New Nicotine Vaccine May Succeed Where Others Have Failed 178
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.
Why would you want this? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like Neuromancer .....
More importantly, this should really get the anti vaccers in a major huffy.
Re:Why would you want this? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Some of the nasty products of combustion may be contributing also. Vaporizing marijuana has a very different compared to smoking (burning) it. When marijuana is burned, Carbon dioxide, Carbon monoxide, benzene, toluene and naphthalene are produced. Some of these (or a combination thereof) contribute highly to the "couch lock" effect, which different users either prefer or dislike. When you vaporize marijuana, these compounds are not produced- a "couch lock" state is substantially more difficult to achie
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be in denial yourself. You have conflated the effect of nicotine delivered as cigarette smoke with the MAOI for the effects of just nicotine.
All of those claims for nicotine having devastating cardiovascular effects are actually the other components of cigarette smoke having devastating effects.
Denial (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That varies a lot. Some people go with crazy strong ejuice with a PV that resembles a fog machine and still have that initial transition difficulty.
But certainly, over time people generally settle on significantly less nicotine than they were comfortable with when they smoked. Often to the point where withdrawal effects become minimal to unnoticed.
Re: (Score:2)
The CDC is a very political organization. Google is your friend here. First look up "schizophrenia nicotine" There are far too many hits to post here.
Next up, search on "nicotine MAOI". Again, far too many hits to post here.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, nicotine probably isn't all sunshine and lolipops. Smoking is much worse. But it seems that the vaccine approach is probably not a good way to stop smoking. It may or may not affect a great many valuable drugs coming down the pipe. It certainly won't be pleasant for the patient (all that craving, no way to answer it).
Nicotine replacement isn't ideal, but it has the advantage of working without introducing new risks. It seems that in many cases, a less structured long term approach causes eventu
Re: (Score:2)
Dude - this is nicotine, not heroin or meth.
Going cold-turkey on cigarettes is nothing more than an annoyance for most folks who do so. This vaccine only means that once your body is rid of the cravings (anywhere from 3 days to a month), you won't want to return to it, since doing so wouldn't give you what you were seeking when you did fall off the wagon, so to speak. After a year, you don't want to bother anyway - at worst you'll occasionally dream of lighting one up, but then feel perhaps a little guilty
Re:Why would you want this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why would you want this? (Score:5, Informative)
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? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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.)
Re:Why would you want this? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Drugs I can see on some level because they make you feel really good when you use them.
Cigarettes however don't really have that going for them. In fact from what I understand, the first time somebody smokes is rather painful.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. And I HIGHLY advise not clicking on any links that relates to this. Goatse links are tasteful compared to the crap you get to see.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not doubt you either, I know people how have a hard time quitting. But I just can't let that "nicotine is as addictive as heroin" statement stand there. For two reasons. One, because there's people like me who can get very easily off it. And two, there are people like me who might think "hey, if heroin is just as easy to shake off, why not try it?"
I'm too old to fall for that, but... if I was like 25 years younger, maybe I'd be stupid enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I didn't make that statement. I made a statement saying that the withdraw can be opioid-like, and another saying that nicotine is one of the most addictive substances in existence. Let me clarify both, then.
The addictive level of a substance is not measured about how easy it is to quit, but about how easy it is to get addicted. I have no doubts quitting heroin is much harder.
Also, when I talk about withdraw being opioid-like, I'm speaking about it being possible (not mandatory or even the rule) to
Re: (Score:2)
It's very easy to say that. And of course you are correct that nobody forces them to smoke, snort or shoot (well, provided nobody really forces them to).
But few people do it because life's so great. We're living in a world that puts an incredible lot of pressure on people, and a lot of them cannot handle that. One can now of course take the position of "endure it or perish", but this attitude got us where we're now.
Why do we have drug addicts? Why do we have alcohol addicts? Because people think it's awesom
Re: (Score:3)
I was addicted to more than nicotine in cigarettes as nicotine replacement products only helped 1/2 my withdraw symptoms. Chantix got rid of my nausea, dizziness, and shaking. I only needed candy to get rid of the horrible taste in my mouth which only lasted 2 weeks. The memory problems took much longer but was worth it to no
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why would you want this? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Some of what you say is very true, but you are wrong the withdraw will be bad, and I mean BAD with all capitals. I also foresee some more subtleties to this treatment....The idea is to uncouple the reward mechanism from the stimulus (nicotine hits receptors and triggers a dopamine surge which is perceived as a reward) - no reward, you stop associating smoking with pleasure. Straightforward. The immune system should be capable of removing most of the nicotine and preventing any large response. So what can go wrong....well you're dealing with humans. So....
1. The withdraw will be swift and the worse possible cold-turkey (which, short of using medication is the best way to quit). You will not get relief with patch, gum, smoking, snuff, hanging out with other smokers to get a second hand hit, or chewing on a raw tobacco plant, etc. You might get some relief with buproprione [wikipedia.org] (considered a mild dopamine re-uptake inhibitor, but some controversy there) and probably more relief with varenicline(Chantix(tm)) [wikipedia.org] (which is a weak nicotine agonist). This withdraw may feed into #2. It is also conceivable that some people could hurt themselves by trying to smoke so much to get even a little relief, that they could wind up in the hospital with carbon monoxide poisoning or acute exacerbation of underlying pulmonary disease. The vaccine will reduce the reward, but will do nothing for the craving.
2. The effects of the vaccine may require boosters. So you would be required to go back to get them, otherwise you would likely loose the immune response and would again get a "reward" for smoking. This could lead to avoidance of the vaccine and relapse.
3. The tobacco industry will probably fight this tooth and nail. It won't be overt....no, they'll buy a few select individuals who will tank it via the FDA.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of what you say is very true, but you are wrong the withdraw will be bad, and I mean BAD with all capitals.
While I do grant that the withdraw will rarely be that BAD, it can be. Not only it happened to me, but there are other documented cases around, including some sort of scale for the level of addiction a given person has (mine was the highest).
But yeah, most cases won't be this bad, just like most cases won't be as simple as what happens to some people, that just quit and no big deal.
Re:Why would you want this? (Score:4, Insightful)
No you won't. It just seems that way because it's only been 3 years. I broke my 1-2 pack a day addiction about 15 years ago, and have been at the point where I can have one or two without getting out of control for about a decade. I don't anymore, since smoking is disgusting and makes you reek.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that vaccine sponsored by the tobacco industry?
People would continue to smoke (if they can't stop on their own), they would just not get their "kick" out of it. The logical consequence of this would probably be that they will smoke more rather than less, to overpower the "cleaning" ability of the vaccine.
In the end, expect some deaths from nicotine overdose.
Re: (Score:2)
By the time they smoked that much nicotine, they'd have long since died from an acute but sudden onset of emphysema like symptoms.
The immune system is going to be rendering the nicotine inert, so the first step would be having so much of it that you somehow managed to overcome the immune system entirely.
Re: Why would you want this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd still be an addict, just one who could never satisfy his cravings.
Yes, but eventually the cravings would be greatly reduced.
If I dropped a chain-smoker on a desert island for a year with everything they needed, but without any cigarettes, their first month would be hellish, but by the end of the year most of the nicotine cravings would be gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Better would be a vaccine that makes you feel really like shit when encountering nicotine.
Heroine vaccine? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
This is fine until you get terminal cancer and are in a REAL lot of pain, and then you find out that morphine won't do jack for you...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's horribly sexist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A person who got a heroine vaccine would be in for a world of suffering if they ever needed pain medication.
Re:Heroine vaccine? (Score:4, Funny)
heroine vaccine
Or needed a special woman to come save the day.
Re: (Score:2)
Required vaccine? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Required vaccine? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! I wish people would stop demonizing things like the measels! [slate.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well there's an angle I haven't seen before. What is alcohol then, like polio?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How has that worked out for 'the war on drugs'?
I personally do not smoke. I do not care for it. Either for or against. What I do care for is the hostile attitude most people take upon themselves to regulate others around them. I do not tolerate bullies. That is not freedom. That is being a jackass.
The mental gymnastics some people will go thru to make it look like they 'are saving the world' is quite a sight to behold.
Why not just admit the *real* reason. You do not like the smoke smell. So you will
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So do I. 50-odd cases in a year do not a massive healthcare crisis make.
Re: (Score:2)
no, but 10000 cases because of all the fuckwit anti-vaxers would be.
because vaccines have been so successful, people have forgotten how deadly and devastating diseases like mumps, measles, rubella, polio, smallpox and many others *were* - note that past tense, they were major killers now they're almost non-existant. however, they'd make a comeback if people stopped vaccinating against them.
the idiot population focuses on self-serving fake research like Wakefield's "vaccination leads to autism" bullshit and
Re: (Score:2)
Yes Yes Yes! =)
Don't forget flu vaccine though! People think of the flu as like a cold, but influenza is the eighth leading cause of death among all Americans!!!
It mostly kills older people (7th leading cause among them) and young people, who often are at high risk from the vaccine and can't take the vaccine!
The flu vaccine is a huge example of the need for herd immunity to protect these people. But no one thinks about their choice not to get a flu vaccine as literally being a matter of life and death for o
Re: (Score:2)
We don't demonise things that people do to themselves providing you don't affect others (the war on drugs being the obvious and arguably wrong exception). The problem is that these actions tend to leak out from the private life and have a negative effect on the public.
Alcohol? Great as long as you don't drive, don't urinate in public or start a drunken brawl.
Drugs? Great as long as you don't end up sitting in the ER on public dollars, or don't go on a lunatic stabbing rampage.
Smoke is probably the worst of
Re: (Score:2)
Alcohol? Great as long as you don't drive, don't urinate in public or start a drunken brawl.
Drugs? Great as long as you don't end up sitting in the ER on public dollars, or don't go on a lunatic stabbing rampage.
Smoke is probably the worst of the lot in terms of the number of people it affects. It smells foul (opinion) and it's bad for your health just being in the same room or general vicinity as someone who's doing it (fact).
Did you type that with a straight face? The sociological and economic impact from alcohol and drug abuse is so massive and ubiquitous it's pretty much impossible to be quantified.
What you are saying is: "I'm ok with these things when I remove the horrific aspects of them, but not with smoking."
There's like a million arrests per year for DUI (just the people who get caught), but let's focus on that terrible smoker doing things that you don't like.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You clearly didn't understand what I said.
People should be free to do what they want and we typically don't demonise them.
UNTIL they do something which has an effect on others in society. e.g. DUI.
If you want to drink yourself into misery, gamble away your life savings, and smoke yourself into a cancerous death then more power to you.
Just don't affect the people around you. That's the problem most smokers don't seem to get. Just because you like smoking doesn't mean everyone else in the restaurant should be
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Like countries? Cuba, Iran, and the DPRK (North Korea) have been demonized a lot. None of those countries are going to fly away to another planet and conquering them militarily is just as unlikely. Waiting for them to change is just as pointless as waiting for a spouse to change. Diplomacy is the only option, but when it comes time to open up a dialog and fix relations, there is a never-ending parade of assholes who do everything they can to sabatoge the process. It isn't their fault though, they have
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Canada the Tobacco, Liquor, and Gaming (Gambling) pays for our Free, Universal Health Care. Please don't do this to Canada.
Won't somebody please think of the children!
Re: (Score:3)
That's the problem with becoming dependant on a behavior that you want to prevent.
The same issue comes up with self-driving cars. What do you do about all the lost ticket revenue when you stop having traffic violations? How do police react when they lose the ability to use a traffic stop as an excuse to find drugs in cars?
How do you fund roads with a gas tax when cars become more fuel efficient and eventually switch to electricity (often generated at home with solar panels)?
Changes happen. Policies will
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem with becoming dependant on a behavior that you want to prevent.
I keep arguing for a flat tax to fund a Citizen's Dividend; while the Universal Basic Income guys largely want carbon taxes or wealth taxes, so as to not tax the poor. I tell them, what do you do when there is no longer an enormous gap between rich and poor? Tax the rich even more? What do you do when we switch to nuclear solar power? Let the poor starve? My system fails if and only if the entire economy fails: it skims a bit off the top of all income, and it doesn't matter who is receiving that inco
Re: (Score:2)
Downsize the department and let the cops that are let go do something productive.
Not harass as many people.
Use other taxes. Granted, all of these solutions may
Re: (Score:2)
Here in Canada the Tobacco, Liquor, and Gaming (Gambling) pays for our Free, Universal Health Care. Please don't do this to Canada.
The economics become complicated, doesn't it? The taxes from the industry pay for so much, even in the USA, to the point that I've heard of state budget crises as anti-smoking campaigns made serious headway. It became a vicious circle - they raised taxes to 'discourage smoking', enjoyed and became dependent upon the money coming in, then as total cigarettes sold dropped, they increased the taxes more to maintain revenue, which dropped cigarettes sold even more...
In addition I remember reading that
Re: (Score:2)
That's a pure myth - the health costs caused by the Tobacco and Alcohol exceeds the profit.
Re:Required vaccine? (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of the most interesting new research in psychiatry is the positive effects of nicotine on sufferers of schizophrenia. It is one of the few thinghs that can treat the negative symptoms of the disease and it is the only one that has no nasty side effects (as long as the delivery mechanism isn't smoking).
The vaccine sounds like a really bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
But hey dont listen to me...
Will do.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everybody who enjoys smoking is an addict, believe it or not. Some people just enjoy an occasional smoke. I'm one of them..
That what they all say. Doesn't make it true, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since there isn't enough evidence to disprove H0: A.C. is deluded and is actually addicted, I won't reject it.
Nicotine is great! (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Water is a pretty healthy addiction.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I'm one damn lucky SOB then. I didn't quit, I simply stopped smoking when it didn't "taste well" anymore. After over a decade of HEAVY smoking. No withdrawal, no craving, no nothing. The pack with the remaining sticks is still on the desk, ready to light them, though I'll probably throw them out soon, they sure ain't good anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
That's odd too. I do smell it now of course, but it's not revolting. I do enjoy the scent of a good cigar and I don't mind if someone is smoking next to me. I do want to wash my clothing soon, though, stale smoke is not really something I enjoy. But then again, it wasn't really something I enjoyed before either.
I did not turn into one of those fanatic anti-tobacco ex-smokers. My guess is this is due to me not wanting to smoke. IMO the main reason why so many of those that quit smoking become so vehemently a
Re:Nicotine is great! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Much of that addiction is due to MAO inhibitors you get along with the nicotine when you smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
Same for caffeine, you don't see people picketing Starbucks.
Re: (Score:2)
coffee doesn't lead to impotence errectile disfunction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I call them vapists.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Only if they are well trained little monkeys. The vapor doesn't tend to persist in the air like cigarette smoke does. It has none of the bad smell of cigarettes and very little nicotine is left on the exhale.
You sound like one of those people I used to use for my own amusement by holding an unlit cigarette just so I could watch you start coughing obnoxiously as a Pavlovian response.
Why not an antabuse style one? (Score:2)
Re:Why not an antabuse style one? (Score:5, Funny)
You like nausea, vomiting, cold chills and sweats?
Why not just go visit /b/?
I don't like any of it. I don't smoke. (Score:2)
Here's my problem with this (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
The notion that a human antibody can intercept (and neutralize) a foreign substance that quickly is highly questionable. (If not silly).
Are you suggesting that their test results are incorrect?
Re: (Score:2)
what the vaccine actually do? (Score:2)
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
Re:what the vaccine actually do? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Can somebody clarify? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Nicotine is one of the most toxic substances available to the average person. It makes you much more susceptible to various cancers, organ damage, neurological damage, and so on. Alcohol does the same when consumed in high quantities, but has almost no negative effects in moderate consumption.
Cigarettes also make you stink like shit.
Re: (Score:2)
It makes you much more susceptible to various cancers, organ damage, neurological damage, and so on.
Everything but the nicotine in the delivery method does that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's the latter.
In spite of evidence that ecigs and snus eliminate most if not all of the harmful effects of smoking, the American Lung Association has been strongly against them.
Spontaneous Quitting (Score:2)
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.
Stupid names (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I only read the journal abstract but it appears you're using personal definitions for those terms if you don't think it fits.
Well according to Wikipedia:
A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular disease. A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as foreign, destroy it, and keep a record of it, so that the immune system can more easily recognize and destroy any of these microorganisms that it later encounters.
So this is not a vaccine, unless you use a really lose (personal) interpretation of that definition to make it fit.
Re: (Score:2)
They're activating the immune system to attack nicotine. Sounds pretty vaccine-like to me.
It does (what, you expected me to read the summary before posting?). But there is nothing like a natural immunity to nicotine - in fact it works because it matches brain receptors that normally bind naturally to acetylcholine. It seems like a dangerous idea to mess around with a person's immune system that way. Autoimmune diseases are nasty, and many of them are deadly.
Re:Is there something wrong with me that .,.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Accepting help from other people or tools
Tools like computers and websites and the Internet.
Re: (Score:3)
Is there something wrong with me that I find this offensive?
Yes there is something wrong with you. You lack empathy and compassion.
(I'm not sure if you "chose" to lack these things or if they're a product of your upbringing, and so I don't know whether your logic would blame you for lacking them or not).
Thorny issue (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Aside from the crass pragmatists' "Well, I bet I can develop a drug that compensates for weakness of character and lack of willpower faster than most of the population can develop strength of character and lots of willpower..." Why does this bother you?
Is there evidence that people actually develop more willpower(rather than just smoking more) when these 'replacements' are available? If there isn't, surely reduction in smoking related mortality is a win regardless of willpower, and even if there is; exac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is that snakes tend to (in the case of actually dangerous snakebites, a dry strike is just a couple of puncture wounds) introduce a substantial amount of venom into the wou