Slashdot Mirror
New Nicotine Vaccine May Succeed Where Others Have Failed
Zothecula writes: If you're a smoker who's trying to quit, you may recall hearing about vaccines designed to cause the body's immune system to treat nicotine like a foreign invader, producing antibodies that trap and remove it before it's able to reach receptors in the brain. It's a fascinating idea, but according to scientists at California's Scripps Research Institute, a recent high-profile attempt had a major flaw. They claim to have overcome that problem (abstract), and are now developing a vaccine of their own that they believe should be more effective.
You'd still be an addict, just one who could never satisfy his cravings. This sounds more like some sort of torture that an aid to quitting.
Is this applicable to other drugs as well?
I'm intrigued by the idea, but doesn't this sound like a way to just make an addicted person have an insatiable craving? I mean, it doesn't get rid of the root causes and the urge to take the drug. It just prevents the drug from working, leading to no reduction in the withdrawal symptoms.
Assuming this is effective, should it be added to the required list of vaccines for attending school? Imagine if it were impossible for anyone to become addicted to nicotine in the first place. The smoking rate would drop to essentially zero.
What if China required it for everyone?
This has the possibility to completely destroy the tobacco industry.
Nicotine is just like caffeine, except better. Why would you want a vaccine for it?
The only problem with nicotine is that the easiest way to get it is smoking. But now with vaping or gum it should be safer.
Rather than messing with your immune system?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
For one, Nicotine (when smoked) passes the blood-brain barrier within seconds.
The notion that a human antibody can intercept (and neutralize) a foreign substance that quickly is highly questionable. (If not silly).
However, the half-life of nicotine is 1-2 hours, and the metabolites have a half life of up to 20 hours. So let's assume for a minute that the vaccine does have an effect on systemic nicotine 'at some point' over the course of it's metabolization. Okay, fine. But the nicotine still went 'straight upstairs' after that first puff. Which means the only effect I can conceive of here is that the smoker will need another cigarette more quickly.
Is that a good thing?
Of course, IANAD so please correct me if I've got something wrong.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
...but we all know it's not nicotine that is bad for you.
It's the OTHER shit you put in there that we need to ban you from being able to legally put into the public's body.
http://www.sbctc.org/pdf/studentguide.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/tobacco/en/index.htm#5
I find this offensive?
We're spending science mind power, money and time researching a way to make a drug that replaces a persons weakness of character and lack of willpower. If you want to stop smoking, just stop. Don't buy cigarettes.
I feel that our culture is sliding away from any concept of holding people personally responsible for their own choices. If a person smokes, overeats, under-exercises - those are their choices. They must be held accountable.
"No good deed goes unpunished"
from the article "Though a vaccine wouldn’t be a silver bullet—there would still be withdrawal symptoms—a person may be less motivated to relapse because the brain’s reward system could no longer react to nicotine"
so for all those being critical of this vaccine please keep in mind it's not supposed to "make you quit". It's more like it takes away your reason for doing it. Smokers will no longer get the good feelings from a cigarette so they will be more inclined to quit. If used as a vaccine they will be less likely to start again or start in the first place.
It is my (layman's) understanding that nicotine is not entirely harmless; but can also have some positive effects, and overall is considered a fairly low risk compound at suitable doses(it'll kill you good and proper in quantity).
Given that, why so much work trying relatively esoteric techniques for nicotine vaccines, or low-success behavioral interventions for smoking cessation, when the only real problem that is actually killing smokers right and left is the fact that they get their nicotine by huffing a grab bag of unpleasant incomplete combustion products?
Is it that there is something particularly compelling about cigarettes, such that even people with access to nicotine by other means still seek them out? Is it just an echo of drug warrior concern that somebody, somewhere, might be employing a psychoactive without suitable risk of death or imprisonment?
I don't get it.
Substance addicts will often spontaneously quite their habit when the pain of continuing the habit becomes greater than the pain of quitting. A year ago, I had severe stomach pains and was hospitalized for 3 days. I figured the chewing tobacco was upsetting my stomach, so I went cold turkey. As it turned out, it had nothing to do with the tobacco -- it was intestinal colitis. Anyway, I'm off of nicotine permanently now.
I find this offensive?
We're spending science mind power, money and time researching a way to make a drug that replaces a persons weakness of character and lack of willpower.
That is an excellent statement of the moral issues involved. Here are some more issues to consider:
Measles: We are spending science effort, money, and time producing a vaccine that replaces a person's physical weakness.
(Is character and lack of willpower a learned trait, or conditioned by physical attributes? Should we force people into weight-watchers and exercise programs?)
Guns: Guns have a protection effect similar to vaccines. Even though the probability of being self-injured by a gun goes up if you own one(*), the aggregate total chance of death from all causes goes down for the neighborhood. It's a sort of "herd immunity" for crime.
(Is restricting guns better or worse for society in general, as measured by the mortality rate?)
Flu: We are spending science effort, money, and time producing a vaccine who's purpose is largely to increase manufacturing productivity; ie - to keep you at work for an extra 5 days during the winter (**).
(Is it worth millions of people each spending $35 for a vaccine that's only partially effective?)
And note that everything mentioned is a probability, and that there is a probability of having a bad reaction to any individual shot. The probability is very low, but it's not zero.
(If the probability that the child will get the disease is lower than the probability that they will get a bad reaction, should we still force them to get vaccinated?)
What we have is a spectrum of efficacy weighed against the morality of forcing someone to do (or not do) something. The measles (and smallpox and polio) vaccine is on one end, while the Lyme vaccination is probably on the other.
Where do we draw the line with forcing people to do things? Is "living in society" a strong enough reason to go against someone's religious beliefs? Do the beliefs have to be religious to qualify for an exception?
Are we ready to ditch the doctrine of individual dissent, or must everyone bow to the wishes of society?
Where do we draw that line?
(*) Mostly due to suicide, and as has been pointed out, suicides will happen whether guns are available or not.
(**) Yes, the flu can kill and it's miserable to have, but the marketing is all about not losing work due to sick days. Go online and try to determine whether getting the flu shot is *effective* - you won't find studies, all you'll find is people saying "of course it is!". Science by authority, and all that.
Ever heard that phrase about need being the mother of invention?
There is an undeniable economic demand for this. People will pay for it. That justifies the research and development investment. And that is how things are supposed to work.
It is unfortunate that you are so disapproving of the fact that others would like some help in breaking their addiction. But you are simply wrong for saying that an in-demand product that helps people regain control of their lives and be healthy should not be researched.
As someone with various allergies, the idea of making yourself have an immune system response to something you're addicted to sounds like a really bad idea. Your immune system doesn't just quietly remove things, there are other effects. Are ex-smokers going to have to carry epipens in case they relapse?
Nicotine is not a disease, and this is not a vaccine. The only reason I can think of for calling a drug a "vaccine" is to be able to use the blanket immunitiy from law suits and prosecution that pharmaceutical companies get for vaccines.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
One important social problem that arises is that people with your physiological response (no or weak symptoms, no or weak cravings) cannot empathize with people at the other end of the spectrum. Many people in your group go around denying the reality of addiction, saying it is just a choice, as easy as choosing soup over salad for lunch, and that people who struggle with addiction are just whiny sops. This perception is factually false, unfair, and socially harmful. It can lead to the passing of laws, or making of policies, that do more harm than good.
It seems that our views on addiction need to change.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Nicotine is in the top three most addictive substance we know.
You're still skimping out on the meat of the matter.
If nicotine, in itself, was so goddamned addictive... Nobody would smoke. We'd all slap on a patch, chew some gum, and that'd be that.
Except the patch fails for the majority of people who use it. Same with gum. Shit, vaping doesn't work for a great many people.
Nicotine, at the levels contained in cigarettes, ain't got nothing on the bajillion other chemicals contained in those little delicious sticks of death.
Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances, but as far as the damage caused from just nicotine vs smoking a cigarette there is a vast difference. While amazingly addictive the effects of the drug are not too different than caffeine in some aspects. I believe the bogeyman reference was to how many people assume nicotine causes cancer and all the things that cigarettes cause, where people who have done a little research know that is the tar, smoke and other chemicals not the nicotine. I am not saying nicotine is good for people by any means, but there isn't much of a comparison between it and smoking is all.
s/©//g
But if you are trying to be cured of a habit, it might help, as it seems to for alcohol. Even someone willing to smoke is probably less willing to be in lots of pain.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
While the nicotine gives the addiction part, as far as i know it's the tar and other crap, including simply inhaling very hot air, that will ruin your lungs first.
Plus a heavy smoker is also dependent on the habit of puffing on something, no matter the contents.
So neutralizing the nicotine and keeping on smoking will help with... what?
"schizophrenia nicotine" 485,000 results
"schizophrenia government" 14,900,000 results
Google is your friend here.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
Now if only some lab would develop a vaccine against alcohol. Nice thought, but malaria is a far larger problem. Sadly, those most likely to fall victim to malaria are precisely those who can least afford its cost.
The only way to defeat the "Nicodemon" is to starve it.
:)
Vaccines, patches, e-cigs, etc. all feed the addiction. Sure, some people end up successfully quitting after using some of these products, but most people don't. I think that a big part of the problem is that people look for something outside of themselves to "make them quit", rather than accepting the responsibility to do it themselves.
If you want to quit, then simply quit. It is that easy.
Yes, you have to suffer through about 15-30 days of hell, but lots of cardiovascular exercise helps get it out of your system quicker.
In the end it is absolutely worth it 100%.
And quitting during a time of change - new house, new job, new school, etc. really helps, as a major change in life is an excellent opportunity to form new habits.
Do not let anyone tell you that it's too hard to quit. You can do it if you persist and understand that you need to starve the demon in order to succeed.
I am speaking from personal experience as a former heavy smoker. A puff off a cigarette now and I would likely end up violently puking my guts out.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
Nicotine is a beneficial substance that helps you focus, stimulates cognition and has antipsychotic effects. I'm not aware of any strong adversary effects of nicotine (unless taken in extremely high doses). Smoking kills people. Nicotine doesn't.