good. I have seen the destruction chocolate doughnuts do first hand, and let me tell you, its REALLY not pretty. Six pack abs, become flab and veins. Breasts that were once perky become floppy pancakes, and the emotional toll it takes on the families is overwhelming.

Therefore, based upon your logic, we should declare war on doughnuts! We should kill doughnut makers and their families, and bomb countries that make delightful pastries without giving us a cut of the profits. Death to chocolate doughnuts! You no longer have the right to choose what you eat, because of the potential for abuse!


By rdeegvainl on 1/4/2008 8:48:04 AM , Rating: 1
well when it comes to highly addictive substances, that change the way you think and makes you feel you need something, yeah, someone needs to step in. And as soon as donuts start changing the way your brain works, and makes people truly addicted, not just those who "LOVE" them, then maybe we should do something about that too. but last i checked there was no donut synonym for things like crack-whore.