Alcoholism Vaccine Makes Alcohol Intolerable To Drinkers

Hugh Pickens writes "Ariel Schwartz reports that researchers are working on an alcoholism vaccine that makes alcohol intolerable to anyone who drinks it. The vaccine builds on what happens naturally in certain people — about 20% of the Japanese, Chinese, and Korean population — with an alcohol intolerance mutation. Normally, the liver breaks down alcohol into an enzyme that's transformed into the compound acetaldehyde (responsible for that nasty hangover feeling), which in turn is degraded into another enzyme. The acetaldehyde doesn't usually have time to build up before it's broken down. But people with the alcohol intolerance mutation lack the ability to produce that second enzyme; acetaldehyde accumulates, and they feel terrible. Dr. Juan Asenjo and his colleagues have come up with a way to stop the synthesis of that second enzyme via a vaccine, mimicking the mutation that sometimes happens naturally. 'People have this mutation all over the world. It's like how some people can't drink milk,' says Asenjo. Addressing the physiological part of alcohol addiction is just one piece of the battle. Addictive tendencies could very well manifest in other ways; instead of alcohol, perhaps former addicts will move on to cigarettes. Asenjo admits as much: 'Addiction is a psychological disease, a social disease. Obviously this is only the biological part of it.'"

Comments

I'll take a shot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, no alcohol? Shot as in vaccine? Fuck that.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[firex726]

Yea they need to be working it in reverse, make a vaccine to prevent hangovers.
They wouldn't even need scientific grants, the liquor industry alone would be happy to foot the bill.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[UltraZelda64]

A completely natural vaccine to prevent hangovers already exists. It's called water. After a long night of drinking enough booze that you know you'll end up with a hangover, go to sleep with a glass or bottle of water by your side. Most of the effects--especially the nastier ones--of a hangover are actually the effects of dehydration. You can drastically reduce its effects or even prevent having one completely by drinking enough water throughout the night. Depending on how much you drank and how dehydrated you get, having multiple bottles at easy reach can be more convenient.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[firex726]

Just FYI a quick trip to Wiki might educate you on that. Don't assume stuff and pass it off as scientific fact.
It's not been conclusively shown it is dehydration. It is but one of several leading theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangover

> Hypoglycemia, dehydration, acetaldehyde intoxication, and glutamine rebound are all theorized causes of hangover symptoms.

You can read more in the cited sources of the article.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[crazyjj]

As someone who used to have hangovers quite frequently in his younger days, I can assure you that they're more than dehydration. I drank plenty of water and fluids (both before and fact the fact) and still felt like ass the next day.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

Right or wrong, drinking a bunch of water before bed seems to prevent hangovers for me.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[DragonWriter]

Most of the actual works I've seen (which are more reliable than wikipedia) have said that hangovers symptoms have been demonstrated to be linked to several of those factors, but that dehydration is by far the most significant overall (though others may be more significant in particular individuals, depending on individual sensitivities and other conditions.)

Re:I'll take a shot...

[icebike]

I drank plenty of water and fluids (both before and fact the fact)

Last night too, I see.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[MightyYar]

I learned from a very... experienced coworker. Chase every drink, beer or otherwise, with a pint of water. You'll piss like a racehorse, but you'll have a seriously reduced hangover.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[UltraZelda64]

Most of the actual works I've seen (which are more reliable than wikipedia) have said that hangovers symptoms have been demonstrated to be linked to several of those factors, but that dehydration is by far the most significant overall (though others may be more significant in particular individuals, depending on individual sensitivities and other conditions.)

This strongly mimics my own experiences. Sure, there is probably something else contributing to your hangover, but whatever it is, it doesn't seem to matter much. Drink enough water and the hangover as a whole will correct itself rapidly. The few minor "remaining" symptoms that linger after re-hydrating yourself are not too bad in my experience, and those are probably caused by other things... but once I've got the water taken care of the rest of the effects quickly diminish.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[tibit]

One word: bullshit.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[pwizard2]

I don't think it's 100% due to dehydration. Drinking lots of water probably helps to dilute and flush the metabolites that cause hangovers out of your system faster. Also, fusel oils (very common in brown spirits like whiskey and far more rare in clear spirits like vodka) can make hangovers worse.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[UltraZelda64]

Two words: Try it. Works for me, every time. For the several years that I have been doing it.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[UltraZelda64]

In either case, the solution is obvious... drink plenty of water. I agree that there are probably other contributing factors, but I think dehydration is the big one. By the time I've re-hydrated myself, any remaining effects never last much longer. I am primarily limited to beer, though--both craft beer of all styles and typical macro lagers. I think you're probably right in that it would probably be more difficult to get rid of a hangover involving very large amounts of, for example, whiskey... lots of higher alcohols, not to mention a shitload more alcohol to begin with (assuming you do shots). Some of my worst and longest-lasting hangovers were whiskey-related.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[mcgrew]

Also, fusel oils (very common in brown spirits like whiskey and far more rare in clear spirits like vodka) can make hangovers worse.

The very worse hangover I ever had was when I decided to take a sculpture class in college. One of the advantages was learning to weld, and I discovered that if you had a bad hangover and took a cutting torch, turned on the oxygen and breathed deeply the hangover was gone in less than five minutes.

Well, one morning I was so hung over I was still staggering. I went to do my hangover remedy... and you guessed it, I turned the wrong knob. That gave me the mother of all hangovers! The oxygen helped a little after I stopped puking. I felt better after the instructor smoked a joint with me (this was back in the 70s, also known as the "stone" age).

The best hangover remedy won't work any more unless you raise your own chickens, and that's eggnog. Three raw egg yolks in a glass, mixed with milk and a generous amount of sugar and perhaps nutmeg. The yolk of a raw egg contains an enzyme that speeds the breakdown (and come to think of it, might just be an antidote to the vaccine as well). The trouble is that heat, including pasteurization, kills the enzyme. So grocery store eggnog won't work, you need raw yolks, and one of three raw commercial eggs has salmonella. Yeah, no hangover this morning but tomorrow you'll feel worse from the cramps and runs and maybe even be in the hospital.

If you're raising chickens it works well.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[tibit]

Just because it works for you doesn't make it not bullshit. It's bullshit because it doesn't work for a majority of people.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[bad-badtz-maru]

For lightweight drinking this might be true. When you start drinking heavily, you realize that dehydration is just one component of a hangover.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[UltraZelda64]

I realize it may not work for everyone since none of our bodies are exactly the same. But you're saying that even if it does work for me (and undoubtedly others), then it's still bullshit? Do you even know what the word bullshit means? Fact does not equal bullshit. And the fact is, in my own personal experience, water does provide the ability to minimize or eliminate the effects of a hangover after getting drunk.

Would you also call it "bullshit" if I said that you could die of water intoxication? Hey, after all, it's not an easy accomplishment to achieve, and very few people manage to do it. It must be bullshit!

Re:I'll take a shot...

[Firethorn]

So grocery store eggnog won't work, you need raw yolks, and one of three raw commercial eggs has salmonella.

Something like half of chicken growers vaccinate their chickens against salmonella. If you can't have a coop, do some research and buy your eggs from a farm that vaccinates against it.

It's not 100%, but then neither is having your own chickens.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[UltraZelda64]

So maybe the flaw in my thinking is that I'm assuming that I'm talking to people who drink heavily on occasion (like weekends), instead of raging alcoholics? Sounds like a plausible misunderstanding and one that would change whether simple re-hydration would work well or not.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[Luckyo]

This is about two things: dilution in stomach before it enters the bloodstream, slowing the absorption through stomach until it enters intestines and in blood and volume, less room in stomach for alcohol before stomach starts to tell your brain it's full and you should cut down on consumption.

Same thing is recommended for those on diet. When you are dieting and feel hungry, don't eat. Instead, drink water until you fill your stomach. The feeling of fullness removes (most of the) desire to eat.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[zephvark]

you need raw yolks, and one of three raw commercial eggs has salmonella.

I'm not sure what country you're living in? In the U.S., only one in 20,000 eggs contains salmonella. http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases/salmonella_enteritidis/

Re:I'll take a shot...

[MightyYar]

Diabetes?

Re:I'll take a shot...

[UltraZelda64]

3. Try hard liquor, instead of beer and mixed drinks.

Drinking liquor instead of beer is a sure-fire way to make any potential hangover much worse in my experience... but, as you pointed out, it all has to do with the pace of your drinking for the most part.

0. Drink some alcohol the next morning (approx. half a beer). That'll end the hangover faster than anything else, coincidentally.

As long as you don't have such a bad hangover that even the thought of drinking more alcohol doesn't gag you. Which, again, typically only happens to me with liquor, not beer... but still, you bring up a good point, drinking a bit more when you get up can work amazingly well. The theory is, your body is going through a mild withdrawal after a long night of drinking, so a little alcohol can fix you right up.

Some of the other things you mentioned seemed more like good ways to prevent getting sick and puking (not drinking on an empty stomach) while drunk than ways to prevent a hangover the day after, and a couple of the others didn't make any sense whatsoever (I don't see how dental hygiene has anything to do with a hangover).

Re:I'll take a shot...

[wisty]

Probably more if you raise your own.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[flaming error]

"Do you even know what the word bullshit means?"

No, so I looked it up in the Online Etymology Dictionary

Among the several possible meanings and etymologies of bull is this:

bull (n.3) "false talk, fraud," Middle English, apparently from Old French bole "deception, trick, scheming, intrigue," and perhaps connected to modern Icelandic bull "nonsense." There also was a verb bull meaning "to mock, cheat," which dates from 1530s.

And among other things,

shit (v.) Extensive slang usage; verb meaning "to lie, to tease" is from 1934; that of "to disrespect" is from 1903

Fox News would be especially intrigued by the etymological link between shit and science.

shit (v.) Old English scitan, from Proto-Germanic *skit-, from PIE *skheid- "split, divide, separate." Related to shed (v.) on the notion of "separation" from the body (cf. Latin excrementum, from excernere "to separate"). It is thus a cousin to science and conscience.

Put them both together and:

bullshit (n.) "eloquent and insincere rhetoric," 1915, American English slang; see bull (n.1) + shit (n.), probably because it smells. But bull in the sense of "trivial or false statements" (1914), which usually is associated with this, might be a continuation of Middle English bull "false talk, fraud" (see bull (n.3)).

So all this time you thought it was just excrement, and it turns out to be a rather clever double entendre.

And now we all know what bullshit means.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[Yomers]

I usually eat 2-3 raw eggs after heavy drinking before sleep - it seems to help. I guess salmonella just can not survive harsh conditions of 40% alcohol inside me and dies.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[UltraZelda64]

So all this time you thought it was just excrement, and it turns out to be a rather clever double entendre.

And now we all know what bullshit means.

Nice one, genius, but the following is pretty much the definition of bullshit that I use:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bullshit?s=t

Such things as "nonsense, lies, or exaggeration"... not fecal matter from a bull's rectum. In fact, assuming I were to actually ever talk about the animal excrement, I would probably type it as two words with a space.

Nice way to take what I said and turn it way the fuck around to make it seem as if I was actually talking about something else entirely--you win the Unofficial Slashdot Trolling Asshole award. Anyone want to guess what an asshole is? Hint: It's not the part an animal's ass (a bull, donkey, human or whatever) that shit comes out of. Have fun.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[mcgrew]

Thanks for the link, apparently my info was 25 years out of date. It was the eighties when I saw the one in three, and the link says there was a salmonella outbreak at that time.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[grandpastackhouse]

When you are dieting and feel hungry, don't eat. Instead, drink water until you fill your stomach. The feeling of fullness removes (most of the) desire to eat.

This is a bad idea to do regularly, and is a classic behavior of someone with an eating disorder. Eat healthy food (e.g. vegetables) instead of a burger and fries when you feel hungry.

Re:I'll take a shot...

[aug24]

That theory (alcohol in the morning for 'withdrawal') is completely wrong. The chemistry is well known.

Hangovers are partially caused by dehydrogenation of alcohols leading to poisonous chemicals. Ethyl alcohol turns to acetaldehyde, but we can deal with this one (thank you evolution).

Methyl alcohol (wood alcohol impurities, present in most drinks to greater or lesser degree) turns to formaldehyde. This is very bad for you and makes you feel like hell. The process of creating formaldehyde is linear (because the total present must be limited due to toxicity), not power based, so there is never too much made unless the amount of methyl alcohol is even more toxic.

However, the conversion process is negatively catalysed (slowed down) in the presence of ethyl alcohol. So, a little beer can reduce the amount present enough to effectively remove the hangover.

Sorry about too many brackets (not really sorry).

Just.

Underestimating

[Anonymous Coward]

What needing a drink is really like...

Re:Underestimating

[evilbessie]

Hmm, if you suffered from it you would probably think differently. Trust me.

Re:Underestimating

[afeeney]

I have either that mutation or some other factor that makes drinking even a tiny amount of alcohol a horrible experience. I can handle about a teaspoonful of wine or a quarter cup of beer, but any more than that and I feel nauseated and dizzy with a terrible headache and grogginess. It developed about the time I hit 30 and the same thing happened with my mother at around age 35, so I assume that it's a genetic factor that either gets triggered with age or some environmental factor.

I was always a light drinker and never felt emotionally or physiologically dependent upon it, so my experience is NOTHING like an alcoholic's or somebody whose entirely social life is dependent upon drinking, but I gave up drinking immediately once it developed. Didn't matter that I'd just started being able to appreciate the good stuff and really enjoy it, I dropped it completely.

Can't say how it would work for an alcoholic, but I'd imagine it'd be very effective on somebody who is concerned about becoming one.

Re:Underestimating

[mcgrew]

No, the AC has a point. You're not going to cure an alcoholic with this and you might even kill hi with it. I know quite a few alkies, both practicing and reformed, and few with a bad addiction ever stop until they hit rock bottom. Even after an alcoholic reforms, relapse isn't only possible but usually likely. And an alcoholic will literally drink himself to death, either from overdose or cirrhosis. This vaccine would be extremely dangerous, although if someone's liver is about to explode* this vaccine may well save their life.

* Not literally, of course, but when they get bad their belly does look like it will explode, and they are in misery.

Re:Underestimating

[rohan972]

Can't say how it would work for an alcoholic, but I'd imagine it'd be very effective on somebody who is concerned about becoming one.

Not likely to work on alcoholics. When an alcoholic drinks, they are already ignoring the consequences of their actions.

Re:Underestimating

[Forty Two Tenfold]

You re underestimating what a desire to stop drinking is really like.

I'm saying this as a sober alcoholic.

Re:Underestimating

[Forty Two Tenfold]

A vaccine by definition is something that prevents developing a disease. I think this invention might be useful. Looking back I don't see any benefits of my drinking. Baking - a horse of octarine.

Re:Underestimating

[mcgrew]

A vaccine by definition is something that prevents developing a disease.

True, but in this case I think they're twisting the definition somewhat. It's been shown that drinking in moderation has benefits to one's health, especially wine, but the key is moderation. It's also a social lubricant. I don't think I'd want a flu shot if it took away my sense of taste.

Re:Underestimating

[Forty Two Tenfold]

I agree, but if you're a recovering alcoholic (i.e. no longer capable of moderation) and want to stay sober, this vaccine is an FSMsend.

It's also a social lubricant.

In moderation - yes, but even then it raises the risk of violence. As a sober alcoholic I have been to shindigs with ethanol and unfortunately even the (just) tipsy persons make me uncomfortable. Not because of craving, that's no longer a problem, but with their altered behaviour. I infinitely prefer baked people.

Re:Underestimating

[mcgrew]

It would be most dangerous to a recovering alcoholic. A hangover is actually physical withdrawal, and addicts often relapse. When they do, they usually relapse hard. Now, if their liver is almost gone this could save their life.

Re:Underestimating

[Forty Two Tenfold]

It would be most dangerous to a recovering alcoholic.

Never mind my own experience and medical background which says relapse is in overwhelming majority a gradual process, which is also supported by the earlier attempts at aversion therapies with disulfiram (whose effect can be overcome, with relentlessness). You're correct. Good day.

Scary idea

[Anonymous Coward]

This is one vaccine some people would want to avoid. Imagine a winelover accidentally getting stuck with one and having their passion ruined for life.

Re:Scary idea

[clonan]

Worst case it would be ruined for 6 months.

Re:Scary idea

[green1]

I seriously doubt there is a widespread problem with anyone getting any vaccines accidentally.

Re:Scary idea

[jimbolauski]

That's how I got my last tetanus vaccination, I stepped on a rusty nail and a syringe with the vaccination.

Re:Scary idea

[Hatta]

Without vigilance, there might be a widespread problem with people getting these vaccines against their will.

Re:Scary idea

[lisaparratt]

Pretty sure most of slashdot would want to avoid the GNRH vaccine used with pigs to prevent boar taint.

Re:Scary idea

[icebike]

Worst case it would be ruined for 6 months.

When you read TFA, is says:

With one dose of the vaccine, the mice’s drinking habits diminish by 50% for 30 days.

That would suggest the effect is far shorter than 6 months, and the vaccine far less effective than most here seem to think.
Chances are, the occasional, small. glass of wine wouldn't even affect most people.

If the effect only lasts for 30 days, (or, giving the benefit of the doubt, 6 months), the true alcoholic would find excuses
to miss that second shot.

As for accidentally getting this shot, don't discount the possibility of a court order, or at the very least, a court
ordered choice, the shot or jail. A shot with this short period of efficacy probably isn't likely to be successful
in either combating alcoholism or preventing drinking, simply because it appears to be so short acting.

In fact, one wonders if it really qualifies as a vaccine. One of the hallmarks of a vaccine according to wiki is: "[an agent that] stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and "remember" it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters."

This treatment seems merely to be an agent that suppress the production of a naturally occurring bodily enzyme, but only while the agent is present in quantity sufficient to trigger the suppression. It seems to have no lasting effect.

Re:Scary idea

[icebike]

Without vigilance, there might be a widespread problem with people getting these vaccines against their will.

I could easily see it being court mandated, especially upon a DWI conviction. The effect seems to be short lived (30 days for mice), so unless major improvements in longevity of the effect, it would seem to be no more permanent than a jail sentence, but a lot less costly.

Re:Scary idea

[Steauengeglase]

We already have that, it is call a mortgage payment.

Re:Scary idea

[Jane Q. Public]

There is a pill that does the same thing, and it has been around for a very long time now. The only difference I see is that the difference is irrevocable.

What the article doesn't mention, though, is that the gene responsible for this (which is also present in many Native Americans, by the way) has a strong positive correlation with alcoholism. Populations that have a high incidence of this mutation also tend to have MORE alcoholics.

Re:Scary idea

[Luckyo]

Having a lasting effect would be highly inadvisable. This is about suppressing one of the natural defense mechanisms of the body against certain type of toxin. The goal is not to actually disable this defense mechanism permanently, but to cause significant discomfort for the period of alcoholic trying to kick his habit. It's essentially an extra psychological factor that introduces "alcohol makes me sick" illusion to help combat the psychological aspect of dependency. After that, defense mechanism should restore itself ASAP.

This is why critics are worried that addiction would move to another subject in these cases. Because this basically makes one addiction feel terrible, but addicts psychological make-up, one that enabled the addiction in the first place remains untreated. I suspect this vaccine will be mainly used in treatments which also provide counseling to help combat the psychological aspect of addiction.

Re:Scary idea

[jamesh]

Without vigilance, there might be a widespread problem with people getting these vaccines against their will.

Better than them drinking alcohol against their will, which is essentially what alcoholism amounts to.

Re:Scary idea

[a_hanso]

This is NOT a vaccine. This is a form of genetic mutilation based on some person's idea of ethics. In that sense, it's only a few notches above female circumcision.

In other news...

[crazyjj]

Stocks in Irish, Scottish, and Russian companies unexpectedly soar.

Re:In other news...

[h4rr4r]

You could, you're just too cheap.

Re:In other news...

[plover]

A drunken Scot was on his bicycle pedaling unsteadily home after closing time, with his flask in his back pocket. His tire fell in a rut and he crashed into a wall. Dazed, he sat up and felt a wet trickle running down his thigh. He muttered a prayer, "dear God, I hope that's blood."

Doubtful

[OffTheLip]

Most people despised their first taste of alcohol but many came back for seconds. Like most things, it depends.

Re:Doubtful

[crazyjj]

Does anyone really drink alcohol for the taste? Take the effect away and most drinks are a lot like drinking piss with a mediciney aftertaste.

Re:Doubtful

[cayenne8]

Does anyone really drink alcohol for the taste? Take the effect away and most drinks are a lot like drinking piss with a mediciney aftertaste.

Actually...yes many of us like the taste.

When I was a little kid and I had my first taste of beer, I LOVED it.

I love the taste of fine wines...great with meals. I love a good, single malt scotch, with maybe a splash of water or a couple ice cubes (ok purists, bite me, I like it chilled a bit).

I like mixed drinks...I like the bitter tastes of a gin and tonic with fresh lime on a hot summer afternoon, I like a real daquiri (not that fucking over fruited strawberry frozen shit)....I like a good mojito.

Yes, many of us do enjoy alcohol's flavor in its various forms and mixed with things. The fact that it makes you feel great is definitely a plus.

Re:Doubtful

[firex726]

I assume they do, why else would you order the expansive brand at a bar over the cheap shit? Especially if being mixed.

Re:Doubtful

[quantaman]

They come to like the taste because they associate it with the feelings that come after.

This would change the feelings that happens after drastically, I think it could be extremely effective.

Re:Doubtful

[cayenne8]

They come to like the taste because they associate it with the feelings that come after.

Not necessarily. I tasted my first beer, I think at about age 12 or so, and I liked it the very first sip I had, and I had NO idea what the feelings would be...I didn't have enough to get buzzed, but I sure know I liked the taste of beer!

I still do to this day....hell, nowdays, I brew my own!!

Re:Doubtful

[neminem]

There is booze that I would only drink if I wanted to get drunk, but there is definitely also booze that I would drink even if it was entirely nonalcoholic. You don't buy good scotch for the booze, you buy good scotch because it's good scotch.

Re:Doubtful

[Synerg1y]

It would discourage the common drinker, but would it discourage the alcoholic?

Re:Doubtful

[kelemvor4]

Does anyone really drink alcohol for the taste? Take the effect away and most drinks are a lot like drinking piss with a mediciney aftertaste.

Some alcoholic drinks are delicious. I happen to really really enjoy the taste of Guinness. Lots of fruity mixed drinks are fantastic. That said, I haven't had either in a while. In related news; it's Friday!

Re:Doubtful

[sdsucks]

Disliking the taste doesn't really equate to "feeling terrible", which is what thus purportedly would do.

Re:Doubtful

[Glothar]

Dude, stop drinking the cheapest crap you can find.

News flash: It tastes like crap.

Good wine is very tasty. Microbrew beers (assuming you're from the US, considering you equate beer with piss) can be quite good.Tequila that you don't have to crawl on the floor to buy can be fairly smooth and good for flavoring meat. Vodka that doesn't come in a plastic bottle is more likely to have a clean, crisp flavor. I will often have wine/beer with a meal because it makes everything taste better. Of course, that requires that you not shop for the cheapest swill that some convenience store is willing to sell you. This shouldn't be shocking: Really cheap meat is crap. Cheap cheese isn't even cheese. Cheap bread has no flavor. Cheap fruit is often bland and far from ripe.

Of course, that lesson isn't likely to make a difference. People buying cheap alcohol are usually alcoholics, college students, idiots, or some permutation of the three.

Re:Doubtful

[miltonw]

...like drinking piss with a mediciney aftertaste.

Mmmmmm! American beer!

Re:Doubtful

[mrbester]

Old joke: when asked if he wanted water in his whisky, the old sot barked "Water?! Fish fuck in water!"

Re:Doubtful

[Altus]

While the stones are great because they don't add some arbitrary amount of water, I do like a few drops in my scotch to open up the flavors a bit. This is particularly true with overproof scotches.

For a lark, take a shot of water and add a few drops of scotch. I find that i can pick up on many flavors that get lost in the overall intensity of the drink. Also its like homeopathy for drinkers :-)

Re:Doubtful

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone really drink alcohol for the taste? Take the effect away and most drinks are a lot like drinking piss with a mediciney aftertaste.

I'm with you, man. The worst kind of drink I can think of is a cask-aged Belgian monestary trippel served with an apple, a block of cheese, and a hunk of bread fresh out of some stupid oven. Yuck!

Does anyone really listen to music for the sound? Take the dancing people and the lights away, and most music is just annoying noise.

Does anyone really look at paintings for the visuals? Take the frame and the museum away, and most paintings are just blotches of pigment on canvas.

Does anyone really read books for the stories? Take the paper and binding away, and most books are just a bunch of words in too small a font (which are getting smaller and smaller every year, by the way).

Yeah, pretty much all of our senses and all of the "pleasurable" reactions that are brains fool us into thinking we're having are such a load of crap. Kind of makes you wonder: What's the point anyway? I mean, could this sunset even be any more orange? Pffft.

Re:Doubtful

[sjames]

You're drinking bad hooch then. There are actually GOOD tasting drinks out there, not all of them expensive.

It's also worth noting that tastes change as we age.

Re:Doubtful

[nitehawk214]

While the stones are great because they don't add some arbitrary amount of water, I do like a few drops in my scotch to open up the flavors a bit. This is particularly true with overproof scotches.

For a lark, take a shot of water and add a few drops of scotch. I find that i can pick up on many flavors that get lost in the overall intensity of the drink. Also its like homeopathy for drinkers :-)

Homeopathy would be more like adding a few molecules of scotch per glass of water and then somehow claiming this is stronger than the full strength stuff straight from the bottle.

Re:Doubtful

[kelemvor4]

I'll just add that they could be simply uneducated on the subject, and also what tastes good is highly subjective. I mentioned I like Guinness but several of my friends can't stand it. Many people love wine, and I really tried to pick it up a few months ago and just couldn't find a bottle that I actually enjoyed (admittedly I didn't buy any that were over $50/bottle).

Re:Doubtful

[DragonWriter]

Does anyone really drink alcohol for the taste?

Probably not, but few people drink straight alcohol and even fewer are around to discuss why. Many people, OTOH, drink beverages which happen to contain alcohol for the taste.

Re:Doubtful

[kelemvor4]

If you're referring to Budweiser, I will take this moment to remind you that it's now Belgian swill. We don't have to claim it as our own anymore!

Re:Doubtful

[icebike]

For an even greater effect, use hot water. Very effective at unmasking all the hidden flavors.
You probably need more than a few drops of scotch.

Re:Doubtful

[MightyYar]

I'm with you. I like my scotch on the rocks, and I like to eat the little scotch-flavored ice cubes when I'm done with the drink. I don't care how angry that makes scotch lovers. My wife got me these rocks to chill the drink, but that's not for me.

And a G&T is the definitive summer drink (for me).

Re:Doubtful

[xevioso]

The U.S. has the best beer in the world. Period.

http://www.finedininglovers.com/stories/brussels-beer-challenge-2012/

Re:Doubtful

[tibit]

I don't think you ever had any of the good stuff, then.

Re:Doubtful

[tibit]

This, a hundred times! YES!

Re:Doubtful

[tibit]

I'm similar, although I don't bother brewing my own -- making my own bread is enough :) It's very rare that I'd drink enough to feel any effects. Every couple of days I may have a bottle of beer, or a glass of wine. I like the taste, the buzz is not very pleasurable to me at all.

Re:Doubtful

[quantaman]

I think so, at the end of the day alcoholism is a failure of willpower (not saying they have less willpower than non-alcoholics, just that the intoxication is too big a lure for them), they want the short term pleasure associated with being drunk. If they become sick while drinking that pleasurable objective is no attainable so the addiction should cease.

Re:Doubtful

[frosty_tsm]

I love the taste of fine wines...great with meals. I love a good, single malt scotch, with maybe a splash of water or a couple ice cubes (ok purists, bite me, I like it chilled a bit).

As a purist who drinks my scotch neat, I say it's more important to know how you enjoy the drink and to enjoy it as such rather than trying to conform to other people's method of enjoyment.

Unless you're mixing Diet Coke with 18 year single malt.

Re:Doubtful

[Synerg1y]

Maybe... but mostly no, that's not what alcholism is. Alcoholism is a natural draw to alcohol, like a heightened instinct almost. If it was as easy as a test of willpower, why do people relapse after a few drinks into deep states of alcoholism. Don't get me wrong though, groups like AA take the whole willpower approach through accountability. That and not all alcoholics are created equal, the draw is a lot stronger in some, those would probably continue to drink despite the negative effects, but FDA testing pending, this is better than what the DOJ uses right now, which is pills.

Re:Doubtful

[Firethorn]

Yes, many of us do enjoy alcohol's flavor in its various forms and mixed with things. The fact that it makes you feel great is definitely a plus.

I'm all for allowing people to drink. I'm not some prohibitionist.

I'm like the non-annoying vegetarians - I don't like the taste of alcohol, I don't like how it makes me feel, so I don't drink it. But I know there's lots of stuff other people like that I don't, and there's things I like that others don't.

"To each his own". Have fun drinking. If you need a ride, call.

Re:Doubtful

[Tom]

Apparently, yes. A friend of mine told me recently that she loves good whiskey, but hates getting drunk. If she could remove the alcohol, she'd do it.

But the large picture is what you allege. Just look at sales numbers. Obviously, the cheapest alcohol sells most, not just by amounts but also by total revenue. Most people want to get drunk.

Re:Doubtful

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Homeopathy would be more like adding a few molecules of scotch per glass of water and then somehow claiming this is stronger than the full strength stuff straight from the bottle.

That wouldn't be homeopathy. That's hormesis. Homeopathic preparations (NOT medicines, because it's witchcraft) contain NO molecules of "active substance".

Re:Doubtful

[Forty Two Tenfold]

I don't think scotch can make you drunk.

Re:Doubtful

[Dabido]

Depends on the drink. Note, I don't actually drink any more. My ex-wife loved Southern Comfort as she thought it tasted like drinking a lolly. I used to love those pre-mixed vodka's with blueberry flavour etc in them as it was like having a soft drink (and were sort of lethal, because you never felt like you were drinking alcohol). I never did like the taste of beer though (and I'm allergic to it), that one is definitely an acquired taste (and yeah, lots of them do taste like what I would assume piss to taste like ... never actually drunk piss before). I liked Jaggermesiter because it tastes like cough medicine, and for some weird reason I used to love the taste of cough medicine when I was a kid ... actually, I still do. Scotch was my preferred drink for years, more specifically Johnny Walker red label. I'm allergic to wine as well, and never did like the taste of it. Long Island Iced Teas were great. There are many cocktails I never did get around to tasting when I was drinking, but people have assured me that many of them are quite delicious. Note, I stopped drinking by choice. I never was a big drinker. Alcohol doesn't affect me that much (ie can drink till the cows come home and not get drunk).

This is news?

[wierd_w]

Seriously? This is news?

The EXACT SAME effect can be produced by feeding people shaggy mane mushrooms, (which are perfectly edible) due to the presence of a substance called Coprine.

Coprine acts similarly to a well known medicinal substance called Disulfriram" that has been used to treat alcoholism via this mechanism for nearly 100 years!

So, what you are telling me is that this doctor has essentially re-invented the wheel, and that this is news?

Re:This is news?

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

But, the mushroom is not patentable. But this new "drug" will be patentable.

Re:This is news?

[plover]

As a medicine, continuing treatment with ant-abuse is voluntary. As a vaccine, it's a life altering event.

I'd be interested to see the first DUI case where a judge says "six months in the workhouse OR the vaccine."

Re:This is news?

[cayenne8]

I'd be interested to see the first DUI case where a judge says "six months in the workhouse OR the vaccine."

Well, first of all, get yourself a better lawyer...especially for first offense, you should likely get out of it with maybe probation.

But if it came down to that...I'd take the 6 months.

Re:This is news?

[the_B0fh]

One lasts a couple of days. The other lasts 6 months.

Slight difference.

Re:This is news?

[kelemvor4]

Seriously? This is news?

The EXACT SAME effect can be produced by feeding people shaggy mane mushrooms, (which are perfectly edible) due to the presence of a substance called Coprine.

Coprine acts similarly to a well known medicinal substance called Disulfriram" that has been used to treat alcoholism via this mechanism for nearly 100 years!

So, what you are telling me is that this doctor has essentially re-invented the wheel, and that this is news?

If you read the article you linked (I just did - having not heard of it before) the most important part of this new product is that it's a (permanent?) vaccine rather than a pill. In studies cited by that Wikipedia article, Disulfriram was not effective primarily due to poor compliance by the patient- they stopped taking the pills so they could have a drink (basically). With a vaccine, the patient does not have the ability to stop and have a drink. I think that's a significant and worthwhile improvement.

It reminds me of lap-band, or other weight loss surgery. Those surgeries punish the patient for poor diet compliance by causing nausea and vomiting. They do have a feature that this does not in that they also reward patient compliance (in the form of the patient feeling fuller longer with less food).

Re:This is news?

[compro01]

Not permanent. It wears off after 6 months according to the article.

Re:This is news?

[lbmouse]

I think the major issue with Disulfriram (as even mentioned in wikipedia) is compliance. A vaccine removes that hurdle.

Re:This is news?

[plover]

I just said I'd like to see it, not participate! I think it will make for some interesting ethics discussions.

Imagine a drunk driver convicted of vehicular homicide being involuntarily sentenced to receive the vaccine. Is that ethical? Ask the victim's family if it's ethical to release him from prison without the vaccine?

Re:This is news?

[kelemvor4]

I'd be interested to see the first DUI case where a judge says "six months in the workhouse OR the vaccine."

Well, first of all, get yourself a better lawyer...especially for first offense, you should likely get out of it with maybe probation.

But if it came down to that...I'd take the 6 months.

Don't get me wrong, I like a drink every now and then. However, given that choice I wouldn't even hesitate to take the shot. Seriously you'd take 6 months over not drinking? There's other tasty non alcoholic drinks out there, and a million other ways to get a buzz if you feel the need.

Re:This is news?

[suutar]

Dont necessarily have to sentence them to receive the vaccine involuntarily. Give them a choice, vaccine or no license (for driving drunk; if they actually damage someone or something in the process, make it 'no car'). Ideally, 6 months of vaccine time would break the habit. If not, a repeat offense can go to "your license is contingent on being on the vaccine for the rest of your life".

Re:This is news?

[plover]

And if they already had their license revoked for a prior DUI and was driving drunk anyway? This would be a case involving someone who doesn't respect the laws, yet got behind the wheel without a license and killed someone. (I'm putting up a worst-case example for the purpose of the discussion, but these kinds of deaths are tragically common so it's a very real scenario.) Should a judge have the ability to sentence him involuntarily to take the vaccine? I don't want to say "as a condition of his release," because that would be voluntary on the part of the felon. I am interested if there are circumstances where the judge could *force* the vaccine upon him.

Re:This is news?

[cayenne8]

Don't get me wrong, I like a drink every now and then. However, given that choice I wouldn't even hesitate to take the shot. Seriously you'd take 6 months over not drinking? There's other tasty non alcoholic drinks out there, and a million other ways to get a buzz if you feel the need.

No, I can't imagine giving up alcohol for the rest of my life.

1. I live in New Orleans, I'd likely legally be forced to move.

2. I like to cook...I often cook with alcohols (red gravy is NOT the same without some red wine, alcohol releases flavors in tomatoes that don't come out any other way), and despite what they tell you, you NEVER cook out all the alcohol.

3. What other legal way is there to get a good buzz on?

Re:This is news?

[kelemvor4]

Without producing an exhaustive list, marijuana comes to mind first. It's legal in like 10+ states from what I understand and based on all the hubub about it over the last few years my opinion is that it's headed for national legalization sooner or later. In many places using chemicals or herbs you find at the local gas station aren't illegal (no, I'm not talking about inhaling gas fumes). Besides, I never used the word legal.
Also, if you go to the doctor instead of the liquor store you can get high off a plethora of prescription medication. Billions do that every day.

Re:This is news?

[suutar]

I wouldn't force him. If, after the 5 years in prison I'd give him, he wants to take the vaccine instead of losing his car and license for life, that's a choice. If he doesn't, fine; if he's caught driving with no license and a stolen vehicle, 5 to 10 will be the best he can expect.

Re:This is news?

[tibit]

Sorry, but calling this vaccine is an overstatement. It's like a birth control injection. Good for a relatively short period.

Re:This is news?

[tibit]

The retards who came up with calling it a vaccine should leave the field, because they are a disgrace. It's like a freakin' birth control shot, not a vaccine, geez.

Re:This is news?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look no further than chemical castration. It's not deemed "cruel and unusual" if you may opt for life imprisonment in a rape murder cage instead.

Re:This is news?

[dissy]

We force chemical castration on people, and only a decade ago forced physical castration on people.
We force brain and mind altering psychoactive on people.

Depending how you view the US prison system, we also force rape upon people as well as torture.

I don't see why the powers that be would have any personal problems forcing this on people as well.

That isn't to say I agree or think any of the above is right.
There really are people who have no respect for the life and well being of those around them, and I do agree a line must be drawn somewhere, I just think that line is way too close to the innocents for comfort.

Re:This is news?

[bill_mcgonigle]

Imagine the relative of a raging alcoholic getting ahold of a dose of the vaccine and going to visit their relation, who happens to be blacked out from a bender.

Re:This is news?

[minderaser]

... it's a (permanent?) vaccine ... With a vaccine, the patient does not ...

Perhaps you should look up the definition of a vaccine before you start spouting nonsense.

Re:This is news?

[minderaser]

I'd take the vaccine, since it lasts six months

It's not a vaccine.

In fact, the fact that it only last 6 months PROVES it's not a vaccine. duh

Re:This is news?

[tamtaradei]

Since at least 40 years it's possible to get Disulfiram implanted into your body to get the very same effect. In some countries this is even done by court order.
http://www.alustonhealth.com/disulfiram-implants

Several Polish movies contain scenes of someone cutting out their Disulfiram implants (trade name: Esperal) in order to have a drink. For instance (mildly NSFW): http://youtu.be/BbFWIBxtLaQ?t=1m20s

What could possibly go wrong

[sokoban]

It could put you at a higher risk of developing liver cancer.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/alcohol/howdoesalcoholcausecancer/how-does-alcohol-cause-cancer

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[kelemvor4]

It could put you at a higher risk of developing liver cancer. http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/alcohol/howdoesalcoholcausecancer/how-does-alcohol-cause-cancer

If they continued to drink and get sick and drink some more, it sounds like that would be the case. Some people may very well do just that. I'm guessing most people would stop after getting sick a few (or more) times. I guess it would come down to whether the patient thought that risk was worth the reward or not.

Re:What could possibly go wrong

[interkin3tic]

Wiki also mentions " Individuals with deficient acetaldehyde dehydrogenase activity are far less likely to become alcoholics, but seem to be at a greater risk of liver damage, alcohol-induced asthma, and contracting cancers of the oro-pharynx and esophagus due to acetaldehyde overexposure."

Another Options for Those that want to stop

[KnightMB]

I can see this is a good option for those that really want to stop drinking. But.... drinking is a twisted cocktail of the poison alcohol and the feelings that go with it (or lack of perhaps, the numbing) that keep people drinking. So this may be the push that people trying to quit need. If the just the drinking makes you feel sick enough to not want to drink anymore, more power to them! It may not be a perfect solution for those trying to stop, but at least it is another option. I just hope the vaccine itself is not so expensive as to make it only available to the wealthy to use.

REverse this!!!

[cayenne8]

Ok..talk about a GREAT $$$$ making endeavour!!

Make another vaccine (or possibly something in pill form), that increases that second enzyme, and makes hangovers less and less painful!!

I never knew what a hangover was till I was in my mid-30's...then BAM....

Now, sure I can still drink quite a bit....not even getting very drunk at times, but man, I pay for it for 2+ days now at times.

:(

If this is what happened to me....I'd pay a TON of money to be able to regenerate that 2nd enzyme production to lower the acetaldehyde (sp?) and lower the hangover pain.

Drinking is fun for those that can handle their booze....if you could get rid of the hangover, it would be great for those that still like to party a bit.

Re:REverse this!!!

[crashumbc]

Agreed! My tolerance is what it used to be but still decent...

That HANGOVERS though... They could kill a person

Re:REverse this!!!

[h4rr4r]

PLEASE TAKE MY MONEY!

*Throws money at screen*

That is what they should be trying to do.

Re:REverse this!!!

[roc97007]

> Make another vaccine (or possibly something in pill form), that increases that second enzyme, and makes hangovers less and less painful!!

Hell, just add it to the drink.

Re:REverse this!!!

[Mike Frett]

It's dehydration, you don't need a shot. Just plenty of Water after your drinking episode. Rehydrate your body, you have pissed all the Water out with the help of Alcohol.

Re:REverse this!!!

[Greyfox]

I usually do pretty well just drinking a glass of water for every couple drinks I have. It seems like any hangovers I have are mostly the result of dehydration. I don't drink an awful lot even when I'm drinking though, so it could just be that I'm staying below the hangover threshold too...

Re:REverse this!!!

[adolf]

I stopped getting hangovers when I started taking Celexa for depression: Poof, gone.

It has done wonders for my alcohol intake.

Re:REverse this!!!

[buybuydandavis]

Ok..talk about a GREAT $$$$ making endeavour!!

Make another vaccine (or possibly something in pill form), that increases that second enzyme, and makes hangovers less and less painful!!

Nice!

Let's see you get that one through the FDA. Anything that makes life better is *not* allowed.

Re:REverse this!!!

[Cederic]

Sure, ok.

Skydiving! Excellent fun. Or better yet, base jumping. That's a real rush.

Or did you want us to wrap ourselves in cotton wool and never leave the house?

Life is dangerous. 100% fatality rate up to now, so just get over it already.

Re:REverse this!!!

[RockDoctor]

Then don't put it through the FDA.

Find some other country with a good medical regulatory regime and less a stupid claim of what "moral" behaviour is, get them to do the safety and efficacy checks, and monitor production standards. Then you've just got the same problems as any drug smuggler, without the majority of the "moral" concerns. Next step : $$$ profit.

Or there's the Japanese "scientific whaling" tactic : run a trial on the compound for, say, longitudinal prevention of ankle sprains, requiring 150million participants over 50 years. Shouldn't be too hard to get people to volunteer for the trial, as long as the first-stage (safety and dosage) trials are OK and the efficacy looks fair.

Re:REverse this!!!

[buybuydandavis]

Except if you have to run illegally, you'll have a limited market and be competing with other smugglers who likely aren't the kind of competition that will respect any patent you have.

Re:REverse this!!!

[RockDoctor]

Plan B then : if you think that you're good enough, move to a country with laws and regulations that you approve of more than the one you're in at the moment. Governments don't like to think that the rules of the market apply to them, but they do. (At least, for productive people.)

Vaccine?

[Seumas]

I don't think they understand what a "vaccine" is. Can we (especially the media) stop throwing that word around for everything? A vaccine immunizes you against a disease, by getting the body to produce antibodies.

Re:Vaccine?

[Rob the Bold]

I don't think they understand what a "vaccine" is. Can we (especially the media) stop throwing that word around for everything? A vaccine immunizes you against a disease, by getting the body to produce antibodies.

Why stop there? Real vaccinations are only to prevent smallpox (and come from cows). You're thinking "inoculation".

Re:Vaccine?

[compro01]

In medical terminology vaccines likely do refer strictly to immunization against virii.

No, vaccines are anything you use to provoke an antibody response against something. This includes viruses, but also bacteria toxins (toxoid vaccines, like the diphtheria and tetanus vaccines), and other things, such as TA-CD ( which produces antibodies against cocaine).

Re:Vaccine?

[WhatAreYouDoingHere]

Other than the "vaccine" portion of this so-called-treatment, isn't this pretty close to Clockwork Orange stuff? If we can make you feel sick, you will stop the behavior... But yeah, how is this a vaccine?

Re:Vaccine?

[a_hanso]

Vaccines, in a broader sense, enhance your bodies natural abilities, not break them. Which is what this thing does.

Just What the Criminal Justice System Ordered

[zifferent]

If this works. Expect to see people get court-ordered to get an injection after alcohol-related offenses. The CJ will do anything and everything in their power to make the criminal's life unbearable, rob them of the self-esteem, and keep them in the system.

Re:Just What the Criminal Justice System Ordered

[Psyborgue]

Better an injection that lasts 6 months and can teach a person self control in the mean time than a sentence to a cult-like organization that convinces you that you're destined to die unless you attend their fruity little club until the end of your life. AA's success rate is no better than the spontaneous rate of remission (doing nothing at all). Yet it's worshiped as a solution because A: it's free and B: proselytization is part of the program. Popularity != quality. Fucking cancerous boil of a religion on the ass of science. Thank god for scientific solutions like this that can finally put the nail the the quackery coffin, but you can bet your ass twelve steppers and their ilk will be out in (often anonymous) force, trying to get this banned or at least lobbying against it's use.

Re:Just What the Criminal Justice System Ordered

[zifferent]

Oh this would be infinitely better if it was a one-or-the-other situation. Knowing the system it will be, get this shot, & take these classes. & attend AA twice a week for a year, & go see a counselor twice a month, & visit a probation officer to pee in a cup all the while forcing the person to pay for it all twice what it is all worth. Weee!

Re:Just What the Criminal Justice System Ordered

[Psyborgue]

Sadly, you're absolutely right.

Re:Just What the Criminal Justice System Ordered

[not_a_bot]

Wow. Somebody needs a hug, although not from anybody in AA. Some people find the acceptance and awareness of groups to be of comfort, without having to adopt the theism found in the 12 step books. There's all kinds of different ways to treat an addiction, and although some ways are more public that others (Like AA). There are atheist AA groups, Sober Recovery, SOS, Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, Cognitive Behavior Therapy. There's antipsychotics and antidepressants. There's antabuse - which does exactly the same thing as the "vaccine" - only it only lasts up to 5 days, not 30. There used to be subcutaneous antabuse implants which lasted 30 days too. People still drank on them. People will still take drugs while on methadone. It's in an addict's nature to take something. Anything that helps somebody away from their addiction is a good thing. To dismiss the value of any particular approach because of a few zealous wingnuts is simply wrongheaded and harmful. Addictions - be it alcohol, crack, heroin, gambling, food - they all kill. Attitudes that all you need is self control and more willpower display out of a complete lack of knowledge the biology of addiction, and show a disturbing lack of empathy for what an addict goes through. If the "vaccine" works for a few people, it has value as a treatment strategy. If SSRI medication works for some, it has value. If talk therapy, be it in a professional or informal group setting like AA, work, that also has value. Some people will need none of these aids, some will will need more that what can be found. Just like calling something a cure does not make something a cure, cursing at something and calling it awful does not make it an awful thing.

Re:Just What the Criminal Justice System Ordered

[crackspackle]

Alright, I'll bite and even post under my id since heck, you still don't have a clue who I am. It's obvious either yourself or someone you know was "forced" into AA and hatted it. Tha's fine. Some like me, do like it and I credit it with helping me to stay sober over 14 years.

Better an injection that lasts 6 months and can teach a person self control in the mean time than a sentence to a cult-like organization

I agree no one should be forced by the courts to attend AA, however, that's a problem with the court system itself. No one in AA is asking for it. Judges probably use it as an alternative to other measures because out of all the options, it's the one most readily available. The average American city has over a thousand meetings each week spread all over the calendar.

that convinces you that you're destined to die unless you attend their fruity little club until the end of your life

No, the general dogma is that you will die (sooner) from alcoholism if you don't quit drinking. Of course, no one can say what will happen to any one individual any more than one can say smoking will cause you to get cancer so many in AA prefer to say "jails, institutions or death" which is more to the point. At the very least, continued use very, very rarely has a positive outcome.

AA's success rate is no better than the spontaneous rate of remission (doing nothing at all)

No one has found a viable scientific way to determine the efficacy of AA. Some people never stay sober. Others do. Of those that do, many move on. Some decide they hate AA and find other ways to quit. More power to them. What AA does offer is a very large group of alcoholics who have remained sober for extended periods.

Yet it's worshiped as a solution because A: it's free and B: proselytization is part of the program.

A self help group for drunks tries to help drunks. That's the way it works. Proselytization suggests someone is trying to convert you to their belief with the particular idea that it's the one, true way. No one in AA will ever tell you that, at least the ones following the principles. The traditions state "we are a program of attraction, not promotion." In AA, we share our stories and anyone is free to pick and choose which parts if any they find useful and leave the rest behind. As far as the free part, you argue that ???

Popularity != quality. Fucking cancerous boil of a religion on the ass of science.

I get it. You hate AA. Like most haters, it's because of the "God" factor. No doubt your familiar "god of your own understanding" and "higher power" part and while Penn and Teller's rock and tree schtick is funny, most atheists, anti-theists, or agnostics choose Group Of Drunks. Religious people tend to choose whatever deity fits their religion. I went to AA because I was not able to quite on my own. People also hate the "powerless over alcohol" part but the previous self-truth pretty much defines that. AA offers the support of many other drunks who have overcome their addiction, all of whom at the point I went in had better ideas about how to stay sober than I did. Total self-reliance to quit would imply that I never so much as even considered any other ideas about quitting drinking let alone took any anabuse, naltrexone or this vaccine, should it become available. As you pointed out, I would have had to spontaneously quit on my own, something at the point I was at would not have happened.

Thank god for scientific solutions like this that can finally put the nail the the quackery coffin,

Like it or not, you can't deny their are people who stay sober using AA. It's never been offered up as a solution to the physical aspect of craving nor any of it's causes nor put forth as a medicine to cure drunks and as such can't be called quakery. It's obviously involves beliefs that you do not espouse, but th

Re:Just What the Criminal Justice System Ordered

[Psyborgue]

Was I court ordered into AA? No. Did I ever go voluntarily? No. Does any of this matter? No. I don't like AA for the same reason I don't like Scientology, Islam, or most any other religion. I consider it dangerous bullshit. I don't need to be a member of an organisation to study it. I'd think being an impartial observer would make me more, and not less, qualified to comment. I have known members, have talked to members, have read the dogma, and have come to my own conclusions, just as I have with any number of other religions, cults, and cult-like groups.

"Attraction, not promotion" is a nice slogan, but like the distinction between "spiritual" and "religious", it merely serves to obfuscate. Are you trying to tell me that if an AA member meets a drunk, he's not going to invite him or her to a meeting? The 12th step states "Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.". That sounds a lot like prosthelytizing to me, whether you want to call it that or not. Does AA claim to be the only way? It does and it doesn't. Like most religions, contradictions abound.

The big book states on page 44 (all references 3rd edition) "suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer ... At first some of us tried to avoid the issue, hoping against hope we were not true alcoholics. But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life — or else". Page 257 states "he was insisting that he had found the only cure". Page 259 states "they had found the only remedy". the 12&12 states "Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant. His drunkenness and dissolution are not penalties inflicted by people in authority; they result from his personal disobedience to spiritual principles." This is nothing to say for the slogans such as "our way or the die way" or "work the steps or die". It's very, very, clear that despite your claims, both mainstream AA literature and the majority of practitioners hold AA to indeed be the only way, and they're not shy about shoving it down newcomer's throats. You're either dissembling, or misinformed.

You're right that many atheists "choose" AA. Many do not know how stooped in dogma the program is until they're thoroughly involved. Many others, as you point out, do not have a choice. You claim that AA has nothing to do with this. Why then, does AA instruct it's members to lobby the courts (official AA publication), you can see how the "attraction" dogma is rationalized away? AA recieves a significant portion of it's membership from programs and court orders. This has been the case since AA's beginnings. Again. You either dissemble, or you are misinformed.

I don't deny there are some people who stay sober using AA, nor do I deny that there are those who stay sober by dressing up in a tu tu and dancing the macerena on one leg. It doesn't mean either solution is effective compared to a control group, which has been done and is very much possible despite your insistence. It also has been done and AA has never been shown to be effective. Some studies (Brandsma, et al) would seem to actually suggest it increases binge drinking behavior, which is not surprising considering the "one drink, one drunk" dogma drilled into member's heads. While you're right that AA itself may never take a standpoint on such a public matter as this vaccine or antabuse, you can guarantee that those who find AA to be the one and only cure to a "spritual" disease will try their best to "help" those suffering from Alcholism to find the "right" solutions.

Stupid

[cheesybagel]

We created alcohol in part because it was the only way to store the energy in grains for human consumption over long ranges of time where the grains would have otherwise rotted. Beer was supposedly invented in Egypt precisely for this. That it had entertainment or recreational value was secondary back then.

Now someone makes a 'vaccine' that reduces the human body's ability to process one kind of energy source we have. This is an evolutionary step backwards.

Typo in summary

[damn_registrars]

The line

which in turn is degraded into another enzyme

Should say

which in turn is degraded by another enzyme

It makes no sense for a product of alcohol degradation to become an enzyme on it's own.

Re:Typo in summary

[jbmartin6]

The line

to become an enzyme on it's own

should say:

to become an enzyme on its own

Re:Typo in summary

[JDevers]

You are being pedantic, he is attempt to correct a pretty severe error in the summary. That particular error occurs twice and it is almost certainly NOT a typo. It may be caused by automatic translation, but appears to be the product of a summarizer who has no idea about what it is they are summarizing.

Re:Typo in summary

[damn_registrars]

Indeed. I can't seem to prevent myself from making that particular mistake.

Re:Typo in summary

[jbmartin6]

Ah nuts, you're right. I apologize.

How about the reverse?

[neminem]

If you came up with something that would basically give you a super-hangover from alcohol, by blocking the breakdown of a chemical responsible for hangovers... it seems to reason you could also figure out how to cause faster breakdown of the same chemical. If it was really mostly responsible for hangovers, it seems like that would make billions of dollars as the first truly reliable hangover preventative. I know I'd buy it (if there weren't other worse side effects).

Meanwhile, I can't imagine many alcoholics would care. They'd just *drink more* to counteract the effects of the hangover. You know, like they already do?

The only people who will be opposed

[Psyborgue]

Will be 12 stepping fanatics who think that the only way to get over an addiction / bad habit is through their fucked up religion.

Re:The only people who will be opposed

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

think that the only way to get over an addiction / bad habit is through their fucked up religion.

Is there a non fucked up religion?
Hint, read my Sig for my opinion.

Re:The only people who will be opposed

[Psyborgue]

No, though some are more fucked up than others.

Re:The only people who will be opposed

[Psyborgue]

If they were truly your friends, you would steer them towards alternatives that work. AA's success rate is no better than the rate of spontanious remission and there is evidence to suggest (brandsma, et al) that it actually increases behaviors such as binge drinking significantly. Hell. Even Scientology's program has a better success rate, though I in no way endorse that. If your friend is sick, choose science, not feel-good bullshit that spreads like a disease on our society.

Re:The only people who will be opposed

[mikestew]

Did an AA member kill your dog? That aside...

If they were truly your friends, you would steer them towards alternatives that work.

There are no "alternatives that work". AA and the alternatives all have low success rates. Additionally, what works for one may not work for another. I wouldn't go so far as to call the rehabilitation industry a scam, but there sure is money to be made despite low success rates across the board.

I wish 30 days at a Malibu treatment center would be guaranteed to work. Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. Instead I went the AA route. Did the cultish aspects work their magic? Nah, I mostly ignored that. Maybe it's just regularly showing up someplace with like folk. I do wonder what AA's success rate would be if the only ones that showed up were willing. I've been to AA meetings where I was the only person that didn't have to get a slip signed.

How much to buy one and prank inject someone?

[gurps_npc]

Question, which do you see happening first:

1) Parents paying to inject their high school kids without asking what the kids think about it.

2) High school and college kids pranking each other by injecting their ex-'friends' with it.

Re:How much to buy one and prank inject someone?

[wierd_w]

easier to dose them with a mushroom pizza, made with shaggy mane mushrooms. Same effect, less permanent.

Mushroom ingestion disrupts enzyme activity for up to 3 weeks.

Hilariously, shaggy mane mushrooms frequently grow on lawns, and are easily identifiable. There is a reasonably good chance you can find them simply growing on the campus quad, if you live in the northern hemisphere.

Sadly, due to the nature of the mushroom, it decomposes rapidly after being picked, so only fresh mushroom could be used for this purpose. In terms of taste and texture, it is similar to crimini, though has a different appearance when sliced. Disguising the mushroom in a saute' will not adversely effect the action of the coprine (active agent present in the mushroom) and will enable one to better deliver the joke mushroom to one's peers.

Re:How much to buy one and prank inject someone?

[gurps_npc]

Considering the web page you sited includes this phrase:

"The mushroom can sometimes be confused with the Magpie fungus which is poisonous."

I somehow doubt that parents or sane pranksters would prefer to use your method.

In addition, Both parents and pranksters LIKE the fact that the vaccine is permanent.

Re:How much to buy one and prank inject someone?

[wierd_w]

It depends on the metabolism of the subject. It could be as short as 3 days. Arguably still a long time, but the vaccine lasts 6 months!

Horrible summary

[TheWingThing]

This is one of the most horrible and stupidest summaries I've read in a long time. Enzymes are biochemical catalysts. Ethanol and acetaldehyde are substrates. The substrates get converted into end products with the help of enzymes and energy. Ethanol does not get converted *into* an enzyme known as acetaldehyde. Ethanol gets converted to acetaldehyde by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase, through the loss of one hydrogen atom. In the next step, acetaldehyde gets converted into acetic acid (same thing as in vinegar) by the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase through the loss of another hydrogen atom. Acetaldehyde a lot more toxic than acetic acid. If you block the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase (which lacks naturally in a minority of East Asians), there will be an accumulation of excess acetaldehyde, causing very noxious symptoms. This is exactly what drugs like disulfiram ("antabuse") do. What a badly written summary. Both the submitter and the editor need to read some biochemistry or learn to use google before posting rubbish.

Re:Horrible summary

[TheWingThing]

...Ethanol gets converted to acetaldehyde by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase, through the loss of one hydrogen atom. ...

"by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase" - remove duplication. It's just "by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase". Aarghh!

Re:Horrible summary

[RNLockwood]

This is one of the most horrible and stupidest summaries I've read in a long time. Enzymes are biochemical catalysts. Ethanol and acetaldehyde are substrates. The substrates get converted into end products with the help of enzymes and energy. Ethanol does not get converted *into* an enzyme known as acetaldehyde. Ethanol gets converted to acetaldehyde by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase by the enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase, through the loss of one hydrogen atom. In the next step, acetaldehyde gets converted into acetic acid (same thing as in vinegar) by the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase through the loss of another hydrogen atom. Acetaldehyde a lot more toxic than acetic acid. If you block the enzyme aldehyde dehydrogenase (which lacks naturally in a minority of East Asians), there will be an accumulation of excess acetaldehyde, causing very noxious symptoms. This is exactly what drugs like disulfiram ("antabuse") do. What a badly written summary. Both the submitter and the editor need to read some biochemistry or learn to use google before posting rubbish.

Right on!

Doesn't Anabuse already do this?

[Frosty Piss]

Doesn't Anabuse already do this?

Re:Doesn't Anabuse already do this?

[compro01]

It messes with the same mechanism, but probably does it differently (antibodies against the enzyme maybe?) and last longer (Anabuse lasts 2 weeks after the last dose at best, this supposedly lasts 6 months in one shot).

Re:Doesn't Anabuse already do this?

[tjbp]

Yep.

Re:amazing transformation

[mug funky]

yes. i was a tad confused about whether the writer actually meant "metabolite" whenever they said "enzyme".

whole thing sounds a bit clockwork orange to me.

Instant Hangover

[Sperbels]

Well, maybe that explains why I get a headache a few hours after having a few beers.

Won't work

[PPH]

I know someone who has this alcohol intolerance. She still drinks, in spite of the rotten feeling afterwords.

In some cases, alcoholism is about social and psychological dependence. Not the buzz from the chemistry. If people drink because they need it to fit in to a crowd, getting sick won't stop that.

Re:Won't work

[tom229]

My thoughts exactly. How are worse hangovers supposed to stop alcoholics? AFAIK, prolonged alcohol abuse already can create this enzyme breaking down problem giving alcohol abusers worse hangovers anyways.

Re:Won't work

[rwyoder]

I know someone who has this alcohol intolerance. She still drinks, in spite of the rotten feeling afterwords.

In some cases, alcoholism is about social and psychological dependence. Not the buzz from the chemistry. If people drink because they need it to fit in to a crowd, getting sick won't stop that.

I can't fathom such irrational behavior. I also have very little tolerance for alcohol. After a few 2-3 day hangovers in my late teens, I figured out that by sticking to a one-drink-per-day rule, I can completely avoid the misery. 2 drinks = headache, and 3+ drinks = headache + nausea. Yes, I must constantly brush off the ignorant fools who try to push me into having "just one more", and firmly put my foot down when a group at a bar expects me to help subsidize them when they order multiple pitchers of beer while I have just one glass. But the only thing worse than waking up sick in the morning, is knowing that it was totally preventable, and that I just wasted a day of my life for no good reason.

Re:Won't work

[infinitelink]

Thanks for saying this. It is a bad idea, stupid at every level, but ultimately for the reason you give here. I also know someone with this intolerance, who still drinks: she's actually pretty good about it though, only having tiny little sips with company of some good wine, and nothing more.

That said, someone who is a dependent alcoholic isn't drinking because they have the ability to break-down the alcohol, but because they're biochemically rewired to require the alcohol, which is among the few things that will actually hard-wire into your system and kill you if you don't get it as needed: I have alcoholics in the family who are extremely dependent and it's a bet you can make, no matter how long they go to try and fix their lives, they'll eventually fall, fall hard, and be excessively hard to deal with.

What is rather needed is not some metaphorical stick to disincentivize the behavior, but to decouple that wiring: to reverse the process someone has undergone by drinking long and hard: it doesn't seem to ever start as someone boozing too hard, but rather one day someone who drinks moderately to heavily, but perhaps has never even gotten drunk, suddenly hits it hard all the time, even when they don't want to. People separated from this drug for years in forced rehab come out zealous to build a new and better life and...get found a few months later back in the gutter. It is hard, heartbreaking, and as of now they is not only no easy solution, but there is no known natural and always-applicable solution. : (

Re:Won't work

[swillden]

I also know someone with this intolerance, who still drinks: she's actually pretty good about it though, only having tiny little sips with company of some good wine, and nothing more.

So what you're saying is that it works. And in saying that you're agreeing with several other posters who said "It took me years to figure out I can't drink without feeling horrible, so now I never have more than one drink per day".

to reverse the process someone has undergone by drinking long and hard

Or to prevent it entirely. If you grew up knowing you'd had the vaccine and that every time you had more than a single drink you'd feel horrible for days (and the more you drank the worse it would get), how likely would you be to drink "long and hard"?

Re:Won't work

[infinitelink]

Nope to both the assertions and your question, or perhaps I should say there are different significances at play here.

She has a slight allergy to something naturally, meaning she avoids it because of the slight allergy: and it is slight (important for below): rather than having a vaccine that caused an allergy, it is natural.

On the other hand, inducing an unnatural allergy to a substance that some people abuse, for which some people therefore disapprove, is criminal: it is deciding for someone whether they should ever enjoy something which, besides abuse, should not be considered anything but good, and moreover, is something that is even still necessary in some parts of the world (unless you want water-based poisoning).

But as to the "you're saying it works", it works for someone who has never been able, and doesn't become too depressed (or similar), because even this gal I know can and will drink alcohol if she gets very down. Merely going "it'll work by making people feel bad" is idiocy: plenty of people keep drinking "long and hard" despite how terrible they feel the next day, for reasons like being miserable, or else because they're simply addicted. Want an example? My father. His processing ability has definitely diminished over decades of drinking, and the effects can take days, but he...still goes at it very frequently. I also know people who start drinking-through the damn drugs: with horrible, horrible, horrible, awful, horrible consequences that last and last...yet they try...

Let's stop trying to impose very simplistic, invasive, immuno-altering (in a very unnatural way) non-solutions to very difficult problems. As a guy with an extreme immune system (disabled me for 8 months at one point), I know first-hand the consequences of it getting messed-up, and by extension how precarious actions that attempt to "train" it can be. There is also the potentially unintended side-effect nobody's mentioning: if this would make you feel sick for days after, it would probably be much like the current drugs that work to do this same thing by disabling the enzymes in your system for breaking-down alcohol: this means that air fresheners, cleaning supplies, polishes of all kinds, certain oils, hand sanitizer, lotions, and more could all make you very sick: I once sprayed air freshener very slightly in a bathroom to cover-up the smell of using the toilet for #2 and made an uncle on a light dose of the meds start violently heaving; this was across a big apartment with a bunch of walls in-between and the doors closed, and simply leaving the residence wasn't enough: he had to exit the building! That would be a monstrous thing to induce in people.

Let's leave normal health and physiology alone: the ability to break-down alcohol is both natural, and even at a certain level necessary: if this "vaccination" (immuno-mis-training) goes wrong, ever, it will kill someone: you HAVE to be able to process alcohols at some level, and even the supposedly allergic/intolerant/incapable actually do, just in diminished amounts.

A real boon, and mercy/grace, to people with this problem, might be one similar to injections that can decouple certain drugs from receptors in the brain, or block their attachment, such that they can within a few treatments actually break dependence: those exist and are in development...but their mechanisms are actually more complex than that, and different from alcohol. This particular proposed "solution" is a sham, it is wishful thinking: I wish it weren't.

Regards man.

Re:Won't work

[swillden]

I notice that you never refuted the point that it does actually work. Instead you went off on a big tangent about whether or not it's natural or moral. Those are points worth discussing, but they don't affect my fundamental point that the allergy does, in fact, limit alcohol use.

As to the question of naturalness... I frankly don't care. Lots of things in my life are unnatural, for example the various vaccines that prevent me from getting all sorts of terrible diseases. And I'm not so sure that it really is "unnatural"... assuming it creates exactly the same situation that exists "naturally" in a non-trivial percentage of the population.

On the question of morality, I do agree that, for example, a court ordering a drunk driver to get vaccinated against alcohol is on really shaky moral grounds. Vaccinating your kids... that I'm not so sure. You may argue that a parent who does that is depriving their children of the opportunity to enjoy something. I'd argue that the enjoyment in question is at least partially illusory, and that given that there's a history of severely damaging alcoholism in my family, eliminating the risk of the latter is well worth giving up the former.

Should I make that decision on their behalf? Sure! Parents make all sorts of serious, life-altering decisions for their kids. For a very relevant example, I've inculcated in my kids that alcohol and other mind-altering drugs are bad. I'm fairly certain that the idea has taken root in three of the four, just as it did in me when my parents did the same (I've never had a drink in my life, nor have I ever used any drugs recreationally). Granted that they still have a choice, and indeed one of them has chosen otherwise, though I know she's very conflicted about it, but how different is that, really?

How different would it be to vaccinate my kids against alcohol rather than try to seek out a mate with the allergy, hoping that they'd get it? Or even go a step further and screen zygotes for the allergy? That'd be natural, right? Would it be any more or less moral than vaccinating?

Or, what about screening kids after birth for a genetic pre-disposition to alcoholism, and vaccinating them to give them another pre-disposition to counter it? That alcoholism is often genetically pre-disposed is well-known, though I don't know if we know enough to screen for it.

And what about adults who consciously choose to get vaccinated? Is that wrong? I know a number of alcoholics who would do it in a heartbeat (when they're on the wagon). Of course, its efficacy for those situations is questionable, but from everything I know about it antabuse works very well at deterring drinking; where it breaks down is that alcoholics stop taking it.

IMO, this sort of therapy shows a lot of promise. It's not a panacea by any means. But it could well prevent a lot of alcoholism, which is terribly destructive and costs society billions.

Re:Won't work

[infinitelink]

And I noticed you didn't actually respond to my points about it not being a prevenative measure, but at any rate: your signature is "Safety is a tyrant's tool; no one can oppose safety", which makes your comments funnier: rambling on about predispositions to alcohol and whatnot. ; )

And "well-known" often means "popular knowledge only half-assedly acquired, partially, inaccurately, and without serious consideration". You don't seem to understand genetic predispositions (as you comments stand): my own studies were actually in biology and genetics. You know that "predisposition" that had test-positive women signing-up to have major mastectomies? Geneticists knew that because of epigenetics, the actual probability of getting breast cancer just because of a present gene was actually very unknown, and merely modifying life behaviors could [very] significantly reduce the likelihood of it developing--because the actual regulation of genes was changed by inputs beyond the genes.

This is "classically" a "heresy" in genetics thought, but epigenetics fundamentally alters all the old thinking (largely making it irrelevant in all but research on rats in a lab). My family happens to be filled with alcoholics too, but I seem to be the one in it that can drink as much or as little (at will) as he wants...and just enjoy it without getting drunk. In fact, I can down a bottle of higher-proof wine and feel just a little dizzy (at first, it goes away pretty quickly), and ponder to myself "why is this?"

Removing the ability of someone to enjoy what is a FOOD is not moral: alcohol isn't a "mind altering drug" in the same way as the schedule 1's tend to be. One sip doesn't *tend* (which is key) to be a problem, nor one beer (for a man; ~1/3 for a woman), or even two or three, when someone has a normal BMI. Making that decision for them means they can't go to France or Italy and not insult a host, or to perhaps 3/5ths of the globe without having a serious problem with regards how to get fluids without being infected with water-born illness (the ancient trick of mixing a slight amount of boos or wine with water remains a useful one).

Perhaps rather than putting fear over actual knowns, a parent should wait to see if their spawn have problems with it, and if these are found later, suggest to them to get such a vaccine? Just sayin'. And to be less contentious...nice Homepage and photowork. : ) No really!

There is also a Genetic Basis For Nicotine

[kramer2718]

There is also a genetic basis for nicotine tolerance. The mechanism is essentially the same. There is an gene that codes for an enzyme which removes nicotine from the bloodstream. This gene has several different alleles that code for more or less effective versions of the same enzyme. Individuals who have the allele that codes for the most effective enzyme are heavy smokers if they smoke. They smoke a cigarette, receive the desired stimulation, and then the enzyme clears the nicotine. Thus they desire another dose soon afterward. Individuals who produce the least effective version of the enzyme get sick when they smoke. The enzyme fails to clear the toxin in a reasonable time and they feel ill, sometimes vomiting. Individuals producing middling effective versions can be occasional smokers. Read more here.

If researchers can create a treatment for alcohol in this way, they can probably create a smoking treatment as well. It is unlikely, though, that the treatment would alleviate withdrawal symptoms on its own. This approach likely will lead to treatments for other addiction problems also.

If there come sto exist effective treatments for illegal drugs, there will be serious socio-political implications. The rational for the the war on drugs will be completely destroyed. If people can choose effective treatment, then there will be no unwilling chemical dependence. This will decrease crime, health problems, and other negative effects of dangerous drugs. So there will be no basis for illegality. Will that change the politics surrounding drugs? I don't think so.

Re:There is also a Genetic Basis For Nicotine

[kramer2718]

I am not suggesting that anyone be forced to take such a vaccine only that people have access to it. When a junkie gets so desperate for a fix that he turns to crime, he will have another option. Thus, much less drug related crime. Although some will still steal to get drugs because they don't want to quit, there are people who steal to get lots of things.

Hangovers don't stop a lot of drinkers.

[meerling]

When I was in the military, there were some guys that came to work 3 or 4 times a week (almost every week) with hangovers.
I'm not not talking about the "I'm a little queasy, give me an asprin" kind of hangovers, but rather the "shhhh, you're breathing too loud" kind of hangovers.

Sure, there are some people who will stop, but there are too many that won't.
Now if it caused illness fast enough they haven't even finished their beer, then it might have an effect. Of course, those drugs already exist and are in use.
Also, it has been proven, they don't solve alcoholism, but they do help in it's treatment.

Re:Hangovers don't stop a lot of drinkers.

[pavon]

Exactly, this treatment does nothing to address the biological factors that make alcohol addictive. Instead it just makes it even more unhealthy by eliminating our natural ability process the toxins created when alcohol is consumed. Stupid approach.

Where will they go for their high

[wisnoskij]

Except that in most cases are these addicts not just addicted to being high and they happen to choose alcohol because it is free and cheap?

Is it not exceedingly likely that if we inoculated every drunk with this today that in a week 80% of them would be crack addicts or similarly worse off?

Re:Where will they go for their high

[WillAffleckUW]

Where? Hmm. How about BC, WA, CO, or CA?

You guys live in your right wing nanny state if you want. We're Free in the West.

Re:Where will they go for their high

[wisnoskij]

Did you even read the original article, or even the title?

Re:Where will they go for their high

[WillAffleckUW]

Did you even read the original article, or even the title?

Yes, I did.

In fact, I've read various scientific papers on Asian inability to tolerate milk substances and alcoholic beverages, and I work in medical genetics as a bioinformatician.

I was answering the question. (hence the subject line above)

You don't seem to like the answer, even if it's true. That's not my problem.

Re:Where will they go for their high

[wisnoskij]

The article is about making people unable to consume alcohol, permanently. It is not about restricting the sale of alcohol. After you are biologically incapable of drinking, how would a change of venue help?

Re:Where will they go for their high

[WillAffleckUW]

The article is about making people unable to consume alcohol, permanently. It is not about restricting the sale of alcohol. After you are biologically incapable of drinking, how would a change of venue help?

I am not referring to the consumption or imbibing of alcoholic beverages.

I am referring to other intoxicants which are legal in other states and provinces, specifically BC, WA, CO, and CA.

Hence, an other option which exists for people who (as the original post above asked) "where will they go for their high".

Doubt this would impact Kaht in NE Africa, or similar other things, as well. Different biochemical chain.

Re:amazing transformation

[Mr2cents]

I was also highly confused. Science literacy is important: we live in the 21st century, people. Please don't make basic errors like that! It only feeds misantropy in the rest of us.

Tag: whereisthefuckingpaper

[Guppy]

Closest thing I've been able to find thus far is this paper from 2010: Viral vectors for the treatment of alcoholism: Use of metabolic flux analysis for cell cultivation and vector production

The article didn't make too much sense at first, as human acetaldhyde dehydrogenases are located either in the cytosol or mitochondria; vaccine-stimulated antibodies would not be expected to be able to block the enzyme's activity. A gene-therapy agent would be able to accomplish the task, however.

hangover vaccine

[guantamanera]

I'll work on a vaccine to make me inmune to hangovers. I am sure will make more profit.

Thank god some of us live in WA BC CO or CA

[WillAffleckUW]

It's a good thing some of us live in states or provinces where we have other choices, besides alcohol.

Re:Thank god some of us live in WA BC CO or CA

[WillAffleckUW]

Okay we know you smoke dope, we get it.

Actually, I don't. Nice try, though.

Freedom doesn't require you do the things you want to be free.

Re:Doubtful (taste)

[WillAffleckUW]

Actually, I tend to drink for the taste. I prefer Ice Cider, a good red wine with meat, a nice Gewurztraminer with salads, and various mixed drinks.

Don't like most beers, gin, whiskey, but there are some decent rums.

That's nothing new.

[Minwee]

A product called "Budweiser" has been making tiny amounts of alcohol intolerable to drinkers for years.

Re:That's nothing new.

[minderaser]

A product called "Budweiser" has been making tiny amounts of alcohol intolerable to drinkers for years.

best comment ever

Re:The Twilight Zone is years ahead of this concep

[jsepeta]

awesome. i was thinking the very same thing. it's like a stephen king story.

Reversal

[guynorton]

What if a 'drug' were discovered which allowed the alcohol intolerant to actually enjoy alcohol? Would this be morally questionable? The market would be huge and as we all know, the market is good at making the morally questionable, morally acceptable.

Re:Such resentment!

[Psyborgue]

You must still be suffering? It's useless talking to you zombie fucks. Anybody who dares criticize the great organization is automatically a drunk. The 12 step program was judged a religion by the SCOTUS precisely because they found the distinction between "religion" and "spiritual" to be an obfuscation. You can believe whatever you want, and if you think you're not a member, being close to a member is close enough to soak up the BS as you so evidently show (if you're even telling the truth). Hell. In this day and age, watching TV / pop culture, stooped in dogma, is enough.

Or

[ThatsNotPudding]

Addictive tendencies could very well manifest in other ways; instead of alcohol, perhaps former addicts will move on to

Suicide (or murder if this is forced upon them by the State).

I'm a drunk and

[fiver22]

I know there are already drugs that are designed to make people nauseous when they drink. The addictions centre here stopped backing those drugs as too many people were drinking on it. They may even have been pulled off the market -not sure. I think people underestimate the lengths an addict will go to to ingest their drug of choice. When I was drinking I would have done some disgusting things when I was running out of booze.

Calculus already tried this for Captain Haddock.

[Bombcar]

It worked decently well.

Re:Such resentment!

[Psyborgue]

It has not been proven to work. It has been proven to be no better than doing nothing at all (spontanious rate of remission). Penn and Teller even did an episode on it (search YouTube). Pretty damning stuff. AA is popular because it is free, because people are court ordered into it, and because prosthelitizing is part of the program, not because of any inherent quality.

Re:I already find alcohol intolerable

[OzPeter]

but this blacking out drunk, acting obnoxious, and waking up with a hangover I just don't get.

You do know that not everyone who drinks behaves like that, just like not everyone who eats becomes obese.

Perhaps you need to get out of your mom's basement once in a while?

This has been around since 1948

[water-vole]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disulfiram is used extensively in Sweden to treat bad drinkers and has been for a very long time. It is called Antabus there.

Re:If only they had a way...

[AcquaCow]

Oh, why the hell am I never logged in when I post stuff like this, lol...

Re:amazing transformation

[tibit]

And who the heck said that science literacy == being able to spout facts? You made it up, dear AC.

Re:I already find alcohol intolerable

[neminem]

Well, waking up with a hangover describes almost everyone who drinks more than a tiny amount, sadly. And alcohol *does* massively lower inhibitions, so while most people might still not be jerks after drinking, it also true that people can be nice enough people while sober because they make themselves be, and way more obnoxious while drunk. (And even more so if you include just being obnoxiously *loud* as being obnoxious, as lowering inhibitions also tends to lower one's ability to control their volume...)

But if you're blacking out, it means you're doing it wrong. (Which is not to say that I've never done it; I have a couple times. But I wasn't proud of it, nor even happy, and would admit completely that I was doing it wrong - namely, in drinking a lot of something because it tasted good, without ascertaining first just how potent it was.)

Re:I already find alcohol intolerable

[neminem]

Then don't drink it? You might not be drinking the right stuff, but you might also just loathe the taste, which is totally your right. I, for instance, can't stand beer, but I know loads of people love it. My girlfriend can't stand the taste of scotch, which I think tastes wonderful.

And if you don't like your mental functions impaired, then that's your right, too. But some people, myself included, find it fun occasionally. I wouldn't do it all the time - I like being at full mental capacity - but every once in a while it's an enjoyable experience. (But I do wish science could do something about the day-after effects... back in college I never used to get hangovers unless I drank to excess, which I tried to avoid doing. These days I can get one even drinking in moderation.)

Re:I already find alcohol intolerable

[neminem]

Presumably the nerve called "not liking people who state incorrect things as fact". That gets on my nerves, too.

Re:Such resentment!

[tibit]

The idea that people are powerless over their addiction is a load of looney-tunes. Demonstrably so. Either you stop drinking and you're not suffering anymore, or you don't, and you remain an alcoholic. Of course a separate problem is whether you're cured as in you can keep drinking occasionally like any other person, or should you abstain forever. That is a separate issue. There are many people who can't in fact drink at all, because the feedback loop in their brain is so strong that once they resume drinking, the slide into alcoholism. But if you're not an alcoholic, but previously were, then duh you have overcome your addiction. You, not his noodly appendage.

Re:I already find alcohol intolerable

[tibit]

People who act obnoxious on alcohol are just people who are crypto-obnoxious. Alcohol only exposes their flaw. I wish employers were allowed to do a violent behavior screening where employees must get drunk, and are observed to see if they get violent. I'd definitely not want to hire anyone who gets violent after drinking. It doesn't take much for them to get violent otherwise as well.

Re:Antabuse

[tibit]

Sorry, you're wrong. The FDA didn't ban it.

Hey!

[mcgrew]

Where's my old freak Drinkypoo?

I call Bullshit

[NotSanguine]

TFA has no links to any papers or articles about this supposed "vaccine"

The research group's web page has no direct reference to any such vaccine.

What is being hyped is pre-clinical *animal* trials (cf. http://advhealth.com/alcohol-vaccine/) which haven't even begun yet.

Move along. Nothing to see here. At least not for some time.

Kill it

[Roachie]

Kill it with fire!

Re:Such resentment!

[Psyborgue]

It prevents people from seeking or discovering or creating actual solutions if they already believe God gave the perfect solution to some philandering scam artist in the thirties. It's religion, it spreads like a disease, and by preventing actual progress, it actually kills people like one. That is why I hate it. Yes. Hate. I hate what destroys society and drags us all down into ignorance. Is that not reason enough?

yes !

[Tom]

Please put that into the water supply.

I live near a famous street full of bars. The amount of anti-social behaviour and frankly speaking dumbfucks I see over the weekend is enough to make the best man doubt humanity as a species. Most of it, thanks to alcohol.

I'm sure most of these people are tolerable when they're sober. But what I see of them when they come here is in the "they should have their license to breathe withdrawn" category.

And that's not even taking into account the drunk driving, alcoholism and other measurable damages to society and individuals.

Really bad idea

[ShadowRangerRIT]

The alcohol flush reaction they refer to isn't just about feeling unpleasant. Yes, people with two copies of the gene for it rarely drink. But those with only one copy (that is, they have some of the enzymes to metabolize acetaldehyde), while less likely to drink, often do so anyway (because they can take it, and they enjoy the feeling or feel socially obligated). And when they do, they raise their risk of esophageal (and I believe a few other cancers) significantly more than someone who drinks the same amount but lacks the flush reaction. Acetaldehyde is highly carcinogenic; most people just get rid of it quickly enough to limit the damage.

In short: If you give this to alcoholics, a large number of them will tolerate the side-effects and you've just dramatically increased their risk of cancer.

Re:Really bad idea

[gagol]

In short: If you give this to alcoholics, a large number of them will tolerate the side-effects and you've just dramatically increased their risk of cancer.

Wouldn't it decrease the amount of alcoolism anyway? Not that I would suport it...

Addictive tendencies

[betterprimate]

Addictive tendencies could very well manifest in other ways; instead of alcohol, perhaps former addicts will move on to cigarettes.

I have never met an alcoholic who wasn't already addicted to cigarettes prior to drinking. Arguably, alcoholism and alcohol abuse can stem from cigarette addiction when cigarettes no longer cut it and leave the user with discontentment.

Re:Such resentment!

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent deserves +1 correct moderation.

A year ago I was drinking a fifth of vodka every day, sometimes more. That's 17+ standard drinks a day by american standards, at least. Enough to cause seizures, hallucinations, and possibly death if I had stopped drinking "cold turkey".

So I didn't go cold turkey. I didn't go to a single AA meeting and I sure as HELL didn't check into "rehab". Instead, I bought a calendar and marked off how many drinks a day I was allowed. I started with 17 drinks a day and drank one less drink per day until I was down to 2 drinks per day, which I kept up for a few weeks until I became an occasional drinker. There were a couple of fuckups along the way where I drank way more than I should have. But in the morning after I'd check the calendar and resolve to keep trying. It worked, and I'm not normally an especially strong-willed person. I think it was the knowledge that alcoholism would kill me and ruin all my relationships if I didn't do something about it. Oh also, it was very satisfying to contradict the very unthinking common opinion that quitting drinking is "impossible on your own". It's all about willpower and priorities. Some people definitely need help quitting alcohol because they lack the will to do it themselves, but I think that fear and misinformation pushes a lot of people into AA and rehab unnecessarily.

People have been using alcohol to taper off of alcohol-dependence for as long as people have been drinking alcohol. Keep that in mind at all times. If you AA nuts think I'm full of shit then why don't you go talk to some vietnam veterans and hear about how they quit heroin all on their own when they returned to the 'States.

Idiots?

[alexo]

Idiots have gotten "Alcoholism" classified as a disease, so technically a treatment that immunizes you against alcoholism would be a vaccine in the "one time immunization to a disease" sense.

At least in the common vernacular. In medical terminology vaccines likely do refer strictly to immunization against virii.

Virii is not a word.
Viri is a word, but is the plural of Vir.

Re:Such resentment!

[dissy]

A 12 step program asks only that you admit you are powerless over your addiction and only a power greater than yourself can help you overcome it.

That which does not kill me does NOT make me stronger. *I* make me stronger when I refuse to let it kill me.

I've had two addictions in my life, and both are now very far behind me.
One is beaten. I've never wanted no more a part of something in my life than that.
The other, while I admit I could enjoy those feelings again, I have chosen not to accept all the negative that would again come with it, and my own self control is all that was needed - proving no higher power beyond the human mind is needed.

I have had little to no support either during nor after those times of my life, however I am far from powerless and in fact I am the only power that both started and stopped, thus the only power that matters.

If AA helps you, more power to you. If you need help, and there is Anything that helps, again more power to you. I truly hope you get as much help as you desire, and reach a point of not being controlled by addiction - or if you are there, that you stay there.

But claiming one is powerless when they are not, and claiming there is no way to overcome it, is nothing but enabling. You can believe as you wish of course, but please stop trying to convince others of what is not true. It will only serve to harm them.

The solution for equality is not to pull others down to your worse levels, but to raise yourself above that.

Re:You underestimate the usefulness of this.

[icebike]

I'm not sure its necessary to postulate melodramatic scenarios involving killing other people and millions of dollars.
If there was a point there, is was at best a stretch.

This isn't the first drug that does this very same thing on the market. Look up Antabuse (Disulfiram). It has not been terribly successful. Even among those volunteering for the treatment.

I'll take a shot at not having a hangover

[stoploss]

Dehydration is definitely a major contributor to hangover. However, it isn't the entire picture. The next two major contributing factors to hangover (or other deleterious effects) are:

1) Hyponatremia (which can lead to potomania, whether you are drinking beer or liquor), and
2) Vitamin B deficiency, particularly B1 and B12 (I personally use this, because high doses of water-soluble vitamins doesn't cause any issue). Note Wernicke's encephalopathy.

...so, ensure your drinks have a positive sodium balance for what you're losing, and backstop your vitamin B's.

Applying these two approaches have effectively eliminated any hangover I would have expected to experience (aside from being tired, but that may be attributed to staying up until 3 AM—drinking or not). It has worked well for me for almost two years now.

Also, ensuring you consume adequate protein may help to forestall liver damage; I prefer to err on the side of high-protein intake.

"Cures"?

[Dereck1701]

All of these "vaccines" to cure addictions concern me. Thankfully I don't think any of them have been massively effective & I can see the benefits for a small portion of the population....... But. I can just kind of thing going downhill REAL fast. What would have happened if these kinds of things had been available during the "Temperance Movement" (the people who brought us prohibition). I imagine many temperance organizations (Churches, Woman's Groups, etc) would have held "vaccination drives" where they would have mutilated a significant portion of a generation of Americans. The same goes for the current attempts at Marijuana, Cocaine, and other "vaccines" currently being tested, if they attain significant effectiveness I have little doubt that there will be a push by some groups to have children & repeat offenders coerced into being "treated". Its a sad state in our society that we all to often attack the symptoms of problems (crime, drug use, violence, etc) instead of their causes (poverty, lack of opportunities, desperation, mental illness).

Naughty, naughty

[servognome]

Short term solution, the droogs will just return

Re:amazing transformation

[thelexx]

"whole thing sounds a bit clockwork orange to me"

Bingo.

a drug to do this

[spitzig]

There's a drug that does this. The paper mentions that the drug requires the patient to cooperate(regularly take the drug). Sometimes patients take the drug as part of rehab, somewhat willingly. BUT, knowing alcohol will make them feel sick, they still get drunk.

better idea

[fazey]

Wouldnt it be better to create a pill or injection that allowed you to immediately sober up so you can drive? Why would anyone want to knowingly vaccinate themselves with this, and not be able to properly break down alcohol?

this is NOT a vaccine

[minderaser]

Excuse me, but doesn't anyone realize that this is not a vaccine? Someone, PLEASE, look up the definition of vaccine.

Re:Antabuse Anyone?

[minderaser]

The difference is that by calling it a "vaccine" (which it is CLEARLY not for anyone who has half a brain) the manufactures enjoy immunity from lawsuits. See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022206008.html

Just watch. Pretty much every drug is going to be marketed as a vaccine.

Re:I already find alcohol intolerable

[minderaser]

I'm a social drinker, but even then I drink very little, mostly just mixing it with soda to make it look like I drink as much as the others, because I don't want my alcohol tolerance to go down. I hate pills for pain, so, instead I drink a beer or two, which is usually plenty to put me to sleep on bad nights.

And then after you get off of your high horse about people who chose to drink you might look at some facts that show alcohol interferes with sleep.

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to interfere with your smugness.

Re:amazing transformation

[minderaser]

I was cured all right.

nice!

Summary doesn't know what enzyme is

[Kurofuneparry]

It uses enzyme when it means substrate. The enzymes make the changes, they are not the things changed.

...idiot....

Give it to everybody

[Beardmonster]

... if it works, that is. That would save 2.5 millions lives yearly.

Clockwork Orange meets biotech

[buybuydandavis]

That's getting a little creepy.

IT might not work right

[AndyKron]

Alcoholics drink alcohol in the morning to minimize the effect of acetaldehyde, so why won't this "vaccine" make things worse?

Re:Such resentment!

[crackspackle]

It prevents people from seeking or discovering or creating actual solutions if they already believe God gave the perfect solution

If it doesn't work for you, find another solution. If it does work, then why bother ? No one has ever put up AA to be the cure.

to some philandering scam artist in the thirties.

Philandering ? Maybe. Scan artist... He was a stock market prior to the Great Depression but it's all about as relevant as the state of the nation was to Clinton getting a blowjob.

It's religion,

There are no priests, no compunction to believe in a god, no churches, no tax breaks, and no privileged conversation. How is that a religion ?

and by preventing actual progress, it actually kills people like one.

Can you cite one example where it stopped progress ? It's not a perfect solution but it's helped a great many people who would have died otherwise. That some still do while tragic, isn't a sensible reason to stop using it as the tool it is, any more than ignoring the possibilities this vaccine could have. It's easy to see though with this vaccine, it could lead to worse addictions (relatively speaking) as people compensate for the loss of alcohol by using harder drugs.

That is why I hate it. Yes. Hate. I hate what destroys society and drags us all down into ignorance. Is that not reason enough?

From Herbert Spencer: “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation”.

Hugh Pickes is the new Roland Piquepaille

[Hognoxious]

in turn is degraded into another enzyme.

Don't think so.

This already exists: Antabuse

[theshowmecanuck]

This is none-news. Antabuse was invented almost 100 years ago and does exactly the same thing as this "vaccine."

"feeling terrible" doesn't stop people

[gannebraemorr]

My Mom had pancreatitis and "felt terrible" every time she drank. Her doctor told her, "not another drop". Neither stopped her. Only death due to drinking did.

Re:amazing transformation

[Mr2cents]

You think I just know how alcohol is decomposed? No, I know that alcohol = simple molecule. Enzyme = protein. That should be more than enough to raise a few red flags.

Re:Such resentment!

[strikethree]

Either you stop drinking and you're not suffering anymore, or you don't, and you remain an alcoholic.

Not drinking *IS* suffering for an alcoholic. :(