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.

39 of 724 comments (clear)

  1. Analogs by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope this wundervacine will not attach to some of the body's natural painkillers.

    1. Re:Analogs by pilgrim23 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Is it cocaine specific or does it effect response to a whole class of alkaloids? I would truely hate to be in the dentist chair with drill ready only to find, rather quickly, how well this vacine potentially could work.

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    2. Re:Analogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm not sure the local anesthetic effects of cocaine or procaine (which is actually more potent in that respect, but has more potential for allergic reactions in sensitive areas which is why cocaine is sometimes used) would be significantly countered by the vaccine. Local anesthetics act directly on the nerves, very quickly on application at the site. It takes significant time for an immune system response.

      But IANAD :-)

    3. Re:Analogs by Masaq · · Score: 5, Informative

      Happily (and thankfully) we don't use a lot of pharmacologically similar compounds in medicine (or dentistry) these days. Even the medical/dental use of cocaine is rather rare these days as safer medications, or combinations of medications, can be used for similar effects. Despite their similar names, most of the "local anesthetics" that one would use in the dentist's chair (lidocaine, benzocaine, etc) have quite different chemical structure than cocaine. Cocaine has effect on both sodium channels (blocking depolarization and nerve conduction thus providing local anesthesia) as well as dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake (more responsible for its CNS effects). Lidocaine and related compounds only block fast sodium channels. Thus, it's unlikely that this vaccine is going to cause serious dental pain problems.

    4. Re:Analogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I fucking hope this thing works for users who inject it... because snorting coke isn't enough for long term users.

      As long as it is voluntary and not compulsory. It's great there may be more tools for people who are seeking help for their problems. I don't believe in vaccines personally. I think from the abortion issue there was a slogan "Keep your laws off my body". That's all I worry about. I don't care what people ingest or get high off of and addicted too even if it is totally self destructive. IMO it's not my right to regulate them. But we've seen time and time again how some people think they have a right to force their belief or way of life onto other's for their own good. Also the connection between large corporations and the revolving door between them, their money, government, and the people who decide law and policy. (Like how people in the FDA play musical chairs with big pharma in major conflicts of interest). That in the interest of finding new markets and increasing profits that the pharmaceutical corps may be successful in creating a need for this, or enough fear to justify "need to force it on children/whoever just-in-case". As long as it remains optional then great for the people who want to be the lab rats and give it a try.

    5. Re:Analogs by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "I agree with your ``It`s my body and I fuck it up if I want to'' slogan, only from the point of view of the government, the reason they ban certain substances is that abuse of it leads to either a) illegal behavior because of the cost to keep you in ``business'', b) generates a significant increase in medical care due to after (side) effects of the abuse, c) a+b"

      The thing is...if you de-criminalized drugs, you'd pretty much cut out "a", in that prices would drop as would profits currently being gained by criminal organizations. Remember prohibition on alcohol in the US? It prompted the rise of the gangs/mafia. Once it was over, well, I certainly don't see many people doing gangland violence over booze these days. Alcohol is just a drug like the others currently banned. It is a toxin that affects the brain.

      If we cut out the crime aspect of drugs, we'd save a TON of money in tax dollars each year supporting DEA, and the overcrowded prison system. We could concentrate a small portion of that money to help programs for addicts. Heck, like liquor...why not tax legal pot sales?

      Also, don't forget, it wasn't that long ago that any and ALL drugs were perfectly legal in the US. It was not the horrible effects of them that caused them to be banned either....most of them were banned in order to be able to use that to target ethnic groups in the US. Chinese - opiates, Blacks - Cocaine, Mexicans - Pot.

      Frankly, I'm still wondering where in the Constitution it gives the Feds. the right to say what drugs are illegal. At least when they tried to do it for alcohol, they did a constitutional amendment. No such thing has been done for "scheduling" of current chemicals (thanks Nixon).

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Analogs by pilgrim23 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can attest to the efficacy of cocaine in toothache; At one time I was suffering "adverse economic determinism" -I was flat broke out of work. At that time I ended up with the mother of all toothaches. Pain on the transcendental level.
          I also did not have a health plan, dental plan, funny card, HMO, fill out this form, do not loose your #2 pencil, and all the other facets of modern medicine.

        I do not use drugs, am not interested at all in recreational drugs. A friend of that time though was, and sold me some cocaine. I placed it directly on the tooth and BLESSED RELIEF! It worked absolutely better then the over the counter nostrums. I do not know what experience users enjoy, but, that day, I enjoyed lucid thought free of pain and that made the experience well worthwhile. Incidentally, the street purchase price of that drug was far far less then it would cost to see a doctor, get a 'script, then buy the script without the above paperwork goodness. also whatever the Doc said to use probably would have been about as effective as the nostrums.

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    7. Re:Analogs by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well then why do we need lengthy prison sentences for drug use. Just make it so that drug related health problems are not covered. Then for those who commit other crimes while on drugs, well, we got laws against other crimes anyway. This would make it so that people who can handle casual drug use not be punished for other people inabilities to handle their drug use.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    8. Re:Analogs by colmore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This argument is only valid if criminalization creates a large scale decline in usage. If the effect is only slight, then the many associated problems with criminalization are too great.

      Every law, currently enforced or not, is a right taken from the individual and given to the police. This shouldn't be done except in cases of overwhelming necessity. It would be a great day when the laws of the land were few enough to list by memory.

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    9. Re:Analogs by Gospodin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't believe in vaccines personally.

      What does this mean exactly? You don't believe they exist? You don't believe they work?

      --
      ...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
    10. Re:Analogs by jombeewoof · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...There is a tiny bit of concern that it will be marginally "easier" to access at the street corner, but it is ALREADY quite easy... I would imagine that if drugs were decriminalized, it would be MUCH more difficult for children to get their hands on.
      Test it out yourself.
      Give any 14 year old in America $30, tell them to come back with either alcohol or illegal drugs whichever is easier to get.
      Guaranteed, they will bring back drugs 99% of the time.
      I've seen it in action hundreds of times over. It is much easier for children to get drugs than it is for them to get booze.

      I'm not saying it is impossible or even difficult to get booze, but it sure is easier to pick up something that is not regulated than it is to get something that is regulated.
      --
      Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
    11. Re:Analogs by jombeewoof · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I would place a heavy bet on the prison system being just as full if we legalized all drugs...some people are just leeches and will find some other way to earn a dishonest living. But those who are in prison for simple drug offenses, like possession of small amounts of controlled substances would not be there.
      That is a HUGE amount of people. The worst thing about that is, when they get out of prison they are in a much worse state than when they went in. Nobody will hire an ex-con. Not for anything other than shit work.

      --
      Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
    12. Re:Analogs by calyphus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Making the substances illegal inflates the costs associated with their use, increases side effects, and actually promotes experimentation if not long-term use. The argument for banning psychoactive substances has much less to do with actually protecting society (a valid reason) than a prudish restriction of individual freedom. Prohibition creates more problems while solving none.

      --


      The potato it is uninformed.
    13. Re:Analogs by calyphus · · Score: 4, Informative

      making drugs like coke illegal is that they provide a major public health crisis
      Hook, line and sinker...gobble down that propagranda. Study some history. U.S. drug laws originate in racism disguised as public health policy.
      --


      The potato it is uninformed.
    14. Re:Analogs by jhobbs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      According to the Justice Dept., of the 1.5 million inmates in the U.S.:

              * Drug Offenses 59.6%
              * Robbery 9.8%
              * Property Offenses 5.5%
              * Extortion, Fraud, Bribery 6.8%
              * Violent Offenses 2.7%
              * Firearms, Explosives, Arson 8.6%
              * White Collar 1.0%
              * Immigration 2.8%
              * Courts or Corrections 0.8%
              * National Security 0.1%
              * Continuing Criminal Enterprise 0.8%
              * Miscellaneous 1.5%

    15. Re:Analogs by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Frankly, I'm still wondering where in the Constitution it gives the Feds. the right to say what drugs are illegal. The legality of the drug restrictions is actually based upon the constitutional privilege of the government to collect taxes. The original act that started it all was the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act in 1914. Technically, unless you were licensed, you were evading taxes and thus jailable.

      So really, the drugs are not illegal, but not paying your license taxes is. However, the government doesn't license anyone so you really can't get your license. Interesting, no?
      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  2. Possibly useful, but... by unchiujar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Would you vaccinate your child ?

    --
    Shakespeare poems - infinite monkeys with infinite time.Computer tech support - a few trained ones working from 9 to 5.
    1. Re:Possibly useful, but... by Daimanta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ofcourse I won't. I wouldn't deny them the wonderful experience of highly addicting and dangerous drugs.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:Possibly useful, but... by jackharrer · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, but happily my CEO.

      --

      "an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
    3. Re:Possibly useful, but... by kieran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you vaccinate your child ?

      Or your employees? Or your signed artists?

    4. Re:Possibly useful, but... by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I would if I caught her doing cocaine.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Possibly useful, but... by Total_Wimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you vaccinate your child ?

      I doubt it would matter much. There's a lot of evidence that drug abusers will simply switch drugs when their drug of choice becomes unavailable.

      It's a real comfort to know that meth, oxy and alcohol abuse will still be available to our children after we save them from the scourge of cocaine.
    6. Re:Possibly useful, but... by ArcherB · · Score: 4, Informative
      There's a lot of evidence that drug abusers will simply switch drugs when their drug of choice becomes unavailable.

      Really? Link please. According to the second TFA listed, that has not been the case:

      One of the concerns with a cocaine vaccine is that once inoculated against a cocaine high, determined users will seek other drugs. But Haney's subjects did not do that.

      "On the outside, they were using less cocaine. They just stopped. None of them switched to another drug of abuse."
      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    7. Re:Possibly useful, but... by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You'll be getting the vaccination yourself as soon as your car and life insurance carrier requires you to submit to it or face double the fees. And once your employer demands it for employment. And once it's required for citizenship. And once you are placed on a "cause for suspicion" list simply for not being vaccinated.

    8. Re:Possibly useful, but... by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that this sounds like a great thing, though I hope they don't follow this line of reasoning too far. It shouldn't be something for the parents to decide, otherwise you may get parents that decide they don't want their children to experience any kind of rush when doing dangerous sports, or decide that they block some naturally occurring highs because they don't want little eating lots of sweets, or getting knocked up. That's when the world starts to get creepy!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:Possibly useful, but... by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Informative
      A bit more from the article:

      At Columbia, in 2003, Haney tested a cocaine vaccine on 10 people who had no plans to quit using the drug.

      After a course of four vaccines injected over a 12-week period, half of the people produced sufficient levels of cocaine antibodies and reported a substantial decrease, up to a 70 per cent drop, in their dependence.

      One of the concerns with a cocaine vaccine is that once inoculated against a cocaine high, determined users will seek other drugs. But Haney's subjects did not do that.

      "On the outside, they were using less cocaine. They just stopped. None of them switched to another drug of abuse."

      Emphasis mine.
      =Smidge=
    10. Re:Possibly useful, but... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Funny
      "Right. They came up with a vaccine for sex too. It's called female circumcision."

      Actually, I think for women it is called "wedding cake".

      :-)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  3. Great idea! by Funkcikle · · Score: 5, Funny
    Injecting yourself with "inactive" cocaine AND cholera! What could possibly go wrong?

    I'd like some anti-freeze to drink afterwards, please.

  4. Alternative to drug testing? by crow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  5. Re:Oblig Orwell by spun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  6. Gibson called it... by lwhalen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  7. Great, so now they'll just be snorting Adderall! by stevejsmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. The nicotine vaccine is the hard one by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  9. Re:Oblig Orwell by jandrese · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  10. Chantix Works Fine (i have firsthand experience!) by TheCouchPotatoFamine · · Score: 4, Informative

    There's no need for this. Not when a whole *class* of new drugs are coming out around nicotine anyway.

    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.. ...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

    --
    CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
  11. LD50 by HPNpilot · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  12. Or D by oncehour · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It conflicts with the business interests of a politician's donors.

    1. Re:Or D by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Funny
      "It conflicts with the business interests of a politician's donors."

      Speaking of..man, this vaccine will really screw up the RIAA, the MIAA...and the rest of hollywood!!

      I mean, if you are injected with this...then snorting lines off a hooker's ass, will mean you essentially are paying WAY too much.............

      to smell a hookers ass.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  13. wait, what? by Duncan+Blackthorne · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ..human trials for vaccines against both cocaine and nicotine are well under way.

    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?