Defending the Truth

Yep, sure did. It sounds interesting, although:

1. It's not ready for FDA approval yet...

2. At this time, it's only addressing cocain addiction currently, although they hope in the future it may help with other addictions...

3. The claim is, it cuts down the 'high' from taking cocain, hoping that it'll wean people off that particular addiction...But it isn't designed to kill the crave for the drug, just reduce the drug of choice's high effectiveness?

So what is stopping someone from using more cocaine each time, to try and reach that goal of getting a high? The usual method of an addict is to do more of the chemical they are on, to get their high in the first place.

What's the figures for possible overdose by patients using this drug and overdosing from increased cocain use compared to more traditional handling of taking patients off of drug use?

Because it isn't the high that kills the addict, it's the chemical itself that's affecting the rest of the body of the addict that kills them...And if they are chasing a high from it's use...That means they very well could resort to using more to chase that high instead of weaning off.

I wonder if the vaccine can really be effective? I wonder if the doctor would tell the patient (or the drug abuser) if he or she is committed to being weaned off the drug? Or would the patient just fake it all, go for the vaccine, and still take cocaine. That would be a waste of time and money.

I sure wish the vaccine was ready to wean smokers like my two sisters. My older sister is 64 years old, and she still smoke. My younger sister is 51, and she also smokes. I don't smoke at all.

Reading the article, they are saying they don't expect the user to stop taking cocain right off. The goal is, that each time they do use after the series of vaccinations, is that the user will lose the desire to use the drug, thus slowly weaning themselves off on their own.

But IF the patient is like the typical user, many of them would just increase the amount of drug they use, to catch that high...And then you have the problem of overdose cases resulting, which is my concern...

So far, the article says they are just finishing with animal testing, and ready to move into human test studies, which they'll need to do many of those before they can get FDA approval?

Basically, at this stage it's a theory/hope, not a fact, that the drug will work in the manner they say it will. And they don't have any figures on what concerns me, the increase in drug use vs. losing intrest in the drug, to even know if their goal is reachable...Simply cause they haven't started that step yet in testing this particular vaccination.

And simutaneously, they're working on a nicotine version, but are a long way away of even applying it's use to any other chemical dependancy useages outside of cocain/cigerettes. So, since it's use is still years off for just those two applications, it's even further away in accessibility/workable useage in regards to other addictive application.

At this stage, it's a pipe dream. With no real guarentees that it'll be able to be used in the manner they hope it can be used.

I wonder if the vaccince makers had this in mind when they started testing the vaccine, a pipe dream? It might be useless anyway. You are right on.

I'm sure they are hoping/believing they can accomplish the use of this vaccination. But the reality is, even though it's use is a good concept, for every drug that meets FDA approval, a thousand fail.

And it isn't the idea that fails, but that the expectations themselves aren't possible of attaining safely at that time.

There's also the concern of what would be the vaccine interaction in regards to other medicinal chemicals? Would it affect the effectiveness of say...Pain meds for injuries/physical disablitites as well? Medicines that have addictive chemical in them, causing serious health problems in regards to heart conditions, diabetes, etc?

At this point, there's alot of maybe's and what if's. So pinning any hope on it's use is pre-mature at best at this stage of the game.

The tax payers pay one way or another for addicts. Court cost,time they spend in jail,narcotics officers,probation officers etc. I would rather see the tax money used to put addicts in a treatment facility instead of jail. A Counseler instead of a probation officer.

Agreed. But how long is it going to take the addicts to be totally committed to staying off the drug for the rest of their lives?

I have no idea but I think if the government stopped treating addicts like criminals and do what I suggested there would be a much higher percentage of addicts getting of off drugs and getting jobs.

I don't ever see it happening though because the government makes to much revenue from drugs just like they do tobacco and alcohol. Actually tobacco with nicotine is the most addictive drug in the world and the government allows it to be sold. They make billions in taxes from cigarettes then make billions when people get sick from it.

Yeah, and people would sue the tobacco companies for the harm caused by their own smoking. They should not be entitled to any damages.

BTW, welcome to the DTT.

I agree,there is a big warning label on the box. But it's still very harmful and it should be illegal.

Thank you for welcoming me!