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.

Comments

Why would you want this?

[russotto]

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.

Re:Why would you want this?

[ColdWetDog]

Sounds like Neuromancer .....

More importantly, this should really get the anti vaccers in a major huffy.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually your body would adapt and you wouldn't have the cravings anymore. Then you would be back to normal, but if you ever pick up the habit again you won't get any benefit, so you will not get re-addicted.

Personally, I think that using this to quit, once you are already addicted, would be horrible. Eventually you would be ok, but it is effectively a cold-turkey approach, and the withdrawal symptoms will be terrible. It would be better to use this only after you have quit, or after you have managed to get your nicotine intake to an acceptable low, so that the withdrawal symptoms don't wreck you.

Re:Why would you want this?

[morcego]

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.

You will always be an addict. I quit smoking over 3 years ago, and I'm still addicted.
After trying various ways of quitting, I ended up talking to a doctor and got Champix prescribed to be, which ended up helping a lot and making it possible for me to quit. When I did quit, the days I suffered the most were when my body was flushing the nicotine out. For this part, a vaccine like this would have been wonderful. Instead of having cramps and throwing up for 2 days (yes, this kind of abstinence syndrome can happen even with nicotine), and still suffering for several days afterwards, it would have made it much easier.

So yeah, I do wish this vaccine existed when I quit, 3 years ago, after smoking 2 packs/day for 20 years.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Opportunist]

Odd. I was a heavy smoker for about a decade (the equivalent of 30-60 cigs a day), until one day I suddenly noticed that I don't like the "taste" anymore. So I put it out. A few hours later I lighted another one, more out of habit than out of craving, only to get the same feeling again.

That's when I decided to put it down and see when I really WANT another one.

Didn't happen yet. The pack with the 2 remaining ones is still on my desk, though I guess after 2 years they'd probably taste a wee bit stale.

Re:Why would you want this?

[morcego]

There is nothing wrong about it. Different people will have different levels of addiction. My case, when you get opioid-like withdraw syndrome (cramps and throwing up) is on the opposite end of the spectrum. My case is certainly not the rule, but neither is yours. I don't doubt for a second what you are describing, because it is known to happen. However, it is far from the norm.

Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances known to man. The numbers on people who try to quit and fail are scary. The numbers of people who quit and start smoking again within the first 2 years are also telling. I don't have those numbers at hand, but they are so widespread that you shouldn't have trouble finding them, if they interest you.

But yeah, it seems that, regarding nicotine addiction, I've got the short end of the stick, and you've were extremely lucky.

Re:Why would you want this?

[morcego]

The numbers on people who try to quit and fail are scary. The numbers of people who quit and start smoking again within the first 2 years are also telling.

What I find even more strange is how many people I've known who knew full well that it was bad prior to even starting, and then started anyways. I've asked them why they did that, and the answers range from "it's so that you have something to do when you're with your friends" to "well I figured it would be good for me so long as I used a natural brand." (By natural, they mean those packs you can buy on the Indian reservations that are supposedly grown and made locally by the natives.)

You are absolutely correct. Even when I started smoking (1991-92), it was already a stupid decision. I knew all the problems. In my case, I was depressed at the time, and maybe (not sure) in a self destructive mood. I knew how stupid I was acting, but did it anyway.

It is scary how many people still make apologies for smoking, or say that this or that isn't "that bad" or "bad at all".

Re:Why would you want this?

[sjames]

Then it turns out that nicotine use was self-medication and now you can't use any of a new class of drugs being developed that are all based on nicotine. OOPS

Nicotine has been far too politicized. It is practically impossible to find proper research. Most of it conflates smoking and nicotine use. Most of the really nasty effects of smoking are from the many other things in cigarettes, not the nicotine. There is evidence that that includes much of the the addiction. Practically everyone who has switched to e-cigarettes has noticed this. Even though the e-cig is giving you as much or even more nicotine than the cigarette, it somehow doesn't get rid of all the craving at first. There is a definite 3 day to two week period before the user is comfortably on the e-cig. A while after that, most users find that they want the e-cig but not in the urgent way they used to crave a smoke break. Many, if not most, choose to reduce the nicotine level in their ecig even if their intent was never to quit nicotine.

A leading theory is that the harmaline (an MAO inhibitor) found in cigarette smoke is responsible. It potentiates the addictive effect.

Once the tar, particulates, carbon monoxide, and most of the nitrosamines are eliminated from the delivery mechanism, nicotine use is much more benign and for some people, even beneficial.

All of this would be much better known if nicotine wasn't such a political bogeyman.

Re:Why would you want this?

[Opportunist]

People always know that drugs are bad for them. Do you think there is still one single heroin junkie who didn't know that heroin is going to kill them when they started taking it?

People don't care about this when they start reaching for drugs. If we really wanted to prevent drug abuse we should first and foremost ask why people reach for them. It sure as hell ain't that they don't know what they're doing. They know what they're doing. They know full well what they're doing. A friend of mine is working in Russia with addicts (as a nurse) and you don't even WANT to know what kind of shit they pump into their body. It literally rots them from the inside. And I mean literally. And they DO know that this WILL happen. Not that there is the danger, or there is a chance. They KNOW that it WILL happen and still they do it.

If you want to fight drugs, start at the reason instead of the drug.

Re:Required vaccine?

[gatfirls]

Your thought process is scary at a minimum. It does give some insight into how horrible ideas take root once you demonize something/someone though.

Here's my problem with this

[popo]

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.

Re:Why not an antabuse style one?

[ColdWetDog]

You like nausea, vomiting, cold chills and sweats?

Why not just go visit /b/?

Re:Is there something wrong with me that .,..

[Anonymous Coward]

While were at it, we shouldn't support programs like weight watchers, or help people get started on exercise routines. Everyone should figure everything out for themselves without any outside aid whatsoever. Accepting help from other people or tools is a sign of weakness.

Re:what the vaccine actually do?

[gstoddart]

Well, if you walked up to a smoker and vaccinated them like this ... they would still be addicted, and have no way of alleviating that.

As an ex-smoker, had someone done that to me, I might have had to kill them

Quitting smoking is hard, is sucks, and it takes months if not years for the craving to go away. The smallest thing can make you go back to wanting one.

The ability to get nicotine from an alternate source than smoking is not something to be underestimated, and for many of us is the only way we can really quit.

I rank this about as good as locking someone in a room and waiting for the screaming to stop. It's simply doing nothing at all about the fact that your brain and body are still going "where is it? how about now? can we have some? what about now? Why isn't there any? How do we get some? WHY can't we have any?"

A smoker on forced cold turkey quitting is NOT a person you want to be around.