http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2009/cocaine-vaccine-cuts-drug.html (http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2009/cocaine-vaccine-cuts-drug.html)
QuoteSome patients given an experimental cocaine vaccine were able to substantially reduce their use of the drug, according to research funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
In the study, 115 cocaine-using patients enrolled in a methadone maintenance program were given either the vaccine or a placebo over a 12-week period, then tracked for another 12 weeks. Participants received relapse-prevention counseling and had their blood tested for the presence of cocaine; urine tests also were used to screen for cocaine and opiate use.
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."
"The results of this study represent a promising step toward an effective medical treatment for cocaine addiction," said NIDA Director Nora Volkow. "Provided that larger follow-up studies confirm its safety and efficacy, this vaccine would offer a valuable new approach to treating cocaine addiction, for which no FDA-approved medication is currently available."
This is pretty interesting. I wonder if this could be applied to other drugs.
"Too large to pass into the brain"?
Why am I suddenly thinking about mini-strokes?
Hurrah, this means I'll no longer catch cocaine during the winter!
Seriously though, that is pretty interesting. Combined with other forms of treatment, I can see it being effective. I mean, if its not working for you, and you have people who will help you deal with the problems of addiction, then that's going a long way towards helping them.
It bugs me that they are calling it a vaccine when there are no viruses involved. I guess they are right since it changes the immune system but it still sounds weird to me.
FUCK YOU MY MOM DIED FROM A VIRAL INFECTION OF SWINE-COCAINE!
Reminds me of the stuff we've been talking about in my molecular biology course.
Quote from: LMNO on October 07, 2009, 03:42:23 PM
"Too large to pass into the brain"?
Why am I suddenly thinking about mini-strokes?
Still on the molecular scale though, if I follow correctly. It's EASY for a molecule to be too big to cross the blood-brain barrier, yet still small enough to go through capillaries with ease.
I remember reading about cocaine-targeted antibodies I-don't-know-when. Interesting to see they're still at it.
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.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on October 31, 2009, 08:12:01 PM
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.
It's for addicts who want to quit but are having a hard time.
I wonder whether it affects cocaine based dental anesthetics. They'll probably have that covered anyway.
I wonder how long the vaccine lasts.
I also wonder how long before parents are getting their kids vaccinated for drug abuse.
Quote from: Nigel on October 31, 2009, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on October 31, 2009, 08:12:01 PM
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.
It's for addicts who want to quit but are having a hard time.
I know, but what it apparently does is simply making cocaine less effective.
So, what you can either do is simply take less to achieve the same effect.
Or you take the 'vaccine', and if you don 't have the willpower you're just going to use more cocaine to compensate for that it loses its effect and steal a car radio extra to finance this.
So unless I understand some part of this completely wrong, I'm really lost to how this could in any way be beneficial.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 07:42:37 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 31, 2009, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on October 31, 2009, 08:12:01 PM
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.
It's for addicts who want to quit but are having a hard time.
I know, but what it apparently does is simply making cocaine less effective.
So, what you can either do is simply take less to achieve the same effect.
Or you take the 'vaccine', and if you don 't have the willpower you're just going to use more cocaine to compensate for that it loses its effect and steal a car radio extra to finance this.
So unless I understand some part of this completely wrong, I'm really lost to how this could in any way be beneficial.
Drug addiction is more than just achieving the same neurotransmitter levels. Drug abuse is also about the environment in which you abuse, the sensory information involved in that. This is why giving suckers to nicotine addicts can be helpful because it gives them something to hold on to that simulates a cigarette.
A heavy coccaine user will keep taking coccaine likely, but a "vaccine" will wean them from the affect over time. Cold turkey has intense withdrawl symptoms.
And before you say it, no, they don't have that sort of self control.
Quote from: Kai on November 01, 2009, 12:49:14 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 07:42:37 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 31, 2009, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on October 31, 2009, 08:12:01 PM
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.
It's for addicts who want to quit but are having a hard time.
I know, but what it apparently does is simply making cocaine less effective.
So, what you can either do is simply take less to achieve the same effect.
Or you take the 'vaccine', and if you don 't have the willpower you're just going to use more cocaine to compensate for that it loses its effect and steal a car radio extra to finance this.
So unless I understand some part of this completely wrong, I'm really lost to how this could in any way be beneficial.
Drug addiction is more than just achieving the same neurotransmitter levels. Drug abuse is also about the environment in which you abuse, the sensory information involved in that. This is why giving suckers to nicotine addicts can be helpful because it gives them something to hold on to that simulates a cigarette.
A heavy coccaine user will keep taking coccaine likely, but a "vaccine" will wean them from the affect over time. Cold turkey has intense withdrawl symptoms.
And before you say it, no, they don't have that sort of self control.
Yeah, but nicotine patches are the logical inverse of this. Nicotine patches: You don't take the drug any more but you take some other thing that in reduced measure puts the effective substance in your system. The vaccine: You keep taking the drug but you take some other thing that reduces the effect of the effective substance in your system.
This thing should do the inverse of letting them quit, it makes them take
more of it. It's the same thing as that people start tot take more and more of it because after a while it loses its effect. Same with this stuff, it just makes it lose its effect.
Oh, good, a new pedant.
Do you know if this is the same thing as the TA-CD vaccine?
Quote from: Nigel on November 01, 2009, 03:55:47 PM
Oh, good, a new pedant.
Apparently the word "pedant" used to mean something positive, someone who used words with precision. Now all it means is an egotistical asshole with a perchance for correcting people.
Quote from: Kai on November 01, 2009, 07:20:07 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 01, 2009, 03:55:47 PM
Oh, good, a new pedant.
Apparently the word "pedant" used to mean something positive, someone who used words with precision. Now all it means is an egotistical asshole with a perchance for correcting people.
Did you mean penchant?
Yes. We need a new word, that also applies to people who
may be wrong about the matter anyways.
Smartass/wiseass comes to mind. "Pedanticunt", for those who prefer neologisms.
Quote from: Kai on November 01, 2009, 07:20:07 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 01, 2009, 03:55:47 PM
Oh, good, a new pedant.
Apparently the word "pedant" used to mean something positive, someone who used words with precision. Now all it means is an egotistical asshole with a perchance for correcting people.
It comes from Latin paedagogans, as paedagogue suggests it means 'teacher'. In Italian it got to mean teacher of any kind and not just to children, finally it got into English. Shakespear still used it with that sense. Later on it got to mean some one with a penchant for præcision and accuracy and correctness. Now a lot of people use it to mean 'arrogant snob', but in the end also apply it in the former sense because it's the difference of terrorist and freedom fighter any way.
nitpicker. Or quibbler.
Neither feel as good to say as CUNT.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 07:46:08 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 01, 2009, 07:20:07 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 01, 2009, 03:55:47 PM
Oh, good, a new pedant.
Apparently the word "pedant" used to mean something positive, someone who used words with precision. Now all it means is an egotistical asshole with a perchance for correcting people.
It comes from Latin paedagogans, as paedagogue suggests it means 'teacher'. In Italian it got to mean teacher of any kind and not just to children, finally it got into English. Shakespear still used it with that sense. Later on it got to mean some one with a penchant for præcision and accuracy and correctness. Now a lot of people use it to mean 'arrogant snob', but in the end also apply it in the former sense because it's the difference of terrorist and freedom fighter any way.
An arrogant snob. Like you.
Not so much "arrogant snob" as a person who quibbles over verbal details which are essentially insignificant to the discussion. A derailer.
Pedantic derailing is a pretty effective trolling strategy.
Quote from: Nigel on November 01, 2009, 07:54:28 PM
Not so much "arrogant snob" as a person who quibbles over verbal details which are essentially insignificant to the discussion. A derailer.
Pedantic derailing is a pretty effective trolling strategy.
A quibbling linguistic prescriptivist?
Pfah, 'details' do not exist, a lie made up by people to justify their own mental laziness.
Besides, last time checked, I didn't derail this Nigel, you did, I was quite on topic.
OOH! Can I be the topic? You can derail me anytime!
-toa,
wants someone to jack his threads
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 08:09:12 PM
Pfah, 'details' do not exist, a lie made up by people to justify their own mental laziness.
If you don't like it here, then why don't you
leave?Are you one of those ass-burgers?
Quote from: Kai on November 01, 2009, 08:21:02 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 08:09:12 PM
Pfah, 'details' do not exist, a lie made up by people to justify their own mental laziness.
If you don't like it here, then why don't you leave?
That's an amazing conclusion to make from my saying I don't believe in details.
I have to say I kind of like it here. Not all people seek people to agree with them you know, that's just boring.
QuoteAre you one of those ass-burgers?
Oh no, not at all, I do think I once got diagnosed schizoid personality disorder, the difference is more or less that aspies lack the ability to feel social rules and schizoids essentially are apathic to love, friendship, praise, criticism, unconcerned with though aware of how they appear et cetera. Your confusion is understandable as it kind of leads to the same thing in the end, noncompliance with social rules, the former for being unable to, the latter for having nothing to gain from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid#Diagnostic_criteria_.28DSM-IV-TR_.3D_301.20.29
It seriously exists as a 'disorder' is the stupid part. I am disordered for putting value on different things, amazing, I can still at some point see why asperger is a disorder because you lack an antenna in that case, you lack an ability, I can see why voting republican could be a disorder, why having children could be one, but this is really 'You like football, the rest likes tennis, you have a disorder.', it is like in no way compromising your life.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 08:29:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 01, 2009, 08:21:02 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 08:09:12 PM
Pfah, 'details' do not exist, a lie made up by people to justify their own mental laziness.
If you don't like it here, then why don't you leave?
That's an amazing conclusion to make from my saying I don't believe in details.
I have to say I kind of like it here. Not all people seek people to agree with them you know, that's just boring.
Arguing for the sake of arguing isn't 3rd or 4th C, its 2nd C. As the newbie you end up looking like an ass. Just saying.
QuoteAre you one of those ass-burgers?
Oh no, not at all, I do think I once got diagnosed schizoid personality disorder, the difference is more or less that aspies lack the ability to feel social rules and schizoids essentially are apathic to love, friendship, praise, criticism, unconcerned with though aware of how they appear et cetera. Your confusion is understandable as it kind of leads to the same thing in the end, noncompliance with social rules, the former for being unable to, the latter for having nothing to gain from it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizoid#Diagnostic_criteria_.28DSM-IV-TR_.3D_301.20.29
It seriously exists as a 'disorder' is the stupid part. I am disordered for putting value on different things, amazing, I can still at some point see why asperger is a disorder because you lack an antenna in that case, you lack an ability, I can see why voting republican could be a disorder, why having children could be one, but this is really 'You like football, the rest likes tennis, you have a disorder.', it is like in no way compromising your life.
[/quote]
Okay. So its a bullshit "disorder". In other words, you're just a self absorbed asshole. No medical explanation needed.
Quote from: Kai on November 01, 2009, 08:42:24 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 08:29:19 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 01, 2009, 08:21:02 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 08:09:12 PM
Pfah, 'details' do not exist, a lie made up by people to justify their own mental laziness.
If you don't like it here, then why don't you leave?
That's an amazing conclusion to make from my saying I don't believe in details.
I have to say I kind of like it here. Not all people seek people to agree with them you know, that's just boring.
Arguing for the sake of arguing isn't 3rd or 4th C, its 2nd C. As the newbie you end up looking like an ass. Just saying.
My image means more to me than my life, just lying.
Quote
Okay. So its a bullshit "disorder". In other words, you're just a self absorbed asshole. No medical explanation needed.
It's say, I don't agree with psychiatry and find most 'disorders' just lumping random symptoms together and giving it a fancy quasi-greek name. I have the symptoms but tonnes of people have at least one, I just have nine out of ten.
Self absorbed arsehole, nahh, I just really am neither pained if people hate me or feel content if they love me. You can't hit me or reward me? Interesting isn't it? You have no way to force me to be how you want me to be. People can make you bow and adjust by either calling you names or calling you cool, they can annoy you with such simple things as post resulting in you having to vent that with words you find 'curses'. If a person brings you bad news you have to take it back at that person. If some one attacks some work of art you made you feel it on a personal level, if some one insults your favourite bands you feel it and often even feel anger back at that person. You continually work on the mental level to sustain your own image of contention and your mind always tries to find justifications for why you are 'right' and others are 'wrong', if other kids don't like to play with you you feel lonely, if you don't have a partner enough you either start to doubt your 'self worth' (whatever that is) or you blame it on their taste.
God, your life must suck. But the good part is it also works in reverse for you. Dude, grow up, place less attention on how people say things and more on what they say, stop trying to find a shallow justification like 'arsehole' for your feelings and trying to justify your own self worth by cursing back at some one who hasn't even made a value judgement to any one to this point, admit they are irrational, take a beer and realize that it doesn't matter that they are. No one created you to be a rational being and you aren't, you and I are bestial, instinct driven creatures that are that way today because if their ancestors weren't they wouldn't exist. The only difference is that I do not prætent I'm not because my 'disorder' removes my motivation to have a 'self worth'.
Nao: cocaine vaccines, pm me or start a new topic if you think I'm so interesting.
And by making cocaine lose it's effect, it makes you stop wanting to take it.
Quote from: Suu on November 01, 2009, 09:37:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Suu on November 01, 2009, 09:37:28 PM
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.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 10:16:41 PM
Quote from: Suu on November 01, 2009, 09:37:28 PM
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.
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 01, 2009, 10:15:20 PM
Quote from: Suu on November 01, 2009, 09:37:28 PM
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?
Quote from: Nigel on October 31, 2009, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on October 31, 2009, 08:12:01 PM
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.
It's for addicts who want to quit but are having a hard time.
You have to remember that Morn considers herself above all other humans and their problems.
Which is funny, given that she's into lolicon and incest.
http://who.nihilarchitect.net/
Quote from: who.niarch.netMy dearest brother is a graphic artist and musician, whose interests include, in non-particular order, [quasi-]incestuous business with me - his most beloved sister -, linguistics, black ambient, lolicon, 'emo-black metal', writing rants about everything he hates (which is everything - Just for example: Shining-posers whose 'mission' is to lure their poser-followers into suicide, claiming to be 'suicidal black metal' and all that, while they play nothing but accessible doom metal and I'm basically trying to make the point here that the unfortunately incredibly small amount of people like my beloved brother are way too tr00 kvlt gr1mm for bands such as Shining with a clear production and a gay vocalist who seems to be wearing his handkerchief on his balding head all the time so no one will know that his skull is actually covered with scabs that make his head look like a rotting piece of fruit. Anyway. It's been stated obvious that DSBM will only be likeable for those like my brother with a production comparable to the lovely sound of a vacuum cleaner and free of Shining-kids), irritating his little ignorant sister with incredibly complex math formulas[sic], British English and cute little Asian girls. Currently he is working on several projects. æon nought can be described as cellar-like black ambient, with tortured screams and dreamy soundscapes. emotion:i:void is a DSBM and dark ambient project with samples in his own constructed language Rakharniadjirn. The last project I will mention here is also my personal favourite, Lajlia, a project mainly dealing with dreams and nightmares, childlike innocence and hopes. Most of his projects saw the light of day after he studied physics and mathematics for a year, and failed terribly because he is too awesome. His appearance as a dark figure in a black robe with long fingers sticking out of the sleeves might be somewhat intimidating (as for the long fingers: investigations on his DNA are still running. My brother may be a hybrid of some sort, crossed with a long-fingered alien that can play the piano virtuously and make mister Soerjadi wince) but in fact my brother is a highly sensitive person, [aptly able] to read your mood and emotions through a chat screen. Apart from his extremely high intelligence and numerous artistic abilities he also has a superb sense of humour and he is very talented in making fun of stereotypes. Bookings and reservations cannot be arranged.
ETA: "She" is a "He", which he lied about. Now he's trying to say that he really isn't into incest and lolicon. I'm sure he's not lying now, right? RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT?
Yay. Another predator of children.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 01, 2009, 10:30:07 PM
You have to remember that Morn considers herself above all other humans and their problems.
I've read part of the blog
trust me... she isn't
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 01, 2009, 10:41:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 01, 2009, 10:30:07 PM
You have to remember that Morn considers herself above all other humans and their problems.
I've read part of the blog
trust me... she isn't
He.
He thinks Volkert van der Graaf is just fascinating. Kim Jon Il, too. And Joe Stalin. And phallic symbols, which are everywhere, doncha know.
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.
Quotes Attaining high (≥43 µg/mL) IgG anticocaine antibody levels was associated with significantly reduced cocaine use, but only 38% of the vaccinated subjects attained these IgG levels and they had only 2 months of adequate cocaine blockade. Thus, we need improved vaccines and boosters.
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/10/1116
the article linked may have been more optimistic then let on
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 01, 2009, 10:46:42 PM
Quotes Attaining high (≥43 µg/mL) IgG anticocaine antibody levels was associated with significantly reduced cocaine use, but only 38% of the vaccinated subjects attained these IgG levels and they had only 2 months of adequate cocaine blockade. Thus, we need improved vaccines and boosters.
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/10/1116
the article linked may have been more optimistic then let on
I'm not surprised. I read a paper on essentially this topic years ago.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 01, 2009, 10:44:18 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 01, 2009, 10:41:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 01, 2009, 10:30:07 PM
You have to remember that Morn considers herself above all other humans and their problems.
I've read part of the blog
trust me... she isn't
He.
He thinks Volkert van der Graaf is just fascinating. Kim Jon Il, too. And Joe Stalin. And phallic symbols, which are everywhere, doncha know.
oh one of those
basically it's like a bad direct to video sequel,
same shit as before, just cheaper and less effective
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 01, 2009, 10:48:53 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 01, 2009, 10:44:18 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 01, 2009, 10:41:36 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 01, 2009, 10:30:07 PM
You have to remember that Morn considers herself above all other humans and their problems.
I've read part of the blog
trust me... she isn't
He.
He thinks Volkert van der Graaf is just fascinating. Kim Jon Il, too. And Joe Stalin. And phallic symbols, which are everywhere, doncha know.
oh one of those
basically it's like a bad direct to video sequel,
same shit as before, just cheaper and less effective
He also likes lolicon and banging his own sister. Bit of a freak, actually.
But definitely someone who has obviously earned the right to look down his nose at people who are having trouble kicking a cocaine addiction.
:lulz:
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 10:17:58 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 01, 2009, 10:15:20 PM
Quote from: Suu on November 01, 2009, 09:37:28 PM
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?
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!
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 01, 2009, 10:52:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 01, 2009, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 10:46:23 PM
What... happened.. here?
PEEDEE happened.
TGRR, where/how did you get the blog link or whatever?
Me and another have been doing a little digging, is all. The other one found it, the pedo (Morn) fessed up to it (in the intros thread), in fact is very proud of having the "courage" to post that he's fucking his sister and looking at pedo porn.
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 01, 2009, 10:50:56 PM
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.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 11:01:51 PM
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.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 11:01:51 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 01, 2009, 10:50:56 PM
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. Like, "DEA is watching YOU" suspicious.
The vaccination method has a longer effective lifespan, I think.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 11:01:51 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 01, 2009, 10:50:56 PM
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.
cause placebos by definition don't work, even if it makes you think it does, and yes even for addictions
I hope to fucking Buddha I don't have to explain this shit to you
cause I'm not going to
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 01, 2009, 11:03:26 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 11:01:51 PM
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...
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 01, 2009, 11:06:01 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 11:01:51 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 01, 2009, 10:50:56 PM
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.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 01, 2009, 11:07:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 01, 2009, 11:03:26 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 11:01:51 PM
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.
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 01, 2009, 11:10:07 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 01, 2009, 11:07:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 01, 2009, 11:03:26 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 11:01:51 PM
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.
:lulz:
The obvious reason I only lied to you of course.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 11:10:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 01, 2009, 11:10:07 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 01, 2009, 11:07:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 01, 2009, 11:03:26 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 11:01:51 PM
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.
:lulz:
The obvious reason I only lied to you of course.
Uh huh.
We're not talking WITH you right now, we're talking ABOUT you.
Try to keep up, pedo-boy.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 11:08:43 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 01, 2009, 11:06:01 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 11:01:51 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 01, 2009, 10:50:56 PM
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.
Also, on a tangent, I heard that methadone withdrawal is worse than heroin w/d.
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 01, 2009, 11:12:54 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 11:08:43 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 01, 2009, 11:06:01 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 11:01:51 PM
Quote from: yhnmzw on November 01, 2009, 10:50:56 PM
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.
Quoteon 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.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on October 31, 2009, 08:12:01 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: My Hat is a-RWHNd here somewhere on November 02, 2009, 02:06:57 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on October 31, 2009, 08:12:01 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 02, 2009, 02:19:32 PM
Quote from: My Hat is a-RWHNd here somewhere on November 02, 2009, 02:06:57 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on October 31, 2009, 08:12:01 PM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Umm, control group got a placebo. Did you even bother to read the article?
QuoteI 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.
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.
Quote from: My Hat is a-RWHNd here somewhere on November 02, 2009, 02:24:41 PMUmm, 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.
QuoteWell, 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.
THIS IS ABUSE! (http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm)
Quote from: rong on November 02, 2009, 02:38:49 PM
THIS IS ABUSE! (http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm)
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.
[img]http://www.smidgy.com/smidgy/images/2007/07/26/lol_cat_staringcontest.jpg/img]
That's kind of cute, it did take me effort to copy the link though.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 02, 2009, 02:29:43 PM
Quote from: My Hat is a-RWHNd here somewhere on November 02, 2009, 02:24:41 PMUmm, 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?
QuoteQuoteWell, 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.
They aren't studying drug therapy, they are studying the efficacy of a cocaine vaccine. It's not about it being better, it's about whether it works at all. And then it will be like any other prescription drug. It would be prescribed if it is best for the patient.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 02, 2009, 02:29:43 PM
Quote from: My Hat is a-RWHNd here somewhere on November 02, 2009, 02:24:41 PMUmm, 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.
QuoteWell, 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.
Well, if you bothered to even skim the article as an internet-aware human, you'd notice a link to a better source:
http://nida.nih.gov/newsroom/09/NR10-05.html
, wherein you would find this paragraph.
QuoteThis study included 115 patients from a methadone maintenance program who were randomly assigned to receive the anti-cocaine vaccine or a placebo (inactive) vaccine. Participants were recruited from a methadone maintenance program because their retention rates are substantially better than programs focused primarily on treatment for cocaine abuse. Participants in both groups received five vaccinations over a 12-week period and were followed for an additional 12 weeks. All participants also took part in weekly relapse-prevention therapy sessions with a trained substance abuse counselor, had their blood tested for antibodies to cocaine, and had their urine tested three times a week for the presence of opioids and cocaine.
Quote from: My Hat is a-RWHNd here somewhere on November 02, 2009, 03:14:28 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 02, 2009, 02:29:43 PM
Quote from: My Hat is a-RWHNd here somewhere on November 02, 2009, 02:24:41 PMUmm, 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.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 02, 2009, 02:29:43 PM
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 did you even read the article?
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 02, 2009, 03:19:22 PM
Quote from: My Hat is a-RWHNd here somewhere on November 02, 2009, 03:14:28 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 02, 2009, 02:29:43 PM
Quote from: My Hat is a-RWHNd here somewhere on November 02, 2009, 02:24:41 PMUmm, 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.
No, thats not what it said...
QuoteAttaining high (≥43 µg/mL) IgG anticocaine antibody levels was associated with significantly reduced cocaine use, but only 38% of the vaccinated subjects attained these IgG levels and they had only 2 months of adequate cocaine blockade. Thus, we need improved vaccines and boosters.
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/10/1116
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.
maybe if they had little anime girls in it or something you would have actually read the article
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 02, 2009, 03:38:23 PM
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.
can you get vaccinated against placebos?
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 02, 2009, 03:41:34 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 02, 2009, 03:38:23 PM
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.
Quote from: My Hat is a-RWHNd here somewhere on November 02, 2009, 03:48:51 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 02, 2009, 03:41:34 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 02, 2009, 03:38:23 PM
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.
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
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 02, 2009, 03:51:18 PM
Quote from: My Hat is a-RWHNd here somewhere on November 02, 2009, 03:48:51 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 02, 2009, 03:41:34 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 02, 2009, 03:38:23 PM
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.
so your going to get practice implications from where, your ass?
Im done with
idiot troll
I'll clean this thread up whenever the OP asks.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 02, 2009, 03:55:25 PM
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.
Silence for the first 10 seconds or so, but then the powerful, thunderous farts start. The volume of these rat-a-tat farts is incredible, along the lines of elk antlers clashing or a large tree cracking as it is felled. There are rumors (unconfirmed) that local police have recorded these airbeefs at 103db. Of course splattering sounds accompany these inhuman shit/air rumblings, and occasional a large volume of water/shit is heard to be splashed out on the floor. The end of the BM is usually about a 45-second high pitch whiner fart, followed by 4 or 5 successive powershit deposits. If you could put shit in those T-shirt cannons they use at sports arenas, and then shoot the shit into water at close range, then you could reproduce these splash sounds. BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM. You actually feel bad for the toilet after this. All the while TGRR sings Opera in response to exceptionally disgusting discharges. The end of the experience is a muffled rubbing sound as TGRR wipes with bath towels, and the occasional slapping sound as he swats the soiled towels against the bathroom wall, creating messes that populate Arizona lore regarding nightmare workplace restroom experiences.
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 02, 2009, 04:01:19 PM
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on November 02, 2009, 03:55:25 PM
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.
I've given you the answer twice or more times now but you apparently are unable to understand it. Is it better? Yes, for some. Just like any kind of treatment for anything. The nicotine patch works for some, for some it doesn't. The flu vaccine is going to be effective for some, for some it won't be effective.
See, this is the way life works. There is no silver bullet for anything. ANYTHING. Have you ever watched those adds for the Cervical Cancer vaccines? What do they say? It is only effective against, SOME, forms of cervical cancer, and even then, you might still get it. It's an option.
This study shows that this cocaine vaccine option is effective compared to a placebo. Does that mean if you prescribe the vaccine to every cocaine abuser it is going to work for all of them? No, of course not. But again, it is just one tool. This person will also be getting therapy and said therapist would obviously look for another option if the vaccine wasn't working.
So again, yes, it is effective for some people, but not all. But nothing, and I mean NOTHING in life works that way. This isn't a unique scenario.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 02, 2009, 03:58:38 PM
I'll clean this thread up whenever the OP asks.
Nah, it's okay. This is a teachable moment for Morton, or whatever his name is. He's gotta learn somehow.
Quote from: BAI on November 02, 2009, 10:55:33 PM
that's pretty cool RHWN.
But will it end up like methadone, replacing one addiction with another, or is it none addictive, like that shit that makes you throw up when you smoke?
Nonaddictive, but not suck.
Basically, it makes cocaine less effective in the user's body.
The hit that did this before the vaccine: :lol:
Now does this: :|
By whatever process, the vaccination seems to make it easier to keep quitting cocaine. My impression is that relapsing becomes less rewarding, so one relapse isn't a disaster anymore.
Wait... Moron was actually asking if the vaccine was more effective than giving a recovering addict a placebo and calling it cocaine?
Learn2Science.
you think he's dumb...
just wait until he knocks up his sister. Those kids are gonna set new records for stupidity.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the "incest" remark was just a hyperbole for being real close to her brother, in a non-sexual, trusted best-friend kind of way, or perhaps an "only you understand me" kind of way. I'm not sure if you zoomed in on that just to piss him off or not, but in the Netherlands it's kind of easier to joke about such matters and it doesn't really mean what it means.
The lolita thing is still disgusting, of course.
And he was an asshole in general. So whatever, he deserved it. Actually I don't really want to defend him, I actually just wonder if the "incest" bashing was to simply piss him off or whether you believed there was a grain of truth in it.
Quote from: Triple Zero on November 05, 2009, 02:40:06 PM
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the "incest" remark was just a hyperbole for being real close to her brother, in a non-sexual, trusted best-friend kind of way, or perhaps an "only you understand me" kind of way. I'm not sure if you zoomed in on that just to piss him off or not, but in the Netherlands it's kind of easier to joke about such matters and it doesn't really mean what it means.
The lolita thing is still disgusting, of course.
And he was an asshole in general. So whatever, he deserved it. Actually I don't really want to defend him, I actually just wonder if the "incest" bashing was to simply piss him off or whether you believed there was a grain of truth in it.
I didn't really consider it.
Point.
We can probably scrap this idea now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/04/AR2010010402752.html
QuoteThe vaccine, called TA-CD, shows promise but could also be dangerous; some of the addicts participating in a study of the vaccine started doing massive amounts of cocaine in hopes of overcoming its effects, according to Thomas R. Kosten, the lead researcher on the study, which was published in the Archives of General Psychiatry in October.
"After the vaccine, doing cocaine was a very disappointing experience for them," said Kosten, a professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.
Nobody overdosed, but some of them had 10 times more cocaine coursing through their systems than researchers had encountered before, according to Kosten. He said some of the addicts reported to researchers that they had gone broke buying cocaine from multiple drug dealers, hoping to find a variety that would get them high.
Doesn't make the drug invalid, like was discussed earlier you have to use the right treatment for the right person.
Still, it might be better to stick with the class of drugs that fuck with the addiction part instead of the getting high part unless something like this turns out to be really effective.
Hypothetically, (complete sci fi) if there was a vaccine that could vaccinate kids from the effects of cocaine if, or as a parent would you use it?
Personally I would say 100% No, BUT I do make most of my IRL decisions completely out of emotions, and if I was a parent I could totally see myself doing it.
Quote from: Thurnez Isa on January 09, 2010, 03:02:05 PM
Hypothetically, (complete sci fi) if there was a vaccine that could vaccinate kids from the effects of cocaine if, or as a parent would you use it?
Personally I would say 100% No, BUT I do make most of my IRL decisions completely out of emotions, and if I was a parent I could totally see myself doing it.
Certainly not! There are a lot of drugs used in the medical field, especially cocaine, that are incredibly useful in the right context, and I would be potentially putting my child's life or at least well-being at risk if I made it so that those drugs would have no effect on them. I know they gave me cocaine during my surgery... I don't know what for, but I assume it was the best and most economical drug for whatever it is they needed doing.
shit yeah, I'm'a go get me some surgery.
as far as being serious, cocaine is used surgically as a topical anesthetic.
basically, they give whatever part of you they're operating on a big fat gummer.
Quote from: Emerald City Hustle on January 10, 2010, 12:28:09 AM
as far as being serious, cocaine is used surgically as a topical anesthetic.
basically, they give whatever part of you they're operating on a big fat gummer.
Why would I need a topical anesthetic when I was already under general? :?
Also, LOL, they put cocaine up my nose!
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-01/cocaine-vaccine-leads-addicts-take-10-times-more-cocaine
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 01:52:48 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 01, 2009, 12:49:14 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on November 01, 2009, 07:42:37 AM
Quote from: Nigel on October 31, 2009, 09:22:32 PM
Quote from: MornTheOrator on October 31, 2009, 08:12:01 PM
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.
It's for addicts who want to quit but are having a hard time.
I know, but what it apparently does is simply making cocaine less effective.
So, what you can either do is simply take less to achieve the same effect.
Or you take the 'vaccine', and if you don 't have the willpower you're just going to use more cocaine to compensate for that it loses its effect and steal a car radio extra to finance this.
So unless I understand some part of this completely wrong, I'm really lost to how this could in any way be beneficial.
Drug addiction is more than just achieving the same neurotransmitter levels. Drug abuse is also about the environment in which you abuse, the sensory information involved in that. This is why giving suckers to nicotine addicts can be helpful because it gives them something to hold on to that simulates a cigarette.
A heavy coccaine user will keep taking coccaine likely, but a "vaccine" will wean them from the affect over time. Cold turkey has intense withdrawl symptoms.
And before you say it, no, they don't have that sort of self control.
Yeah, but nicotine patches are the logical inverse of this. Nicotine patches: You don't take the drug any more but you take some other thing that in reduced measure puts the effective substance in your system. The vaccine: You keep taking the drug but you take some other thing that reduces the effect of the effective substance in your system.
This thing should do the inverse of letting them quit, it makes them take more of it. It's the same thing as that people start tot take more and more of it because after a while it loses its effect. Same with this stuff, it just makes it lose its effect.
Nicotene patches have "Therapuetic" Nicotene in them. They just feed the same addiction, but use a different delivery method. :lol:
So why not just make some "Therepeutic" Cocaine?
Dude, are you being serious?
Quote from: Rumckle on May 14, 2010, 03:09:46 PM
Dude, are you being serious?
No, I was being cynical.
I guess I need to get my sarcasometer calibrated.
whether you were serious or not, it seems like a much better idea than the vaccine. One of the hardest parts about breaking an addiction cycle is the ritual involved. Kicking the physical addiction is hard enough, but kicking the rituals involved with the addiction is incredibly difficult as well. If you made a "cocaine patch", you remove the user's impetus to seek out the ritual as a precursor to delivery of the drug itself. No need to go through the cokehead social dance, the chopping and lining and/or cooking and rocking, and all that peripheral stuff that becomes an integral part of the experience. Purely based on my anecdotal and personal experience, I think it would be much easier to wean yourself off of a substance if you had already removed everything else associated with the use of that substance other than the delivery of the substance itself.
Quote from: Exit City Hustle on June 09, 2010, 04:17:06 PM
whether you were serious or not, it seems like a much better idea than the vaccine. One of the hardest parts about breaking an addiction cycle is the ritual involved. Kicking the physical addiction is hard enough, but kicking the rituals involved with the addiction is incredibly difficult as well. If you made a "cocaine patch", you remove the user's impetus to seek out the ritual as a precursor to delivery of the drug itself. No need to go through the cokehead social dance, the chopping and lining and/or cooking and rocking, and all that peripheral stuff that becomes an integral part of the experience. Purely based on my anecdotal and personal experience, I think it would be much easier to wean yourself off of a substance if you had already removed everything else associated with the use of that substance other than the delivery of the substance itself.
That seems likely to me as well, based on my personal observations.