Xenova, a UK-based pharmaceutical firm, is pioneering a radically different immunological approach that some say could win the War on Drugs.
Now in FDA Phase Two studies, vaccines against nicotine and cocaine, respectively, administered once, prevent the individual from ever getting a high
from these stimulants again.
The technological concept is brilliantly simple: attach a peptide to the stimulant molecule, inject this, and the vaccine triggers an immune response
that the stimulant per se is too small to cause. The antibodies thus formed become a permanent part of the individual's immune system. Any nicotine
(in one instance) or cocaine (in the other) consumed at a later date is immediately attacked and destroyed by the body's own defenses precisely as if
it were an invading pathogen. The result: never a high, ever again, from that substance.
The principle has been demonstrated succesfully for the case of heroin in ape subjects.
Informed sources comment that an amphetamine vaccine is under sevelopment.not_important - 22-6-2007 at 06:41
Given that several interviews with Gold include statements along the lines of
Quote:
The antibodies generally persist for about 6 months.
the "never again" sounds a bit of snake oil.
Just one more tool for the do-gooder nanny state to use against the individual. Don't get vaccinated and your name goes on the Do Not Hire list (like
the one the US wants to implement).
Given how close in structure several neurotransmitters are to recreational phenethyamines, there could be some interesting side effects.
And it's hardly going to solve everything. Heroin addicts have been known to reach a point where shooting saline solution, or just inserting the
needle without any injection, gives them a rush. Some people get off drugs just to take up some other addictive behaviour such as gambling, sex,
religion, or drinking.
Which brings up another point - ethanol; vaccinating against that should be interesting, seeing as one's own get makes it. And there's that old
standby that'll be really hard to ward against - CO2. Still remember the story Sasha told me about the grad student he enlightened regarding actions
and structures, after I'd mention the study in the `50s.Sauron - 22-6-2007 at 07:38
For close to a century we have had a tool against ethanol addiction, used in the treatment of diehard alcoholics, called Antabuse. It's actually an
industrial chemical used in the vulcanization of rubber. It was observed long ago that rubber plant workers who handled this compound, and who after
work had a drink, became violently ill. As I recall even the ethanol in after-shave or cologner, applied topically, is sufficient to induce serious
physiological reactions.
Antabuse alters the metabolism. So mechanistically, it is not at all similar to the proposed vaccines.
I did not and will not argue the merits of the vaccines, or the idea of the vaccines. I am sure they will have their proponents and their detractors.
I am sure there will be interesting and knotty issues having to do with state powers, medical-professional ethics, etc. As things stand I don't think
as matters stand that the government in USA can compel anyone to take a vaccine against their will. I just discussed the matter with an EU lawyer, and
he tells me that he things European governments would have a far easier time in compelling such vaccination at least in criminal cases. Back in the
US I think it is more likely to be coercive than complusory, like, if you flunk a piss test, it's take the vaccine "voluntarily" or face the dire
consequences of refusal.
Anyway until this is approved by FDA and on the market, this is all speculative. Isn't it?
As to side effects that is what Phase Three is supposed to sort out.
As for 6 months vs. permament, well, if the state can coerce or compel one to get one shot they can certainly coerce or compel one to come back to get
another shot at regular intervals like six months, or face the same music they would have faced if they had refused the first. Little difference from
things like home confinement with an electronic anklet that alarms the cops if you leave home. Go off the vaccine and you become a fugitive to be
hunted down by the Federal Marshalls Service, I mean no one wants Tommie Lee Jones on their case do they?
And it hardly requires a stretch of the imagination to consider that longer acting or even permenent caccines of this sort will be available in future
and may be already in development now.
[Edited on 22-6-2007 by Sauron]franklyn - 22-6-2007 at 14:10
Quote:
Originally posted by not_important
Given how close in structure several neurotransmitters are to recreational phenethyamines, there could be some interesting side effects.
Much as the permanent visual field psychotropic effects from heavy LSD use.
I love pharmaceutical companies always quick to cash in on any demonstrable
effect. First they market " hair growth " products that makes you flacid , then
they follow up with " male enhancement " products , so they got you coming
and going
.Pyridinium - 22-6-2007 at 21:38
Quote:
Originally posted by not_important
Don't get vaccinated and your name goes on the Do Not Hire list (like the one the US wants to implement).
Good point. That's always the way, isn't it. Instead of directly putting a gun to your head, they just make you An Offer You Can't Refuse.
Much as I would like to see the drug abuse problem of society "disappear", I do see the potential for another kind of abuse with this vaccine.
The rest of us "little guys" have to worry about liability if someone sets foot on our property and hurts himself, yet the big companies can inject
poorly-tested compounds directly into someone's veins and still have no liability worries! Something is not right with that.Sauron - 22-6-2007 at 23:02
That's a load of horseshit. I see absolutely no reason to conclude that the extremely lengthy and extraordinarily costly, insanely costly, US FDA
testing and approval process should be characterized as "poorly testing" anything. Failures of this process are few and far between and themselves
usually result in serious improvements in the process. How long ago was the thalidomide debacle? Damned near fifty years, that's how long, and FYI
thalidomide was not approved in the US. It was marketed elsewhere.
The thalidomide case does highlight the lengths to which US FDA will go to protect consumers. Thalidomide as it was sold was a racemate and it turns
out that one one of the enantiomers was teratogenic. This phenomenon has been observed with other racemates and now FDA has mandated that NO racemic
pharmaceutical compounds will be permitted. That is, ALL pharmaceuticals MUST be resolved and the enantiomers or diastereomers tested seperately. The
efficacious and nonharmful epimer ONLY will be allowed to be sold.
To say the least this has advanced the pharm industry's interest in preparative chiral HPLC by leaps and bounds...sparkgap - 23-6-2007 at 07:01
"Thalidomide as it was sold was a racemate and it turns out that one one of the enantiomers was teratogenic."
Sure, but you do know that thalidomide inverts inside the body, so no escaping the teratogenic effect there even if Chemie Grunenthal took the trouble
of resolving. That possibility also exists with the thalidomide congeners currently being used to treat autoimmune diseases, and not far off with
other drugs methinks. Hence, I find
"...NO racemic pharmaceutical compounds will be permitted."
to be rather unreasonable. Dilevalol as an example springs to mind.
As for FDA poorly testing drugs, I remember the examples of benoxaprofen, bromfenac, trovafloxacin and mibefradil.
sparky (~_~)Sauron - 23-6-2007 at 19:54
You can always point to isolated instances where unexpected or underanticipated side effects turned up in the general population. My point is that
these instances are few and far between, so the characterization "pporly tested" is innacurate and unfair.
Even in the cases you mention, the question needs to be asked: was the testing methoology fundamentally sound? Was prudent professional judgement
applies, or was their negligence or incompetence? Remove the benefit of your 20/20 hindsight and put yourself in the shoes of those who were the
architects of those testing programs.
I was not making a case for enantiomerically pure thalidomide. And few chiral pharmaceuticals are going to racemize in vivo.
I am not a particular fan of the US FDA, but I do regard the comments of brother pyridinium as overly harsh and inaccurate.EllisDTripp - 24-6-2007 at 15:49
So assuming that the opiate vaccine works as advertised, rendering one immune to the effects of opiates for the rest of your life, what happens when
you are injured in a car crash or something like that, and need to be given morphine or demerol in the ER? If you get no pain relief, can you then sue
the vaccine manufacturer for pain and suffering? Emotional Distress?Ozone - 24-6-2007 at 19:09
Neat science, but-
How long, do you suppose, will it be before you are required to have updated "vaccinations" prior to enrollment in University (already mandatory for
MMR, tetanus, meningitis, etc.)? How long after that until children are given something like this along with the required MMR/WC?
Being stripped of free will is a scary thing...which is why most fear prison.
O3Sauron - 24-6-2007 at 19:33
Why start at university level? Drug abuse is endemic (or worse) at junior high school age levels, and there the free will issue does not apply, the
choice is the parents' not the child's. I suspect that few parents would balk as such a vaccination, one that renders their child incapable of getting
stoned, any more than they object to other immunizations against childhood diseases.
Maybe the Medellin Cartel will buy a controlling interest in Xenova and quietly scuttle the vaccine project, who knows?
@EllisDTripp, the vaccine for heroin is specific for heoin. It does not destroy other opiates, opioids, or related analgesics. Your concern is
farfetched.
In general, while I am sure there are legitimate questions to be asked about this proposed vaccine, most of the ones raised so far in this thread are
either spurious or alarmist.
Speculating about imaginary side effects that putatively won't be caught in FDA trials, is one of the most telling speculations. Precisely what
quality controls does the illicit drug maker have in place? NONE. They just peddle whatever filth they like, contaminated with God knows what,
adulterated with God knows what at multiple distribution levels, and the hapless user then consumes - what?
Do we need to remind anyone here of what happened with the infamous super-demerol pandemic? How many people afflicted with permamnent irreversible
acute Parkinson's? Not a few dead. All because a polyabusing drug cook was incompetent, and didn't give a damn.
THAT is the sort of public health threat I prefer to worry about and NOT failures by the FDA and pharm industry.
[Edited on 25-6-2007 by Sauron]Twospoons - 24-6-2007 at 22:07
Isn't priming the immune system against a chemical essentially the same as inducing an allergy? If some poor bastard becomes allergic to nicotine,
they are going to end up in hospital every time some passerby lights up a cigarette. Like the nut-allergic kids who can't even be in the same room as
a peanut butter sandwich.
This is something that could easily go horribly wrong.Sauron - 24-6-2007 at 22:59
The short answer is NO, this vaccine does not create an allergy. If it did it would never have made it through Phase One FDA.Polverone - 25-6-2007 at 08:43
If this vaccine is so specific that it will trigger a response against diacetylated morphine but not morphine itself, it seems that there will be an
opportunity for enterprising drug suppliers to offer products just different enough to avoid the immune system response. Or the kids can just go to
town with prescription drugs -- I believe they're already the second most common way to get buzzed, apart from cannabis. Finally, I can imagine that
many parents would balk at this additional vaccination if it's not cheap enough -- just look at the people who don't want to pay for HPV
vaccination.Sauron - 25-6-2007 at 09:26
The notion that this would seriously be institutes as a quasimandatory requisite for scholastic admissions is IMO farfetched. In particular as long
as this is a twice a year thing, it's clumsy and costly. If and when it becomes a permanent one time event, maybe that will alter the equation.
I think it's much more likely to be employed on drug offenders as an alternative to incarceration, or an alternative or adjunct to rehab, both of
which are very costly and neither of which seems to work very well. Totally different set of economics, and other factors, than in the (IMO unlikely)
pre-emptive approach on the general population, be it students, workforce, whatever.
Incidentally the military are into this as a vaccination against OPAs.
And sure, abusers will find alternatives, inevitably. However, this will certainly screw the purveyors of the two major hard drugs, heroin and
cocaine. Those entire underground economies are based on the raw materials being naturally occuring alkaloids.MagicJigPipe - 13-12-2007 at 17:53
Whenever something is in demand whether it is illegal or not, someone will find a way to meet that demand. Governments do have somewhat of an
obligation to curtail drug abuse (most of the burden should lie on the individual drug user IMO), however, I believe the stance that the US Govt.
takes on drugs and their abuse is part of the reason the drug trade is so "dirty". Insane laws are forcing small time dealers to create lower quality
product (or mix in 99% crap) so the profit margin is enough to outweigh the risk of selling it.
If only there was a perfect system that would reduce drug abuse and at the same time make drugs more pure (at least without harmful impurities) for
the people that are inevitabley going to take them anyway. Nothing's perfect though.
No drug or vaccine should EVER be forced on someone by any means UNLESS not doing so poses an IMINENT danger to others (eg a vaccine for a deadly
virus) IMO. Whether it's the US or someone else we all know that SOMEONE will implement this EVENTUALLY. I just feel bad that my kids will be living
in such a society.JohnWW - 13-12-2007 at 22:57
Oh of course. If drugs were legal, it would destroy the lucrative black-market for them that is exploited by the Mafia (which buys its cocaine and
heroin from the CIA, which smuggles the stuff into the U$A to finance U$ Secret Government off-budget "black" projects) and other criminal gangs, and
thereby make them less available, not more available. The U$ Government would not, of course, want to destroy its source of funding of "black"
projects by legalizing the stuff.Sauron - 14-12-2007 at 04:48
To call your remarks bullshit, JohnWW, would be an insult to bovine manure, which at least serve a useful purpose in returning nitrogen to the soil.
