Messages

because its the same effect
"This is a drug that will make you better" - but of course the drug doesn't actually exist
"This is the drug that your addicted do and taking it here in smaller margins will make you better" - but of course the drug doesn't actually exist.

and they have studied cocaine placebos since the 70's and the still do study it
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1864767,00.html

it's a different treatment (Im not going to repeat with RWHN said so look back) ... and since they have been studying it for years now, and nothing has come of it, despite a couple of positive sounding news articles, I wouldn't be holding my breath on it
When you test treatments you don't test your treatment against someone elses treatment. You test it against your treatment, so you could try to falsify your hypothesis. \
No treatment is going to be 100 % effective so you have to a variety of ... Now Im repeating RWHN

I never claimed it wasn't effective and said that it was interesting. I just wanted to know if it was any better that what there already was. Because this treatment's processing is complex. And complex is often less effective, people often make high tech technologies for a lot of things where old things simply still work better for. Like that person that invented some kind of controlled laser demolition and his company went broke on it because no one was interested as dynamite still worked better.

I asked about two pages back if this was better than a placebo cocaine pill and gave been getting back unrelated answers since. I never said it wasn't effective, I just wanted to know if it was better than a placebo cocaine pill because the last option is a lot simpler to make.

[better]

It worked better then the placebo, or "was associated with significantly reduced cocaine use", but doing better then placebo is apparently not that hard, since "only 38% of the vaccinated subjects attained these IgG levels and they had only 2 months of adequate cocaine blockade", but since it actually works better then the placebo they "need improved vaccines and boosters," to create a vaccine that is ready for public use, and help the people in need of the vaccine and hopefully return the investment made by the backers on this research.

Sigh... it worked better than a placebo vaccine.

I wanted to know if it also works better than feeding then placebo cocaine, as I made clear ten times already.

The only difference between the two groups is that one vaccine is the cocaine vaccine and the other is not, it's a placebo.  Everything else is the same.  The results show what when the vaccine is the cocaine vaccine, there is a higher level of abstinence and clean urine readings.  Everything else is the same.  That is what is being studied, the impact the vaccine has on levels of abstinence.  It is really that simple.  

Yes, I know that. I don't question the research, I question the practical implication, as I said before, it's interesting on a scientific level, but probably not on a practical level because some older things probably work better. Like placebo cocain pills. Which is also a trick, you just give them fake cocain pills they think are real to let them abstain.

[better]

It worked better then the placebo, or "was associated with significantly reduced cocaine use", but doing better then placebo is apparently not that hard, since "only 38% of the vaccinated subjects attained these IgG levels and they had only 2 months of adequate cocaine blockade", but since it actually works better then the placebo they "need improved vaccines and boosters," to create a vaccine that is ready for public use, and help the people in need of the vaccine and hopefully return the investment made by the backers on this research.

Sigh... it worked better than a placebo vaccine.

I wanted to know if it also works better than feeding then placebo cocaine, as I made clear ten times already.

Umm, control group got a placebo.  Did you even bother to read the article?

Yeah, and as I said before, I want to know if they got a placebo of the drug, or a placebo cocaine pill + no drug.

I mean, the pill is to neutralize cocaine's effects, you can just as easily give them an inert pill and claim it's cocaine.

No.  Everyone in the experiment is a cocaine user.  Experimental AND Control.  The Experimental group is cocaine users who got the cocaine vaccine.  The Control group is cocaine users who got the placebo.  got it?

I didn't ask that. I asked if the placebo was a placebo cocaine pill or a placebo vaccine.

yhnmzw has answered my issue though, thank you, no, I didn't skim through it that properly.

So, there is still no proof that this 'vaccine' works better than either giving them underpowered cocaine, placebo cocaine or a classical chemical cocaine neutralized that does not use the human immune system but simply neutralizes cocaine on a chemical level.

That's kind of cute, it did take me effort to copy the link though.

THIS IS ABUSE!

I kind of liked Morn more than Dark Helmet, probably because a non speaking recurring extra having an episode dedicated to him and almost getting the last lines of the series is kind of unique.

Umm, control group got a placebo.  Did you even bother to read the article?

Yeah, and as I said before, I want to know if they got a placebo of the drug, or a placebo cocaine pill + no drug.

I mean, the pill is to neutralize cocaine's effects, you can just as easily give them an inert pill and claim it's cocaine.

Well, clearly the results state otherwise.  If this didn't work than there would be no statistically significant difference between the experiment group and the control group.  For some people, therapy works.  But there is a population of drug users who do need some kind of medical intervention. 

No, the article is vague about if the control group got another already established therapy (if so, which one?) or no therapy at all, a difference.

Of course it's going to be better than no therapy at all, I want to know if it's better than already established therapies.

[53 percent were abstinent more than half the time during the study period, compared to 23 percent of the control group.]

I'm trying deeply to find beneficial effect of this drug that seems to be a cocaine blocker that uses the immune system as a bypass that goes far beyond simply taking less cocaine, or taking no cocaine at all. Thus far I am bested by this problem of life.

Maybe one day.

The vaccine works by stimulating the immune system to create anti-cocaine antibodies that attach themselves to cocaine molecules in the blood, making them too large to pass into the brain. Researchers found that 38 percent of subjects were able to produce antibodies in sufficient amounts to block cocaine's effects, and of these, 53 percent were abstinent more than half the time during the study period, compared to 23 percent of the control group.

The high-antibody group also had more cocaine-free urine samples overall than those who received the placebo or generated lower levels of antibodies. "In this study immunization did not achieve complete abstinence from cocaine use," said lead researcher Thomas Kosten, M.D., of the Baylor College of Medicine. "Previous research has shown, however, that a reduction in use is associated with a significant improvement in cocaine abusers' social functioning and thus is therapeutically meaningful."

In other words, it isn't a silver bullet, nor is it being posited as one.  It is ONE tool to combat cocaine addiction, and obviously as evident by the numbers, it isn't for everyone.  Just as not everyone who quits smoking quits thanks to the patch. 

Yeah, but what is the 'control group', I assume the control group gets no therapy whatsoever here.

I mean, what happens if you pit it against another already established therapy for quitting? Maybe there are a view people out there to which this therapy is the optimal solution but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't.

1.  It's meant to be one available tool.  Its usefulness in fact depends on the addict's personality.  It's not just strange--it's lateral thinking!
2.  Can't be seen to give addicts the drug they need, not even a placebo.  Law, and all.  If it were that easy, there'd be little reason to quit!

Well, assuming that laws say you cannot lie about what you give people. Then you also have to tell them you give them a thing that lessens the effect of cocaine. You can also tell them 'this is a half strength cocaine pill', also, there are a lot of chemical substances known already that neutralize cocaine so you could also give them that.

I don't really see any advantage this new, though scientifically interesting, drug has on a practical level.

Why rely on the placebo effect only?  Claiming that you're delivering cocaine is probably pretty suspicious, too.

The vaccination method has a longer effective lifespan, I think.

Oh, no, I mean a placebo cocaine pill. You know an inert pill that looks like cocaine. Why go through all that trouble if you A: give them a cocaine pill. B: a thing that makes the cocaine pill less effective if you can also give them less effective or ineffective cocaine?

At least, I'm not completely sure how long cocaine stays in your system but it can't be extremely long since you have to keep retaking.

Look, if you're going to deal in inferior drugs, you're going to be supplanted by a dealer of average or better drugs.

I repeat, the DEA won't care if you have a cocaine-knockouter on hand, but you will have so many forms and audits if you routinely give out a cocaine or cocaine simulant.

I don't think I get you here.

on a tangent, I heard that methadone withdrawal is worse than heroin w/d.

Well, what I understood is that the function of heroin is about what happens if you get an orgasm, but then times a 100. Cocaine is a huge boost of how you feel at that point and can shift either way, also weed works like this and also Ritalin (which is chemically extremely similar to cocaine and cross-dependent) so I can imagine that your mind gets more dependent on the latter things than the former. Also because cocaine, like Ritalin, boosts the concentration and senses as a side effect, so if you're not feeling well you are going to see things you don't like. Which is also why people with schizophrenia or psychosis-potential people should never be given cocaine and often are advised against weed unless they are completely relaxed as it can induce a psychosis.

Or so I gathered, it's probably more complex than this.

I still deny that I fuck my sister of whatever, they got an extremely exaggerated piece of text she wrote that also claimed I came from Mars amongst other things and just picked those two out.

You also lied about what gender you are.

Why is that, Morn?  Were you trying to make yourself look less likely to be a predator?  Sorry, fucknuts, we don't have any little girls on this forum.

LIES

..Roger is a fairy princess...

But not a LITTLE fairy princess.

The obvious reason I only lied to you of course.

1.  It's meant to be one available tool.  Its usefulness in fact depends on the addict's personality.  It's not just strange--it's lateral thinking!
2.  Can't be seen to give addicts the drug they need, not even a placebo.  Law, and all.  If it were that easy, there'd be little reason to quit!

Well, assuming that laws say you cannot lie about what you give people. Then you also have to tell them you give them a thing that lessens the effect of cocaine. You can also tell them 'this is a half strength cocaine pill', also, there are a lot of chemical substances known already that neutralize cocaine so you could also give them that.

I don't really see any advantage this new, though scientifically interesting, drug has on a practical level.

Why rely on the placebo effect only?  Claiming that you're delivering cocaine is probably pretty suspicious, too.

The vaccination method has a longer effective lifespan, I think.

Oh, no, I mean a placebo cocaine pill. You know an inert pill that looks like cocaine. Why go through all that trouble if you A: give them a cocaine pill. B: a thing that makes the cocaine pill less effective if you can also give them less effective or ineffective cocaine?

At least, I'm not completely sure how long cocaine stays in your system but it can't be extremely long since you have to keep retaking.

1.  It's meant to be one available tool.  Its usefulness in fact depends on the addict's personality.  It's not just strange--it's lateral thinking!
2.  Can't be seen to give addicts the drug they need, not even a placebo.  Law, and all.  If it were that easy, there'd be little reason to quit!

Well, assuming that laws say you cannot lie about what you give people. Then you also have to tell them you give them a thing that lessens the effect of cocaine. You can also tell them 'this is a half strength cocaine pill', also, there are a lot of chemical substances known already that neutralize cocaine so you could also give them that.

I don't really see any advantage this new, though scientifically interesting, drug has on a practical level.

I still deny that I fuck my sister of whatever, they got an extremely exaggerated piece of text she wrote that also claimed I came from Mars amongst other things and just picked those two out.

What... happened.. here?

Oh well, let's get some popcorn shall we. Besides, Volkert is pretty fascinating and so is Kim Jong Il, you have to admit they grab your curiosity.

And by making cocaine lose it's effect, it makes you stop wanting to take it.

Sure, that's the basic thing about quitting an addiction, you build of slowly until you don't need it any more.

The catch is you need willpower to reduce it because it's hard. So, that's why most people don't quit.
The effect is also lessened by just taking less cocaine, the classic approach, also a lot cheaper, and people don't do that because they lack willpower and can't restrain themselves from taking the same amount. So if it loses its effect because of this so people that have the willpower to just take the same amount could just as well not take the drug and take less a lot cheaper on both fronts. Or they can't restrain thesmelves and they take more to compensate for the effect.

Also, because this thing apparently uses the human immune system.. I would find it plausible that the reason cocaine usually loses its effect over time is because of the human immune system, it could also be simply be that the receptors in your brain get dulled, I'm no immunologist. But if the former, it just speeds up the process of that drugs start to lose their effect after a while, which is seen as one of the dangerous factors because you keep needing more and more to achieve the same result so cost increases with time.

And by making cocaine lose it's effect, it makes you stop wanting to take it.

In light of intending to quit, any relapses in the regimen are less rewarding than expected.  While tolerance is effectively increased, the feeling of reward involved with taking the accustomed dose is so much below the slow leak of tolerance that the addict might actually keep quitting.

"This sucks.  Why did I want to do this again?"  Basically, it serves as a soft negative reinforcement.

That's an amazingly strange strategy because 1: you rely on individual psychology of people, not all people are going to think like that. 2: give them a placebo or at least less effective cocaine that looks the same?

And by making cocaine lose it's effect, it makes you stop wanting to take it.

Sure, that's the basic thing about quitting an addiction, you build of slowly until you don't need it any more.

The catch is you need willpower to reduce it because it's hard. So, that's why most people don't quit.
The effect is also lessened by just taking less cocaine, the classic approach, also a lot cheaper, and people don't do that because they lack willpower and can't restrain themselves from taking the same amount. So if it loses its effect because of this so people that have the willpower to just take the same amount could just as well not take the drug and take less a lot cheaper on both fronts. Or they can't restrain thesmelves and they take more to compensate for the effect.

Also, because this thing apparently uses the human immune system.. I would find it plausible that the reason cocaine usually loses its effect over time is because of the human immune system, it could also be simply be that the receptors in your brain get dulled, I'm no immunologist. But if the former, it just speeds up the process of that drugs start to lose their effect after a while, which is seen as one of the dangerous factors because you keep needing more and more to achieve the same result so cost increases with time.