Texas Researchers Working On Cocaine Vaccine

[bingalpaws]

Texas Researchers Working On Cocaine Vaccine​

Texas Researchers Working On Cocaine Vaccine
HOUSTON (AP) ― Two Baylor College of Medicine researchers in Houston are working on a cocaine vaccine they hope will become the first-ever medication to treat people hooked on the drug.

"For people who have a desire to stop using, the vaccine should be very useful," said Dr. Tom Kosten, a psychiatry professor who is being assisted in the research by his wife, Therese, a psychologist and neuroscientist. "At some point, most users will give in to temptation and relapse, but those for whom the vaccine is effective won't get high and will lose interest."

The vaccine, currently in clinical trials, stimulates the immune system to attack the real thing when it's taken.

The immune system -- unable to recognize cocaine and other drug molecules because they are so small -- can't make antibodies to attack them.

To help the immune system distinguish the drug, Kosten attached inactivated cocaine to the outside of inactivated cholera proteins.

In response, the immune system not only makes antibodies to the combination, which is harmless, but also recognizes the potent naked drug when it's ingested. The antibodies bind to the cocaine and prevent it from reaching the brain, where it normally would generate the highs that are so addictive.

"It's a very clever idea," says David Eagleman, a Baylor neuroscientist. "Scientists have spent the last few decades figuring out reward pathways in the brain and how drugs like cocaine hijack the system. It turns out those pathways are difficult to rewire once they've seen the drug. But the vaccine just circumvents all that."

Kosten asked the Food and Drug Administration in December to green-light a multi-institutional trial to begin in the spring and is awaiting a response.

Approval would mark a breakthrough in the treatment of cocaine addiction, which now mostly involves psychiatric counseling and 12-step programs. It presumably would be the final clinical hurdle before the vaccine -- more than a decade in the making -- might be approved for treatment. But one expert warns against expecting too much.

"Addiction vaccines are a promising advance, but it's unlikely any treatment in this field will work for everyone," said Dr. David Gorelick, a senior investigator at the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "Still, if they prove successful, they will give those working in drug addiction an important option."

link​

 

[phr]

Drug vaccine articles pop up every once in a while. Most common ones about cocaine and nicotine. The problem with all of them has been that people could simply take more of a drug and defeat them.

Good thing opiate vaccines aren't likely.

If they finally come out with a vaccine that fully works, a lot of ethical questions will arise...

 

[bingalpaws]

...such as the forced administration of the whole plethora to children to "immunize" for life? Scary thought!

 

[Roger&Me]

...such as the forced administration of the whole plethora to children to "immunize" for life? Scary thought!

Yes. I can see how this all could mushroom. Cocaine addiction being a "disease" that parents need to protect their precious little rug-fuckers from. "IMMUNIZE" THE WORLD AGAINST THIS TERRIBLE COCA PLANT!!

Does anyone else think it's a bit ridiculous to be scared of a plant? Any plant, really....I mean, the Hemlock plant can kill you fast as shit, but we're not launching any massive campaigns to quell its proliferation.

I've always been under the impression, that since plants can't move, talk to you, or do much of fucken ANYTHING really except photosynthesize, that they aren't very dangerous, and perhaps if you want to avoid their dangers, you should just leave them the fuck alone. It's not like they're gunna be at your house at 3 in the morning with MAC-10s and shit, they're plants, they just chill. Leave them alone and they'll leave you alone. We don't need a bunch of vaccinations against them and shit, that really is just overkill.

 

[CloudyHazeD]

I dont see how this is really treating the addiction, it's just preventing the high.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Just to play devil's advocate bingalpaws, I could argue that if a kid lived his whole life unable to cop a buzz from cocaine or whatever substance they come up with a vaccine for, he'd be none the worse not knowing what it felt like. I've known plenty of people who, due to the specific makeup of their bodies, never got any joy out of consuming alcohol. It's not like they 'miss' alcohol or wish they could enjoy it -- most are happy not to drink, and their quality of life suffers naught at all for it (nay...)

Getting a childhood shot or an induced germ-line gene mutation which guaranteed you couldn't ever get any joy out of cocaine would pretty much put you in the same situation, seems to me.

 

[bingalpaws]

I can definitely see where your <for the sake of argument> stance has *some* validity. But then I could go even further, let's consider a drug that takes the enjoyment out of sex, and alleviates all sexual attraction. Mating would just become a chore to procreate for our survival. But, with the forced administration of said vaccine, we would no longer have sexual deviants, rapists, homos, swingers, or any of the less than mainstream sexually oriented crowds.

I definitely see the arguments for it <drug vaccine>, but still wholeheartedly DISAGREE!! with it<<put 'disagree' in all caps because, well, I originally wrote "agree" and have a baaad habit of doing so lol, I believe the last time I said I was for 100% drug prohibition when I meant legalization...>>. For a lesser extreme example, why not just do mandatory alcohol vaccines? Bye bye to dui's, alcoholism, alcohol related crap, etc etc etc.

 

[Nwalmaer]

I dont see how this is really treating the addiction, it's just preventing the high.

Its not and without treating the real cause of the problem most would just switch to a different drug

 

[Ham-milton]

that's what I'd call a straw man. Sex isn't the same, at least for the vast majority of us. For those few who become addicted and sex ruins their lives, it'd be a great thing. Sex doesn't hold the same addictive potential that cocaine does.

 

[robatussin]

the arguments of crating vaccines for alcohol/sexual pleasure sure do raise an ethical question here. It seems that this vaccine is not a lifetime sentance if administered, but the next step scientifically would be to create a vaccine that would work for life. However we must remember that the drug companies are in it to make money therefore they want people to be dosing often. It is not profitable for them to "cure" any disease, therefore they make drugs that supres symptoms and try to sell as many doses as possible. food for thought

 

[qwe]

Texas Researchers Working On Cocaine Vaccine​

Texas Researchers Working On Cocaine Vaccine
HOUSTON (AP) ― Two Baylor College of Medicine researchers in Houston are working on a cocaine vaccine they hope will become the first-ever medication to treat people hooked on the drug.

"For people who have a desire to stop using, the vaccine should be very useful," said Dr. Tom Kosten, a psychiatry professor who is being assisted in the research by his wife, Therese, a psychologist and neuroscientist. "At some point, most users will give in to temptation and relapse, but those for whom the vaccine is effective won't get high and will lose interest."

The vaccine, currently in clinical trials, stimulates the immune system to attack the real thing when it's taken.

The immune system -- unable to recognize cocaine and other drug molecules because they are so small -- can't make antibodies to attack them.

To help the immune system distinguish the drug, Kosten attached inactivated cocaine to the outside of inactivated cholera proteins.

In response, the immune system not only makes antibodies to the combination, which is harmless, but also recognizes the potent naked drug when it's ingested. The antibodies bind to the cocaine and prevent it from reaching the brain, where it normally would generate the highs that are so addictive.

"It's a very clever idea," says David Eagleman, a Baylor neuroscientist. "Scientists have spent the last few decades figuring out reward pathways in the brain and how drugs like cocaine hijack the system. It turns out those pathways are difficult to rewire once they've seen the drug. But the vaccine just circumvents all that."

Kosten asked the Food and Drug Administration in December to green-light a multi-institutional trial to begin in the spring and is awaiting a response.

Approval would mark a breakthrough in the treatment of cocaine addiction, which now mostly involves psychiatric counseling and 12-step programs. It presumably would be the final clinical hurdle before the vaccine -- more than a decade in the making -- might be approved for treatment. But one expert warns against expecting too much.

"Addiction vaccines are a promising advance, but it's unlikely any treatment in this field will work for everyone," said Dr. David Gorelick, a senior investigator at the National Institute on Drug Abuse. "Still, if they prove successful, they will give those working in drug addiction an important option."

link​

immune to coke, relapse with meth

immune to meth, relapse with methcat

immune to methcat, relapse with coffee

hey i think my original immunity to coke is starting to wear off man

 

[Mr. Pastorius]

Drug vaccine articles pop up every once in a while. Most common ones about cocaine and nicotine. The problem with all of them has been that people could simply take more of a drug and defeat them.

Good thing opiate vaccines aren't likely.

If they finally come out with a vaccine that fully works, a lot of ethical questions will arise...

can't do opiates even if it was possible. i am assuming that cocaine and nicotine are the targets of vaccines because they hold little medical value. Vaccinating someone against opiate or even amphetamines could threaten their life later if they are unable to receive medical treatment when they need it.

 

[Ham-milton]

I'm pretty certain that they wouldn't dare create a vaccine against amphetamines. They have too much similarity to neurotransmitters. It would be a really quick way to give someone parkinson's.

However, if they were able to, meth, amphetamine and cathinone derivatives would probably all fall prey.

I can't see it being *that* selective.

edit: pastorius- I don't know about you, but I can't think of a case where amphetamines not working would be capable "threatening" anyone's life.

And it would likely be possible to create an opiate vaccine that wouldn't cause a problem later on. Even assuming, say, a molecule varying 20% either way (Technically, that means nothing, but I think you know what I'm talking about), blocking morphine-type opiates and oids, you'd still have the fentanyl and pethidine types.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

bingalpaws and Ham-milton, it's all essentially a case of cost-benefit analysis. I agree with Ham that precluding the enjoyment of sex isn't in the same league as precluding the enjoyment of cocaine, because you'd find very few people for whom the costs of enjoying sex outweigh the benefits. It would even be difficult to argue that the society-wide elimination of sexual deviants and sex-related crime (or hell, even sex-related DRAMA!) would be the better of two evils. I bet a good ethical case COULD be made, however, for the benefits of removing cocaine or nicotine entirely from our human experience being the better option.

Nicotine is pure poison. Always was, always will be.

Cocaine does, however, have some important medical uses. It's a powerful local anaesthetic used expecially in dentistry. Many of its derivatives are used for pain relievers that are not habit forming and not classified legally as narcotics, such as lidocaine. Now, a cocaine vaccine might not destroy your body's sensitivity to these derivatives.

Which brings me to my next point. Cocaine is a fairly easy chemical to vaccinate against, because it's a fairly complicated molecule. Same with nicotine. Ketamine and LSD would also be easy drugs to vaccinate against, for the same reason. Amphetamines and alcohol, however, are very blunt tools due to how small and simple they are. Vaccinating against them would likely have some unintended and disastrous side effects. Alcohol is also problematic in that its active doses are so large (orders of magnitude higher than most psychoactive drugs), that I bet the body's immune system would be hard pressed to come up with enough antibodies to mop it all up. After this limit is exceeded and the body's immune resources thoroughly taxed, the person is able to get drunk, and the vaccine becomes nothing more than a crippling blow to the body's immune system. (If my medical knowledge is off here, feel free to correct me.)

Let's say all psychoactive drugs that have medical uses could potentially be replaced by ones that have no recreational potential. That's the holy grail of pharamacology: analgesics as effective, as easy and cheap to make, and as widely applicable as opiates, but without any recreational value. You may argue that that's biochemically impossible (many pharmacologists have), but that's not my point. My point is, if this were possible, would there still be an ethical incentive to keep psychoactive drugs with habituation potential fun?

qwe brings up an interesting point. When I was living in China and Taiwan, I wondered if the high rates of gambling addiction and other money-related vices had something to do with the void left by all the people NOT getting addicted to alcohol there. In a similar vein, I wonder if the cultural vices we associate with Arabs might be less prevalent if they had a religion and culture that didn't repress all alcohol use. I guess what I'm getting at is, is there a 'vice vaccuum' that needs to be filled by something? If so, shouldn't we as a society encourage it to be filled by the least harmful of vices?

For example, I'm a relatively heavy marijuana user. I've been known to 'sneak a toke' when I know that doing it openlyin front of people might raise some reservations or objections, and I feel fairly certain I won't have to do anything serious or interactive with sober people until I start coming down. Getting away with doing this on the sly gives me a kick, I'll admit. But before you judge me or remind me of how this could hurt my relationship with my fiancee, answer me this: would you rather I get this same kick by becoming a kleptomaniac? How about a serial cheater?

Lots to think about here.

 

[qwe]

can't do opiates even if it was possible. i am assuming that cocaine and nicotine are the targets of vaccines because they hold little medical value. Vaccinating someone against opiate or even amphetamines could threaten their life later if they are unable to receive medical treatment when they need it.

plus morphine is an endogenous compound so vaccinating against it could cause some problems

 

[bingalpaws]

that's what I'd call a straw man. Sex isn't the same, at least for the vast majority of us. For those few who become addicted and sex ruins their lives, it'd be a great thing. Sex doesn't hold the same addictive potential that cocaine does.

okay I see your point - although I guess I used sex because it has a much lower potential to be addictive in the worst of senses. Generally speaking, sex has a better risk/reward profile for its average participant than, say, snorting coke - or so I'd imagine anyways. I think I'm just trying to illustrate different potential 'vaccines' against things with varying risk/reward profiles to show that, imo of course, this isn't about risk/reward (for me and my kids when I have them), it's about choice. More in a second..

the arguments of crating vaccines for alcohol/sexual pleasure sure do raise an ethical question here. It seems that this vaccine is not a lifetime sentance if administered, but the next step scientifically would be to create a vaccine that would work for life. However we must remember that the drug companies are in it to make money therefore they want people to be dosing often. It is not profitable for them to "cure" any disease, therefore they make drugs that supres symptoms and try to sell as many doses as possible. food for thought

Generally speaking, and solely from bigpharma's eyes, yes. However, what of the government? I'll touch on a hypothetical in a second..

bingalpaws and Ham-milton, it's all essentially a case of cost-benefit analysis. I agree with Ham that precluding the enjoyment of sex isn't in the same league as precluding the enjoyment of cocaine, because you'd find very few people for whom the costs of enjoying sex outweigh the benefits. It would even be difficult to argue that the society-wide elimination of sexual deviants and sex-related crime (or hell, even sex-related DRAMA!) would be the better of two evils. I bet a good ethical case COULD be made, however, for the benefits of removing cocaine or nicotine entirely from our human experience being the better option.

Nicotine is pure poison. Always was, always will be.
Cocaine does, however, have some important medical uses. It's a powerful local anaesthetic used expecially in dentistry. Many of its derivatives are used for pain relievers that are not habit forming and not classified legally as narcotics, such as lidocaine. Now, a cocaine vaccine might not destroy your body's sensitivity to these derivatives.

Which brings me to my next point. Cocaine is a fairly easy chemical to vaccinate against, because it's a fairly complicated molecule. Same with nicotine. Ketamine and LSD would also be easy drugs to vaccinate against, for the same reason. Amphetamines and alcohol, however, are very blunt tools due to how small and simple they are. Vaccinating against them would likely have some unintended and disastrous side effects. Alcohol is also problematic in that its active doses are so large (orders of magnitude higher than most psychoactive drugs), that I bet the body's immune system would be hard pressed to come up with enough antibodies to mop it all up. After this limit is exceeded and the body's immune resources thoroughly taxed, the person is able to get drunk, and the vaccine becomes nothing more than a crippling blow to the body's immune system. (If my medical knowledge is off here, feel free to correct me.)

Let's say all psychoactive drugs that have medical uses could potentially be replaced by ones that have no recreational potential. That's the holy grail of pharamacology: analgesics as effective, as easy and cheap to make, and as widely applicable as opiates, but without any recreational value. You may argue that that's biochemically impossible (many pharmacologists have), but that's not my point. My point is, if this were possible, would there still be an ethical incentive to keep psychoactive drugs with habituation potential fun?

qwe brings up an interesting point. When I was living in China and Taiwan, I wondered if the high rates of gambling addiction and other money-related vices had something to do with the void left by all the people NOT getting addicted to alcohol there. In a similar vein, I wonder if the cultural vices we associate with Arabs might be less prevalent if they had a religion and culture that didn't repress all alcohol use. I guess what I'm getting at is, is there a 'vice vaccuum' that needs to be filled by something? If so, shouldn't we as a society encourage it to be filled by the least harmful of vices?

For example, I'm a relatively heavy marijuana user. I've been known to 'sneak a toke' when I know that doing it openlyin front of people might raise some reservations or objections, and I feel fairly certain I won't have to do anything serious or interactive with sober people until I start coming down. Getting away with doing this on the sly gives me a kick, I'll admit. But before you judge me or remind me of how this could hurt my relationship with my fiancee, answer me this: would you rather I get this same kick by becoming a kleptomaniac? How about a serial cheater?

Lots to think about here.

I'm not going to touch the 'get stoned or hit those pleasure centers another way' argument though I think I can see that being, at least partly, the case.

Re your first bolded/underlined passage, that's the scary part - how easy of a case could be made for such vaccinations were they not part of a hypothetical discussion.

Last night I was discussing this very idea with someone, but along more extreme lines. What if we assumed this was a lifetime vaccine, perfect safety profile, worked 100% of the time - and the gov pushed it onto parents of newborns? That'd be one hell of an easy sale to the average parent, can you think of the marketing? "You don't want your kid to have the potential to be a crackhead, do you?"

Taken further, what if they develop one for acid/mushrooms/etc. Again, same vaccination profile - safe, 100% effective, and lasts forever. I feel many parents would give a child this product as well.

Now, what about simply marijuana? I'd bet that many parents would never give their kid the pot vaccination. Unfortunately, I could, in this hypothetical where all drugs have a safe, 100% effective, forever lasting vaccine, see it being introduced as a *package* deal as opposed to individually. For example, "would you like your child to have the anti-addiction vaccine? No worries of him smoking crack, doing coke, smoking pot, tripping on acid, would you want to safeguard your child?".




I know that's all hypothetical but it's scary to see the potential with which these kinds of products could be rolled out. And the incentive is there - if people fighting the drug war really did mean to get rid of drugs, it would seem far more rational to develop immunity drugs to stop people from getting high, compared to trying to take down a crop here and there, or a cartel now and again. I have zero idea of the chemistry behind this type of vaccine, and am glad someone says this kind of thing has been kicked around before and it's still nowhere very far - because if you really think about it, it'd<drug vaccines of all flavors> have the potential to become a damn scary weapon in the drug war.

 

[bingalpaws]

(((further hypothetical, not too important. Given how I feel on this subject, I'd never ever let my kid have one of these shots. I'd imagine many here would feel the same, but let me ask you this. What if tomorrow there was a new recreational drug, some weird ass opiate. This opiate *barely* got you higher than heroin, I mean it did get you a little higher, but barely. No big difference. However, this new opiate happens to have 100X the side effect profile in terms of gi issues, overdose potential, etc. Also, it's got easily 100X the addiction profile of heroin. So it's really got nothing more recreational to offer than heroin, but a whole lot more negatives. And there's a vaccine specfically for this new opiate. And you have a kid - would you give the vaccine? )))

 

[phr]

I bet a good ethical case COULD be made, however, for the benefits of removing cocaine or nicotine entirely from our human experience being the better option.

Why? Because it's a harmful activity? Well, the same could be said about every preventable cause of death then. That ultimately be a huge mistake.

 

[Lola'sCola]

What about a vaccine against fast food to save the obese McDonald's addicts from death (and using up valuable medical resources while the rest of the normal people suffer long wait times and don't have access to life-saving equipment)?

Fuck, anything can become an addiction/obsession. Why don't these folks focus on finding the cure for cancer or AIDS, and stop pissing around with this nonsense?

 

[Ham-milton]

plus morphine is an endogenous compound so vaccinating against it could cause some problems

there's limited evidence for that, and even if it is, a vaccination against the tiny, tiny bit of morphine in your body certainly wouldn't cause a problem.

Blocking endorphins would be the only problem, and that's not gonna happen from blocking morphine-type opiates. Actually, considering how well people manage with naltrexone implants, I kinda doubt blocking mu-agonist opiopeptides would be a problem.