anon3c67

Vaccine may blunt effects of nicotine
Nichole Aksamit
Omaha World-Herald
August 11, 2003

Here's a bit of hope for smokers struggling to kick the habit: A
vaccine being tested by University of Nebraska Medical Center
researchers and others may blunt the effects of nicotine.

UNMC spokeswoman Vicky Cerino said the clinical trial is testing
NicVAX with smokers in Nebraska, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

According to the Web site of the Florida company that makes it, NicVAX
prompts the body's immune system to block nicotine from reaching the
brain, preventing the nicotine "rush" that may impede smokers' ability
to quit.

Added fitness benefit

Word to the fellas: Keeping fit as you age may help you avoid erectile
dysfunction.

As HealthDay reports, one of the largest studies of erectile
dysfunction in older men found that leading a healthy lifestyle may
counter the problem.

The study involved more than 30,000 men and appears in the August
issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.

It found that erectile dysfunction was common after age 50 and
worsened with age but was notably less common among men who exercised,
kept lean and didn't smoke. The problem showed up in healthy men about
10 years later than in unhealthy ones.

kyoteee

On 13 Aug 2003 16:47:25 -0600, anon3c67@nyx.nyx.net (Bruce Watson)

Is that why this article caught your eye, Bwucie?

steve o

I don't see how this drug could work in practical terms.
When a smoker goes 'cold turkey' they aren't getting nicotine to the brain
and they don't get that 'rush' anyway.
That still doesn't stop them from wanting to light up or remove the desire
to smoke, so how could NicVAX work?
What's the difference between preventing nicotine from reaching the brain by
blocking nicotine receptors chemically and going cold turkey?
In both cases, the desire to smoke would still be there and the smoker would
still be seeking that 'rush'.
Eventually, unless their desire to smoke is addressed, they would most
likely dump the NicVAX and return to smoking.
Quitting isn't just about preventing nicotine reaching the brain, more
importantly, it's about losing the desire to smoke.
Sooner or later, they might give up the NicVAX and go back to smoking to get
what they want.
The drug doesn't address the desire to smoke, it simply removes what the
smoker sees as a pleasure.
The other question of course, is whether or not the drug blocks nicotine
completely.
If someone using NicVAX was getting a small amount of nicotine, the chances
are they would increase their consumption to reach their own level of
dosage, just as low tar smokers tend to inhale deeper and longer..
OTOH, I suppose if someone is prepared to persist with the NicVAX, and could
keep nicotine from reaching the brain for long enough, eventually they might
lose the desire to smoke, but isn't that what people do anyway when they
make the decision to quit?
Why do we need a drug to do that?

moonbug

I dont get it either. Is one supposed to continue smoking while using
this drug? Because if not, then there is no need seeing there
wouldnt be any nicotine to block.

I have no idea how this drug is supposed to be used.

Sure, the desire would still be there.

Not necessarily. If NicVAX took away the physical 'needs', then the
smoker would be able to get rid of the mental 'needs' much easier.

I'd say its 50/50.

They might. Then again, they might not.

Yes, as does any drug method. It removes the physical 'need'. Which
is half the battle.


I dont think that would happen. I dont even think the prescription
would allow such a thing. As in, they wouldnt prescribe enough to the
smoker for the smoker to go ahead and increase the dosage.

But not everyone makes the decision to quit on their own. Meaning,
some decide to because they feel they can with assistance, such as
NicVAX.


We dont need. There is a lot of things in this world we dont need.
We use them because we can and they can be of help.

steve o

I have some difficulty accepting the whole idea and concept of a physical
'need'.(In relation to nicotine, that is.)
Of course, we have various physical needs, air, food, water, etc, without
which we would die, but there is is no physical need for nicotine, and the
human body is perfectly capable of functioning without it.
In fact it probably functions a little better in its absence.( I accept it
does not appear that way to someone who has recently quit, but the fact
remains that it does)
You didn't require or have a physical need for nicotine before you became a
smoker and in all likelihood, if you quit, I can guarantee you would have no
physical need for it at all.
I think the 'need' for tobacco is substantially a mental one, and therefore
the mental desire to smoke, rather than the physical, is the biggest
obstacle to quitting.
This begs the question as to whether any product designed to remove the
'physical' need can actually work.

moonbug

Physical needs arent just needs to survive. Its needs that your body
craves. If you're a regular smoker, your body becomes accustomed to
having nicotine and therefore craves for it, giving you the feeling
that you 'need' another cig. A persons body addicted to heroin has
GOT to have more or the body starts going through withdrawl symptoms
that the user ends up reacting upon.
We all have physical "needs" <eg> that we dont need to act on in order to survive.

Eventually. But the fact remains that the physical need is there.


So then you disagree with all those medical reports that cigarette
smoking is physically addicting?

If smoking is not physically addicting, then it wouldnt work. But
thats not what all those medical researches and the anti's say.

steve o

I agree, but the point is, the basic ones are, but even those physical basic
needs are controlled by the brain.
Certain physical needs are essential for a heathy human, but the only ones
we need for basic survival are food air and water.
The other 'needs' themselves can certainly involve physical activity and
certainly help to maintain a well balanced human (I'm thinking of ***, for
example) but they aren't basic physical needs which the body craves.
You won't die without *** and you won't die without nicotine. (you just
might think you're in hell instead)
There's a huge difference between satisfying the physical craving for food
and the mental craving for other things.
Your body simply cannot *crave* anything, only your mind can.
The mind reacts to certain chemical signals which drive that craving, but
the body doesn't crave in itself, it simply sends those signals which are
interpreted by the brain.
If you need food, your body sends signals to the brain, and if you don't
address those signals, you die.
A smoker subjecting themselves to certain chemical substances certainly
receives signals from their body.
It is the interpretation of those signals which are at fault.
For example, the natural feeling of hunger (driven by chemical reaction) are
often confused with a mental craving for nicotine.(ditto)
When a smoker quits, they don't require any extra food , but the feeling of
craving for nicotine and the feeling of craving for food are so similar in
nature as to be almost indistinguishable.
Fortunately, the body is able to correct itself and those feelings will go
away.
The natural craving for food still remains, though, and can also be
corrupted in other ways, but that's a whole different subject.
A smoker won't die if they don't smoke, they only think they will.
To put it in a nutshell, food is a physical need-there are also mental needs
for food, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is a simple basic
need, without which you can't function.

Your body certainly becomes accustomed to nicotine, and it's amazing what
the human body can actually become accustomed to.
Mine has certainly survived years of systematic abuse without too much
damage, however, it is only your mind which can crave.
That 'feeling' that you need another cig doesn't exist in your body, it
exists in your mind.
It's not a physical feeling.
I know there are ex smokers who will swear that there is physical pain
involved in quitting, and while I agree that it certainly feels like it, it
simply isn't the case.
Ask a recent quitter to point to the pain and they won't be able to.
It is simply mental anguish, which can certainly be interpreted as pain.
That mental anguish is a product of the mind , not the body.
When a long term smoker stops smoking, they do indeed feel many powerful
symptoms, but they are almost entirely mental, not physical. (restlessness,
agitation, lack of ability to concentrate, etc)
If there are any physical symptoms present, they are almost certainly a by-
product of the mental agitation involved. (sweating, headache etc)


But it is by having more of the drug that causes the withdrawal to return,
unless dosage is maintained.
Addictive drugs don't relieve withdrawal - they are the CAUSE of it.
This is where most of the confusion lies.
Most addictive drug users are totally convinced that drugs simply make the
feelings of withdrawal go away, withoiut ever considering that those
feelings wouldn't exist if they weren't putting the drug into their system
in the first place.
The withdrawal symptoms normally associated with heroin withdrawal are most
often described by addicts as similar to having the 'flu.
Nicotine withdrawal doesn't come close to that feeling.
Why does anyone need to react to the 'flu?
I've had it myself- most people simply wait for it to go away.
Even so, that reaction in the heroin addict isn't a result of *not* having
heroin, it's a result of heroin leaving the body.
The reaction, the muscle and joint aches, the feverishness, are a result of
the body clearing itself of contamination.
You might suffer from excessive mucous during the 'flu and you might also
run a high temperature.
The problem is, most people look upon these symptoms as the disease itself-
they aren't- they are actually part of the cure.
The function of mucous is to expel unwanted contaminants from the body and a
high blood temperature can actually assist to kill foreign contaminants in
the bloodstream.
Your body will always strive to clear contamination from itself, unless of
course, you persist in contaminating it ,in which case, it simply gives up
and accepts the situation.
Until of course, you do something about it.
As soon as you stop putting, for example, a toxic and carcinogenic substance
into your body , your body will react and start to heal itself.
When a smoker stops smoking, the body starts to do that, but unfortunately,
most smokers attribute that reaction to the lack of nicotine without
recognising it for what it actually is.
They simply think that having another cigarette will make that feeling go
away.
It will, but only temporarily.
When you are using the drug, it will always return.
If you stop completely, you will undergo physical 'withdrawal' as the body
starts to clear itself, but that physical withdrawal can only occur once and
nicotine does exit the body rapidly.The mental withdrawal, however, can in
some cases linger for years, long after nicotine and it's effects have
completely left the body.

In truth, the actual physical withdrawal from nicotine (and the 'physical'
feelings that accompany it are so small as to be almost negligible.
A slight, uncomfortable feeling due mostly to a chemical imbalance and the
body's attempts to rectify it.
The mental feelings, however, are almost completely overwhelming.
The physical aspect is easy to handle, it's not as severe as the effect of
withdrawal from heroin, but the curious thing is, the mental addiction to
nicotine can be even more powerful than the mental addiction to heroin.
Most successful heroin quitters find it almost impossible to quit nicotine.

Eventually. But the fact remains that the physical need is there.

I think you tried quitting once or twice, Moonbug.
What happened to you *physically* when you tried?


So then you disagree with all those medical reports that cigarette
smoking is physically addicting?

Hey!
You're not suggesting for one minute that the medical community are always
right, are you?
Of course I disagree.
I'm disputing the whole concept of physical addiction here.
What does the medical community offer to someone who wants to quit an
addictive drug like nicotine?
It goes something like this- you are mentally addicted to nicotine, when you
take it, it fuels that mental addiction and you require more.
Each and every cigarette doesn't take away the feeling of withdrawal, it
simply ensures that it happens again.
By continuing to smoke, you are simply delaying the inevitable.
Most doctors precribe what?
Nicotine patches.
Hey, wait a minute, isn't it nicotine that's causing you all of those
problems in the first place?
Where's the sense in that?
If I was addicted to heroin and asked the doctor to do something about it,
I'd be most surprised if he made me shoot up in the waiting room, but
effectively, with nicotine replacement therapy, that's what they do.

If smoking is not physically addicting, then it wouldnt work. But
thats not what all those medical researches and the anti's say.


Heh. I'm not your usual anti.

Steve...<always enjoys a good natter with an intelligent smoker like
Moonbug>

anon3c67

That's probably the point. Remove the "pleasure" (craving relief and
withdrawal prevention) and it doesn't make much sense to spend the
money for toxic chemicals to be ingested.

My understanding is that the vaccine produces antibodies that block
only about 40% of nicotine. I suppose a smoker could compensate
(just like they do with "light" cigarettes) but it's supposed
to be for smokers who are trying to quit but haven't come to
the realization that smoking is just an endless cycle with no
point but to make the tobacco companies richer. I guess the
researchers haven't gotten that either.

But unlike the "light" cigarette smoker who gets tired of
****ing expensive air, the vaccinated smoker can't get the
extra nicotine by going to full-strength cancer sticks.
He's got to huff and puff harder to get the desired effect.
Doing that long enough might amplify the nasty effects
of tobacco smoke. Aversion therapy, if you will.

Should a future vaccine be more effective, cigarettes would
have the effect of standing downwind from a campfire.
The tobacco industry would be dead.

moonbug

I agree. I just dont believe the ONLY physical needs a body gets are
the needs to survive.


I'm not so sure about that. Like I said in my heroin example: Its
not just in the mind. Peoples bodies litteraly go through withdrawl
symtoms. The shakes is just one example. Your mind doesnt give you
the shakes. Its your body. If you feed your body that drug, the
shakes go away.


Nah. I disagree. Well, I agree that the body sends signals to the
brain. But thats your body telling your brain it needs something. If
you're brain dead, your body would still be telling you that it needs
something but you just wouldnt know any different.


At least you might get a headache. <g>

At least in your imo. <g> After all, neither of us are doctors.

I highly disagree. I personally cant say that I have ever confused
hunger with nicotine. As a matter of fact, if I get hungry, and I
dont feel like eating, then I will light up a cig instead. Not
because I feel I need a cig. Just to get my mind off food.


I'd say they are similar but still different. If I were to quit, I'm
quite positive I would eat more. Not because I now have a craving for
food, but because I would be using food as a replacement.


Nonsense. I dont know any smoker that thinks they would die if they didnt smoke.


You're looking at it too cut and dry. In your mind, you're thinking
the only physical needs are those things needed to survive. Which is
simply not true.

Physical = of or relating to the body

Needs = 1. a lack of something requisite, desirable, or useful b :
a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an
organism (See, I stold ya! <g>)

2 : a condition requiring supply or relief


I hate throwing definitions out at one of my favorite non-smokers, but
what can I say. It was needed to make my point. :-)

It is. As I showed you above. But like I said in my previous post, I
personally would say its 50/50 physical/mental.


That surprises me. That one would say there is "pain" involved in
quitting. Perhaps they are just using the term 'pain'? I just cant
see quitting as painful (as in it hurts).


Of course not. Its not there as far as I know. Not "pain".


I'd agree with that. The 'pain' would be the mental part.

Your body does grow accustomed to certain drugs that if you dont have
them, it will react. Where there are other things the body doesnt
become accustomed to. Like THC. That is a mentally addicting substance.

Of course. Thats how it works and thats why its called "addicting".
You feed your body enough of it, that your body has to have it or it
will react in ways that are not pleasant. So we feed our body more to
get rid of that physical unpleasant feeling. Then when that feeling
returns, we feed the body more. Its a vicious cycle. <g>

There is no confusion. They are both correct. Of course the
addictive drug is the cause of the withdrawl. But it is that drug
that relieves the withdrawl too. Thats logical. After all, if you
get your body addicted to heroin, then cotton candy certainly isnt
going to take that withdrawl feeling away. Only more heroin will, or
a long period of time with out that drug will make those withdrawl
feelings fade til eventually they are gone.


Geesh Steve, I'm a smoker, are you calling me stupid? <g> I know
darn well those feelings wouldnt exist if I didnt smoke in the first
place. I think most, no matter what drug it is, knows that.

Huh? Can you elaborate because I have no idea what you mean by that.
And it doesnt sound right to me. :-)

React in what way?


Wait for it to go away before what? Before they take something for
it? Because if thats what you're saying, I'd be out to say most do
not sit and wait for it to go away. They try to take something to
ease the condition. At least I know I do. But I'm not afraid of
pills. I take something for the slightest headache.

I'm not going to dispute that because I dont know if thats true or not
and I'm not going to pretend I do know.

I dont think the body "gives up". That would be like saying each
organ has its own brain. Your body is going to do whats natural.
Each organ has its own function and that organ will continue to
perform its function to the best it can unless it gets destroyed. Its
doesnt "give up".


Of course. When it returns, they smoke another.


<ahem> So here you are saying there are physical conditions related
to quitting, but initially you said there wasnt. :-)

I can agree with that. My arguement was there is a "physical" need,
and now you agree. You must if you think there is a "physical" withdrawl. :-)


I'd be out to bet that is only because they feel the need to have
something to fall back on.

Ex: I know someone who NEVER smoked cigarettes. But did get addicted
to cocaine. He ended up going into a drug rehab in his 20's. Due to
his "physical withdrawl" feelings, he ended up taking up smoking in
place of the cocaine. He still smokes.


Nothing. I've never tried to quit. :-) Not yet. And honestly, if I
was to try, I dont think I would share it with anyone. Not even my hubby.


Oh. Ok. :-) I did not realize this.


It does take it away. Like you said earlier, just temporarily.

Perhaps they are trying to help you get rid of the mental part first
(which is what you say its all about)? Get rid of the mental part,
and the physical part should be easier. Just like if you get rid of
the physical part, the mental part would be easier. Hard to go after
both at once for most people (I'm assuming).


I'd agree with that. I dont even consider you one at all. And I'm
not your usual smoking poster. :-)

/blushes <you smooth talker you!>

Ditto.

alex w.

You forgot shelter.

body craves.

You are wrong.
The need to procreate is fundamental to humans. To every
living being, in fact (with the exception of some very odd moulds)

can.

What is the mind? Don't bother trying to answer that one,
scientists have been trying forever and they still don't
know.

What they do know, though, is that it is "created" in the
brain -- and hence is physical in origin. Your distinction
between mental and physical is lergely artificial and false.


To address any signal, it needs to be interpreted.

(leaving aside autonomous reactions)

That conclusion is still under debate in the scientific community.


You simplify.
It may well be that the addiction is largely mental, but
there is also a physical component. This is actually fairly well demonstrated.


body.

At least partly wrong.
Nicotine attaches itself to nerve receptors. These
receptors get habituated to a steady supply of this chemical
and will complain when it is withdrawn.

away.

That is a gross mischaracterisation. The 'flu is dangerous.
It kills. The influenza epidemic of 1919 killed more people
in six months than died in four years in the trenches of
World War I. The 'flu virus killed more Indians than all
the cowboys and American troops put together.

Similarly, heroin withdrawal is a serious matter and may be
life-threatening if not undertaken under medical supervision.


here.

And this is the point where you throw out the baby with the
bath-water.

to quit an


nicotine, when you

more.

withdrawal, it


inevitable.

all of those

something about it,

waiting room, but

what they do.

You'd be surprised? What do you think methadone treatment
is?