Slashdot Mirror
Cocaine Vaccine In the Works
martyros writes "Researchers at the Baylor College of Medicine are performing clinical trials of a vaccine that teaches the immune system to attack cocaine, preventing it from giving a high. The vaccine is made by attaching inactivated cocaine molecules to the outside of inactivated cholera proteins. When the immune system attacks the cholera proteins, it also 'learns' the cocaine molecules as well. The result is that the immune system 'recognizes the potent naked drug when it's ingested. The antibodies bind to the cocaine and prevent it from reaching the brain, where it normally would generate the highs that are so addictive.'" An earlier story from The Star notes that human trials for vaccines against both cocaine and nicotine are well under way.
I hope this wundervacine will not attach to some of the body's natural painkillers.
Would you vaccinate your child ?
Shakespeare poems - infinite monkeys with infinite time.Computer tech support - a few trained ones working from 9 to 5.
I'd like some anti-freeze to drink afterwards, please.
ZOMG I'msoexcitedtohearaboutthis I'vebeenwaiting suchalongtimeforsomething tohelpmekickthiscrazycravingand theallnightravingand theallnightdancingandtheclubs withthecrappytechnomusic ZOMGisthatablacksquirrel whenisOprahcomingonmyheartispounding wherecanIbugythisvaccine!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
How would this work as an alternative to drug testing? If the vaccines for various drugs were easily obtained (say, 10 years from now), then could potential employers, private schools, and such require the vaccines instead of requiring testing as they do now? Would this be better or worse?
Ah goody. Another blow landed in the Puritans' War On Fun. Soon, we'll all be living as their god intended, with no frivolous distractions at all! What could be more satisfying?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Homer: Beer...The cause of, and solution to all of life's problems.
music lover since 1969
The orgasm releases neurotransmitters that are similar to cocaine. Perhaps those vaccinated against cocaine would never have orgasms, or reduced orgasms. In fact, dopamine is critical for a lot of enjoyment. Maybe this will spawn a 'deadheading' procedure. Piss off the wrong person or government and you will never enjoy anything ever again. You wouldn't even want revenge, there would be no joy in it.
On the other hand, a sperm vaccine would be a nice alternative to having your tubes tied. Of course, there's the nightmare scenario where this treatment latches onto a live bit of cholera or whatever and spreads, neutering all humans.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Wasn't this a subplot of Neuromancer or something, where the main character was forcibly taken away from his various addictions by having his liver modified to not process the various chemicals?
gay
It's being developed for use in drug rehab programs. For people who want to quit, but are having difficulty, or have quit, but might relapse, this could be incredibly helpful. Of course, most of the discussion is around the potential to use this as a preventative measure, which is a very different issue.
Oh, great. Cocaine prohibition produced crack cocaine and meth, crackdowns on ingredients to make ecstacy produced PMA, heroin prohibition produces all sorts of gross things, etc., etc. Cocaine is actually one of the safer stimulants out there (compared to its main rivals, crack and meth, which emerged due to cocaine's astronomical price thanks to prohibition). This insane drug whack-a-mole game is producing even more deadly and impure drugs. While we could be ingesting small and known quantities of pure marijuana, MDMA, cocaine, opiates, shrooms, and LSD, we're instead ingesting unknown quantities of who-knows-what. Most drug deaths are caused by adulterants, not the pure drug itself.
From what I understand about drug addiction and attempts to kick the habit, you won't just "lose interest", you'll be going through living hell for quite a while - your body is looking for something you're not giving it, it's going to be pretty mad at you. This is why people relapse - they remember the shiny happy times, ignore that bad bits about those times and it all looks so much better than what they're in at the moment, so they go back to their drug.
If you use this vaccine, then that becomes impossible, you burn that bridge. But that doesn't remove the desire to be back on drugs, it just removes your favourite one from the list of possibilities. There's still plenty of others around and I think it's pretty safe to say that people who were going to relapse anyway will do so with or without the vaccine - the only thing that will change is the drug they'll use. So that'll be a statistic to look for: What percentage of people trying to give up Cocaine on this vaccine will end up on another drug? Compare this to a control group of people not on vaccine ending up going back to cocaine.
I'm deadly serious.
Used as an involuntary jab to fight the idiotic 'war on drugs' it is a clear violation of civil and cognitive liberty (I'm using that phrase more and more these days, not something I'm happy about). Used as part of a rehab programme, it kills the drug use without addressing the underlying weakness of character that created the addict. They are likely to fuck themselves up in some other way.
There isn't always, and shouldn't always be, a quick fix.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
The anti-smoking vaccine, NicVax, is in phase 2B clinical testing, and appears to work. Sort of: "High antibody responders (top 30%) continued to show statistically significant abstinence at nine months: 9-Month continuous abstinence rate: NicVAX=20% (12/61, p=0.0076) vs. Placebo=6% (6/100)" That's not impressive, yet it's better than most anti-smoking programs.
Nicotine addiction is the toughest one to break. Programs for getting people off cocaine are about 40% successful. Programs for getting people off smoking are about 10-20% successful. Also, addicts tend to "age out" of cocaine and heroin addiction; after age 40, most of them eventually give it up. Not nicotine; people smoke their way to the grave.
One problem with a vaccine approach is that encourage overdoses, to overcome the antibodies. For nicotine, this is less of a problem, because smoking has a limited intake rate. But for cocaine, it's a real issue.
It's encouraging, though, that no side effects of this vaccine have been detected so far vs. the placebo.
The real promise for this vaccine is as a preventative measure. The average age for a new smoker is 13. Only 10% start after age 18. So if this works, a school inoculation program might be the way to prevent smoking.
Ever see Brain Candy by kids in the hall? In the movie, a happy pill gets invented and becomes the newest craze. No side effects, and it works by making you relive your happiest experience. Eventually, people get addicted and become happy, brain-dead zombies. Why bother to do anything if you're always happy?
I definately agree with you that trying to outlaw a drug just leads to the development and adoption of new ones, but I don't think that means this is useless. If this was given only to cocaine addicts who wanted (for themselves) to get clean but can't because they are addicted it could be highly effective. If given to every kid before he enters college, pretty much worthless and even arguably dangerous.
Currently in many states, in order for a child to go to school he is required to have certain vaccines; could this be added to it? while it sounds good (drugs won't appeal to them, because it does nothing) but to essentially take free choice away is quite scary. I don't think we should use science to manipulate law abiding citizens; who knows one day we may need to use the properties of cocain for something good. However I do think this could be very useful. People could voluntarily take it (if they want an extra reason not to be tempted), they could also take it for rehab, but perhaps the biggest use would be on criminals. Currently we have far to many drug addicts in prisons, costing us loads, so perhaps just like we castrate certain sex offenders, maybe we should get rid of the high for drug offenders. Even better, we somehow infect the distribution of crack,coke, etc and destroy the whole market. The biggest concern with the second approach of using it to punish criminals though is the fact (as someone else pointed out) that people can just turn to another drug...and you know what if you are use to high's and you don't get it now. Well you are going to find something else to replace it. It seems like this technology would probably be very diverse though; you could immunize them to many drugs, not just one.
From what I understand though, the immune system is locked out of the brain proper thanks to the blood brain barrier, so this drug shouldn't have any effect on naturally occurring opiates. My high school anatomy class never got into where the opiates are generated when someone has an orgasm (that would have made it far too interesting) but I'm guessing it's in the brain directly and not in the sex organs (where they would have to filter through the bloodstream before getting to the brain). Given how orgasms tend to be immediately gratifying, I'm guessing the production is local.
I read the internet for the articles.
There's no need for this. Not when a whole *class* of new drugs are coming out around nicotine anyway.
...never never never take a "vaccine" that has a life long effect for anything other then a pathogen or bent protein. For a basic neurotransmitter mimic? youve GOT to be kidding me, scares the shit out of me. End of story
Chantix got me off of ten years of smoking in two months, experientially, not just for while i was on it, but apparently *reversed* the entire psychological and physical process from those years.
Every other time i tried to quit i'd have to avoid bars and lounges so i didn't come in contact with ANY smoke at all. After chantix therapy, I don't have to avoid anything, *i just don't want to smoke*.
I'll leave it to you (i'm already aware) of exactly why chantix has such a powerful effect. Given, i would never never never..
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
This is interesting. Though it's not going to stop drug addicts. If you have ever talked to any addict, in the beginning they might of had a preference for the drug they used but in the end, they dont care what type it is. As long as they get high from it....
This sounds similar in use, I have absolutely no clue about the pharmacology involved, to Suboxone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suboxone and antabuse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antabuse. This is fairly second hand knowledge, my fiancee is a drug and alcohol counselor, but I thought I'd share.
I expected some responses to this topic to be against the notion of the vaccine on the basis of 'OMG Next they come for anything else that is fun'. But the number of those responses surprises me.
Now, I am sure there are many people on this site who (gasp!) smoke marijuanna. And I am sure there are people here who like to cap their weekends here with hookers and blow. And I am sure they also have such many wonderful stories as "I put a half kilo up my nose every week and I am a fully productive member of society". To all of those people, I say the following:
Get a clue.
For one, I highly doubt westernized society would be quick to start to inflict any form of medical procedure on someone who does not wish it. We let plenty of idiots choose not to vaccinate their children against measles and the like. I am sure plenty of nutjobs out there would like to see an anti-cocaine vaccine be made manditory, but I do not think it will happen.
For another, I am also sure there are plenty of people who would like to end their addictions, but find themsleves unable to. I do not think that there are many people out there who would wake up one day and say "Wow, I really wish I was still addicted to cocaine."
I agree, however, that there is danger in this vaccine in that it can also affect a lot of anesthetic's used for medical purposes. That danger should be very carefully looked into.
END COMMUNICATION
Coke is ok...you gotta watch out for getting crap, though. Crappy (i.e. really cut) coke is REALLY crappy. As a drug, coke is decent, but it lasts for a very short time...minute for minute, it's extremely expensive (and, in my opinion, it's effects do not warrent the high price of entry.)
For the price of an eight-ball, you could get enough shrooms for yourself and a few of your friends...much better experience. You have the opportunity to learn things by taking substances like shrooms, weed, salvia, etc. Coke is kinda like having a shot after work. You won't have any life-changing experience, but you'll feel real nice for a little bit.
Just remember. There is a HUGE difference between a drug USER and a drug ABUSER. Be a user, don't be an abuser.
Living With a Nerd
That's because there's people who would rather see people who inject drugs die than see them receive any sort of help.
Sometimes the simple act of injecting is a cry for help. Which can be very frustrating to those standing around watching shit unfold... because everyone feels helpless, and usually it has to do with an ex-significant other who is trying to get attention.
If this vaccine, and vaccines like this are available, then those that are "crying help" will have no other option than to decide to take this vaccine. They asked for the help - well we'll fucking give it to them. And then they can stop threatening to off-themselves through overdose if their ex-significant other does leave themselves. At least they can make the choice to live or die completely sober.
If I understand this correctly, this will prevent cocaine users from getting high. But how does it affect the LD50 (dosage sufficient to kill 50% of the population)?
A cocaine user decides to get high after being "immunized." He snorts a few lines. Huh. Nothing. So he snorts more and more... at some point I am willing to wager he will suffer cardiac arrest or some other life-threatening problem on his quest towards getting high. If the LD50 is not much changed, this may occur pretty easily.
Also, cocaine has a very rapid onset. I am thinking it wouldn't take much to overwhelm the slower immune system response.
This is an interesting experiment as it is always worthwhile to better understand the immune system, but I think this would be a Real Bad Idea to actually implement. Unless the objective is to kill all cocaine users.
In eye surgery (i.e. corneal transplants & repairs, cataract surgery, etc) a cocaine solution is the most effective topical anesthetic that exists, and is the drug of choice. In fact, the only valid medical use for which cocaine is still FDA and DEA approved is for opthalmologic procedures and it's the only topical anesthetic which works worth a damn in the eye. All the other substitutes are so weak on the eye, they're a bad joke.
This vaccine would render eye surgery extremely painful for anyone who had taken it, unless the surgeon puts the patient under general anesthesia with something like fentanyl. It would eliminate the prospect of outpatient eye surgery for these people. And yes, I've had so-called "outpatient" oral surgery where I was put under with fentanyl, but there was absolutely no way I could drive myself home after waking up from the fentanyl, I even needed help walking to the car, and had a bad anesthetic hangover for the whole next day. In contrast, my father had cataract surgery once, where they used cocaine solution as the anesthetic, and he walked out of the clinic just fine, and felt good enough and was capable enough to drive with the one eye patched, but I wouldn't let him drive, of course (keep in mind that he was already accustomed to driving with one eye since the cataracts in his bad eye effectively made him blind in that eye).
It's funy how you are distinguishing between cocaine and crack - even the government that you are railing against has recognized that there is no real distinction. Crack is no more dangerous than powder cocaine; distinctions between the 2 have more to do with race and class than biochemistry.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I realize that half of what I'm about to say doesn't have much to do with what you actually wrote in your post, but your post seems like a good place to write this response, seeing as you have a somewhat skewed view on what a drug is or is not.
What do you think painkillers are? NOT drugs? Tell me, how is it that cannabis or shrooms (which grow ENTIRELY without human intervention) are considered drugs, and yet you wouldn't consider something manufacturered by a human in a laboratory to be a drug?
Pain killers are drugs. DXM is a drug. Viagra is a drug. Anti-depressents are drugs. Novacaine is a drug. Nicotine is a drug. Alcohol is a drug. Hell, even caffeine is a drug. You can't honestly sit there and be ok with something made in a lab and not call it a drug, but be against something that grows naturally, has less side effects, and call it a drug. That's just insane.
There is one thing you should realize...there is a big difference between a drug USER and a drug ABUSER. Be a user. Don't be an abuser.
Living With a Nerd
>you are also not free to drive 120 mph on the highway, bceause you put the lives of people other than yourself in jeopardy
Yes, but if you own your own racetrack, you are perfectly free to do so.
>likewise, users of highly addictive substances risk turning themselves into wards of the state that my taxes must feed and clothe
Since this never happens to the vast majority of the users of any drug, why not apply that standard to everything else that has the same probability of making someone into a ward of the state? Like roller skating or skydiving. It's a dumb argument, as just about anything can affect someone else in some convoluted imaginary scenario. Besides, it is far cheaper to treat people who have a problem with drugs than it is to try and keep everyone from doing them at all.
>that you don't understand how pursuing risky pursuits that flirt with drug addiction reduces my freedom is not a valid excuse
That you have an overinflated view of the risks to your freedom is not a valid excuse to keep anyone else from pursuing their happiness. You don't ban cell phones because someone driving a car while talking on one caused an accident, you ban the dangerous act itself. Likewise there is nothing inherently dangerous to others about doing any given drug, but if you misbehave while on one you should be punished. Just like anyone else.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
It conflicts with the business interests of a politician's donors.
Do they really think that a "vaccine" against nicotine is going to help people? If they're already addicted to nicotine for years and years, aren't they going to continue smoking and either make themselves really sick (as their immune systems attempt to fight off the nicotine) or just keep smoking away?
Taking away coke addiction won't do a darn thing for 99.9999% of all coke users. If they don't want off it? then either they refuse to take it, or are given it without consent and can legitimately claim abuse and sue. Either way it won't stop the problem that caused them to want it in the first place.
If the government can force people onto Antabuse for alcohol-related crimes, I'm sure they'll find a way to force the cocaine vaccine upon users as well.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
No, it's not that fun. Even when it's really good, it's still a giant waste of money. It lasts about 15-20 minutes and then you just want to do more, but can't really say why. Overall, there are far better drugs out there unless you just like wasting money.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Both would prefer no other pleasures exist to compete with their interests, as suggested by George Orwell.
Why bother.
Some vaccines -- you take it once, you're protected forever. Others wear off eventually. I'm not sure if this is due to the illness evolving, or whether the immune system 'forgets' certain antibodies over time.
If this vaccine is permanent, expect to see it eventually being pushed into vaccination cocktails given to kids. Totally avoids the consent issue because the parents give consent, not the child. Whether this is a good idea or not, I couldn't say, but sooner or later someone at the DEA is gonna think of it.
I second that. Put up or shut up.
I find being offended by me offensive.
I worked as an immunochemist from 1973 to 1985 on a very similar idea, trying to get a vaccine against a fungal toxin. Making the antigen was what my doctorate was about. Getting an immune response was easy. Getting it to be useful was difficult, and in the end, not funded.
The key problem is effectiveness. The immune response relies on immunoglobulins, proteins which have about 600 residues per binding site. The immune system evolved to take out large molecules, and the bacteria or whatever hanging off them. Most drugs are small. The rule of thumb is they all weigh 250 amu, call it 2 residues. (That is, equivalent in weight to 2 amino acids). So to mop up a gram of cocaine, you need 300 grams of antibodies in the body devoted solely to the cocaine problem. Forget it. Too big a problem.
Our fungus was more effective, so we were out to mop up only a few milligrams. We did get a biological response. We made the disease worse. That leads to the next problem. Antibodies do not do anything nasty themselves. They just bind and signal to a macrophage to come and eat the problem. So binding a drug does not get rid of it, but turns the drug from a short term compound, maybe readily metabolized, into a slowly released compound. That can make some diseases worse.
So even if the cocaine could get mopped up, all you would achieve is a slow release drug. This could be metabolically effective, as the body may adapt and up or down regulate the cocaine receptors. Don't ask me what would happen. I was an organic chemist, not a vet. So a cocaine high would initially occur, but subsequent weeks-long cocaine release could mess with the cocaine receptors.
Of more interest to us was the next step - modifying antibodies to act as enzymes. In the end, this was never funded. The up-coming DNA revolution swept up all funds, and rightly so.
There is no point in worrying much about not being able to take your daily cocaine hit. I do not expect the vaccine to work as reported. The side effects of the treatment could be interesting, especially if you are on death row, and are given favorable treatment in return for taking cocaine. Even if purely passive, such vaccines could have one judicial use; retaining cocaine or any other drug in the body for weeks would be of use in proving a relapse into drug use, and a parole violation. I cannot see any great cheering from the sidelines for that idea either.
The article referred to is just a report on a newspaper report. My pessimism may be unjustified. I do not have good access to the original. Anyone interested can request further comments or an email. It was all a long time ago.
For Tivo users, the actual names is "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and how they got that way". It is an ongoing series.
I agree with the parent, however. Very very informative about the history of our drug war.