Slashdot Mirror
Vaccinated Against Vices?
Smoke Me A Kipper writes "The Independent is reporting that the latest UK government sponsored quango, charged with looking at the problems of drug abuse, is to recommend a national anti-addiction 'vaccination' scheme. Apparantly, trials are already in progress. No details as to whether it would be mandatory. Personally I find such an idea utterly shocking - what happens when you find yourself injured in later life and morphine based painkillers no longer work? I wouldn't be surprised to find existing phamaceutical companies excited by this, having to replace cheap drugs with something new, which they can patent and control."
.. basically, it's gonna deaden the highs. You won't be able to get much more than a mild effect off of anything. I don't really see how this would stop you being physically addicted to something though.
$ strings FTP.EXE | grep Copyright
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
Having now RTFA'd, I don't forsee this working terribly well. They're basically trying to deaden the highs which can be overcome with more drugs. The"super virus" (there's no such thing, it's probably just gene therapy...damn non-scientist media) under development at UCSD seems far more plausible since you would just require a single injection and the virus could produce either a chelator of the drug or a well tweaked channel/receptor regulator. The chelator would be more plausible of course...but I'm just a neuroscience grad student so what the hell do I know
Devon
--
Power to the Peaceful
I think everybody here has heard of 1984, but maybe the AC is 16 or 17 and just got done reading it for school, or maybe he thinks that a lot of the people reading Slashdot are young and haven't read it or thought to read it. In any case, cut him some slack -- if only out of generosity.
On a related note, I think the book to read is A Clockwork Orange, which is also a very good movie by the way.
I won't say anything more than it applies here, for fearing of seeming patronizing!
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
You're more right than you know. Somebody in severe pain can tolerate doses of opiates which would quickly kill a healthy person. The rule seems to be 'If the patient can still tell you it hurts, it's safe to up the dose.' (sorry, no link [1])
[1] I was told about this effect by my mother, who spent >10 years working in an Intensive Care Unit. Shortly after she started, she was shocked to see the dosages used on people with severe injuries - they were completely off the scale of normal dosage charts.
Strange, I have no traces of ANY campaign to remove the right to privacy, speech, religion, anonymity, association by anyone except the folks on the ultra right. Privacy? Ask John Ashcroft why he needs individual medical records to argue a federal case. Speech? ask the people banned to the "First Amendment Areas" that are out of sight and the people who were arrested for wearing the wrong T-Shirts at a Bush rally. Anonymity? ask the guy from Nevada who just lost at the case at the Supreme court about whether he was required to present ID to a police officer. Association? ask the Fresno Peace movement or the Association of Friends (Quakers) who were infiltrated by anti-terrorist agents. There are a lot of people who seem to be mentally in a Bizarro world, and physically in the real world.
Research is NOT discredited by conflicts of interest. It is discredited by factual evidence to the contrary, which has in fact been done for the MMR-autism hypothesis.
No traces huh?
Yes, yes...this type of stuff only happens because of those on the 'ultra right':
Protestors to be Caged at Democratic National Convention
There are literally THOUSANDS of examples that prove you wrong, this just happens to be the most recent. The fact is, neither of the two major parties can claim to be superior when it comes to protecting rights in an absolute, libertarian sense as you imply.
Stanislaw Lem, The Futurological Congress. Right on topic.
From the article: "Professor David Nutt, a leading government drugs adviser who sits on the committee, told the IoS that anti-drug vaccines for children are likely to be among the panel's recommendations when it reports next March."
Now did you not read that, or do you think they were just lying about that? Drawing unfounded conclusions is shoddy reporting, lying about what people have actually said is far beyond that into the range of libel.
So at least as far as the claim that they're considering imunization of children, there doesn't seem to be any shoddy reporting going on. There might very well be some shoddy thinking going on by those who are developing the vaccines and those who are planning how to use them, but that is an entirely different (and more serious) issue.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Like all medical treatment it may be refused by the patient (or thier guardian, in the event of a minor, or other assignement of power or attorney), in general.
There are some case where in order to do A, you need to take medication B (e.g. hepititus vaccinations for medical people, tetnus et al for military etc). That's a seperate class, however.
There are two cases where refusal to take medication is overridden. The first is when the person making the request is 'not of sound mind'. A very dubious grey area, intented to allow the saving of sucide attempt and similar, can get very long and drawn out. I belive that this is the same as in the USA.
The other case is when there is a clear danger to the health of the nation if you do not take the medication. This law was enacted with the specific intent of forcing people to complete antibiotic courses for Multiple Drug Resistant Tubercalosis (MDR TB). MDR TB can only be treated by a cocktail of drugs, and if the course isn't completed, then there is a change of strains of the bug resistant to them developing. TB is near endemic in some low income areas, and many patients were refusing to compelete the course once they felt better. After the they had to beef up the cocktail of antibiotics, the law was passed. It would also apply to forcing someone to complete treatment for MRSA or VRSA (Methycillian and Vantymicin resistant Stah Aurus respectivly), but given that your in an ICU for those treatments, it's never come up. MDR TB patients have near full activity during treatment, hence the problem. I understand that it takes a court order, but that the issuing of one would be routine. They are rare devices.
The above law doesn't apply to an immunisation, as it doesn't risk immediate harm to the population if you don't have it. That applies even more so for an immunisation against a drug (e.g. Antabuse or similar).
Being in a high risk group for immunsiations, due to autoimmune disorders, I researched this. Granted, this is all dated 5 ish years ago, but I'm not aware of any major changes. As is stands, there is no way to force a person to have any immunisation, nor to refuse any service (education, welfare or what have you) to someone who does not have that immunisation. The most extreme they can get is to refuse to employ you in certain, specified, jobs (medical or medical related, military and a few others). That's the law. In practice, certain immunisations are administered as routine, and the parents would have to be upfront and direct to refuse them, and tend to get a lot of FUD in response. There's a degree of social pressure applied, which varies depending on, well, which way the wind is blowing it appears.
In short, no, as I understand it; the govenrment can't force an immunisation on the general public, and treatment only in specific cases. Forced drug immunisation as part of a criminal sentance might be possible, but not under current legislation, as I understand it.
Apply (un?)usual IANAL but I researched this a while back disclaimer here.
Sort of, your both right and wrong.
n atives.htm has a direct quote about refusing the MMR vaccine (in this case, on grounds of fetal cell lines).l (on ground of animal cells lines)
Policy, yes. Law, no.
That's the whole point of the MMR issue - parents don't need a valid medical reason to refuse it, which means that immunisation rates have sunk to around 90%. That's the point where 'herd protection' begins to break down (i.e. There are enough people vunerable that an endemic is possible).
For example: http://www.dgwsoft.co.uk/homepages/vaccines/alter
http://www.veganfamily.co.uk/surgery.htm
There's plenty more. Have a browse around the MMR sites, and youll note that they don't mention that the vaccine can be forced. They would, if that were the case.
As for the Parties as a whole, in a recent bill to allow states to set their own rules for Medical Marijuana, only 10% of Republican Reps voted in favor of it, while nearly two thirds of Democrats did. While we need to flush the bad third of Dems out, most of them chose the sane option. They aren't the same, one Party is salvageable, whilst the Republicans are wholly controlled by an evil, backward, sect of Puritanical monsters.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,126869 0,00.html/
http://www.cannabis.net/presidentialpot.html/
http://www.maryjanesgarden.com/legalization_of_mar ijuana.php/
It's not ironic because the /. article and VV article are about different drugs that block different things. The /. article is about a drug that blocks the euphoric feelings one gets when taking recreational drugs, so vaccinated against vices is the appropriate title. The VV article is about a drug that blocks feelings of guilt and remorse, and it's taken after an event, so it's more like a cure than a vaccine. Anyhow, the two articles are different, so no irony.
Nice Marmot
No the MMR vaccine contained thimerasol, a mercury compund known to cause neurological damage. Some children developed autism. The children who didn't recieve the vaccine didn't develop autism. The devil is in the statistics used to draw these conclusions.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
And here's the kicker about opium: the reason that opium became so widespread amongst Asians was that the British were selling it in China. In fact, they went to war with China (the Opium wars) to force the opium into Chinese ports.
I am a chronic pain patient
I have a degenerative rheumatoid arthritis which has decided to rest in my spine, hips, and hands mostly but affects every joint in my body from time to time, chronic myofascial pain, neuropathy and a neurological condition which causes hypersensitivity in the nervous system to everything (not just pain, bright lights, sounds, temperature). I didn't ask for these things, but that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Having these and still trying to have a life and make it to work is difficult, the pain is off the charts, and depressingly I know it's going to get worse as I get older and end up with a lot more joint and bone damage. There is no cure for any of it, just treatments to slow down the progression and mask the symptoms a bit. This is not how I expected to feel at age 32.
Having this, I'm very up on the research into pain management. If something out there has been tried, the odds are I've heard of it and I've read the trial. This isn't the first attempt to block euphoria from opioids or make drugs "unabusable". It is the first I've heard of a vaccine (well, more like a phage in this case) against it.
There are not a whole lot of formulations out there that are suitable for long term use for those in severe chronic pain. There are extended release versions of Oxycodone (Oxycontin), a few extended release versions of Morphine (Kadian, MScontin, Avinza), a transdermal patch called Duragesic which delivers Fentanyl and can provide relief for up to 72 hours (but some people need to change them every 48) if you can get it to stick, Methadone (which despite it's long half life doesn't provide relief as long as it provides relief from withdrawal symptoms. It is, however, a very good pain killer once the dosage gets adjusted correctly.), and a few non-compounded instant release versions of Oxycodone & Morphine out there.
There are tons of choices for moderate to severe acute pain, but most of those are combined with Tylenol or Aspirin, Caffeine, & Ibuprofen which greatly limits their dosage ceiling because they cause liver & kidney failure in high doses over prolonged periods of time. (You know them as, Tylenol-2-3-4, Vicodin, Norco, Vicoprofen, Tylox, Percocet...etc) Other great choices for acute pain include Demerol, which tends to cause a buildup of metabolites that can cause seizures with chronic use -- but it's a great drug for acute pain.
It's much safer to be on the "long" drugs than the "short" drugs if you are going to need them for years on end. Misguided pressure from the federal government has made doctors leery of scrutiny if they write the long drugs. It's also had the effect of making doctors less likely to manage pain period. More than 60 million Americans suffer with some kind of chronic pain, and the odds are just about all of us will at some point in our life as we age.
Various different drugs have been tried & mixed in with opioids. Purdue Pharma recently tried to make a version of Oxycontin with Naloxone in it. The problem is, by blocking these receptors which also produce euphoria, they also block pain control. Their conclusion was, it couldn't be done with the technology they had to work with and still deliver a product which had the full range of pain fighting abilities Oxycontin does. Another procuct on the market (Talwin) has formulations that use similar technology, but has a very low ceiling on it's benefit for that reason.
Something like this vaccine being mandatory terrifies me. I'm having a hard enough time finding relief as it is, and I take drugs many times more powerful than morphine to be able to function on a daily basis. Those in pain have a natural protection mechanism against the euphoria and sedation these drugs produce. Extreme pain blocks those signals in the body as well as ones for respitory depression. If someone without extreme pain & opioid tolerence were to try to take the same doses of the medicines I use - they would end up in the hospital or
Freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.
In the US, we find that the CIA actively explored the use of LSD for the purpose of mind control. Ken Kesey got hooked during government experiments.
LSD is not addictive. Get your facts straight.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
"That 45% includes a lots of people who support him because the alternative is worse"
Nope, they were polls in support of Tony Blair's actions, not the best candidate for the big chair. Kinda a completely different question.
"the ultra-creepy ultra-authoritarian Tory leader Michael Howard"
The father of the community charge. As for 'ultra-authoritarian', they have a tendency to not be as controlling as Labour, although this seems contrary to common sense. However, I'll vote for him the day Mandelson dons a pretty frock and sings Gilbert & Sullivan.
"who has opposed the few mild liberalisations"
Who has opposed everything because he's confusing 'vocal and loud' with 'dynamic and commanding'. It's political gainsaying that doesn't do him any favours, but as you said, you have a bad choice and a worse choice.
"Realistically the choice is between him and Tony Blair at the next election."
Now you're depressing me. You mean to suggest that we should be voting for the frontman rather than your local MP and his record? That's a fairly whack way of exercising a democratic right, as neither Tony or Mike will be representing you as anything other than the leader of their parties, and that _can_ change based upon the cluster of people behind them...
Nip over to http://www.theyworkforyou.com and research your MP...engage with him over the things you don't like rather than wait four years.
Part of the bloody problem with throwing out the conservatives last time was that people voted to get them out rather than seeing how ill-prepared the labour party was to govern after the death of John Smith; for weeks after the election Labour ministers could be seen looking like bunnies caught in headlights.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.