![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Quintal on February 3, 2007, at 11:29:17
__________________________________________________
Anti-drug jabs given at birth
By GEORGE PASCOE-WATSON
Political Editor
February 02, 2007
BABIES could be vaccinated to stop them getting hooked on drugs and cigarettes under secret Downing Street plans. Newborns would be injected with brain-altering chemicals that would prevent them getting “high” on cocaine, heroin or tobacco.Details of the extraordinary proposal to stop the yearly £20BILLION cost of drug misuse are in a leaked Number Ten policy document seen by The Sun. The document, being considered by Blair’s working group on crime, talks of “immunotherapies” — developed in secret — to protect a generation. It says: “A young person could be immunised and the drugs would never reach or affect the brain. “Drug-related crimes could be reduced if vaccines can be successfully developed to reduce the craving. “Vaccinating against the effects of drugs appears to be possible, altering the way the body processes them to make them less euphoric or addictive.”
Scientists have already developed a drug called naltrexone that eases heroin withdrawal symptoms. A cocaine vaccine called TA-CD has also been developed, the paper says. It stimulates antibodies in the blood, which dampens the brain’s response to the drug. Ministers are also to crack down on drug dens using modern technology to scan the post for supplies. And helicopter cops will use new laser radar systems to test the air for chemicals used to make drugs.
Insisting on vaccinating babies against addiction would trigger a massive public backlash. Health ministers and doctors’ watchdog the General Medical Council have already objected.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007050497,00.html#nogo
__________________________________________________
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 3, 2007, at 12:13:31
In reply to Anti-drug jabs given at birth, posted by Quintal on February 3, 2007, at 11:29:17
But Q, m'dear, this is coming from the Sun -- not really know for its journalistic accuracy, but more known for its Page three girls! :o)
The Americans not familiar with the Sun can use Q's link and look for hmm 'Hottest new babes of 2007' or
'Wishing you a happy Nude Year'. hehehe.But still, I'd rather hope it wasn't true. It sounds awful! And very Orwellian. Yuck.
Posted by Phillipa on February 3, 2007, at 12:16:41
In reply to Re: Anti-drug jabs given at birth, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 3, 2007, at 12:13:31
I agree with Merri. Love Phillipa
Posted by Quintal on February 3, 2007, at 12:37:12
In reply to Re: Anti-drug jabs given at birth, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 3, 2007, at 12:13:31
>But Q, m'dear, this is coming from the Sun -- not really know for its journalistic accuracy, but more known for its Page three girls! :o)
I know ;-), I saw it in my dad's paper yesterday and looked it up online. It's almost funny, but I've heard this before elsewhere and some of the proles seem to be quite enthusiastic about the idea. Maybe if it's slowly drip fed to them they'll one day accept it? I'm sure there'll be grieving parents of young drug casualties like Leah Betts wheeled out to wring their hands - "How can we possibly let the societal cancer that is drug addiction claim more innocent lives when we have the means to cure it...........etc., etc., etc.,........"
I wonder if it's actually true? Operations are already taking place in some parts of the world to destroy the part of the addict's brain involved in pleasure and reward so they feel no benefit from drugs of abuse.
I wrote a response in the Sun's 'Have your say' discussion column with a correction on the naltrexone issue :-). Why can't they check basic facts like this before going to print?:
__________________________________________________
What would happen to these children if they ever develop a medical need for opiates - to control severe pain for example? Will they have no choice but to suffer? Likewise for cocaine and its analogues that are used as local anaesthetics. The endogenous opiate system is also implicated in mood; if the vaccine affects the brain's own endorphins there may be a risk of some people developing intractable depression as a side effect.
This is wrong. Thank goodness the British Medical Council has objected.
Drug addiction is first and foremost a personal problem with secondary ramifications for society at large. It is not a biomedical problem requiring prophylactic treatment, and I would refuse to submit my children for this reason.
The reference to naltrexone rankled somewhat; it does not ease Heroin withdrawal. It actually precipitates withdrawal symptoms in addicts because it prevents the Heroin binding to opiate receptors. Naltrexone is used to prevent relapse in the 'recovered' addict for this reason as the person cannot get 'high' from the opiate while naltrexone is bound to its site of action.
__________________________________________________
Q
Posted by linkadge on February 3, 2007, at 13:31:59
In reply to Re: Anti-drug jabs given at birth, posted by Quintal on February 3, 2007, at 12:37:12
>Operations are already taking place in some parts >of the world to destroy the part of the addict's >brain involved in pleasure and reward so they feel >no benefit from drugs of abuse.
Are you serious? Is this legal? I can't see this kind of operation not having collateral dammage on the capacity of an individual to experience pleasure.
In addition, how do we know such vaccines won't render the individual completely insensitive to regular pleasure? After all, we're dealing with the same thing, release of chemicals in the reward centres of the brain.
How does the vaccine know the difference between drug mediated pleasure response and natural pleasure response.
Just the thought of creating an individual somehow unable to experience a full range of human emotion scares me.
I think its a pretty dumb idea.
And what about drugs of abuse which are not only legal, but also considered the spice of life. Chocolate, caffine?
What happens if the individual is in love? Will they be sensitive to the natural release of the brain's endogenious amphetamine PEA?
And what about natural, possably healthy addictions? The high a person gets from exercise might be a strong motivator to keep in shape. An obese person who gets no reward from exercise would be less likely to sustain any exercise program.
I think the whole proposition is sick.
Its a person's God given right to get addicted to things.
Linkadge
Posted by NYCguy on February 3, 2007, at 15:18:00
In reply to Re: Anti-drug jabs given at birth, posted by linkadge on February 3, 2007, at 13:31:59
More garbage from the Bliar mafia. Good thing he's vowed not to quit until the entire UK is ruined. This is a horrible idea and a gross abuse of human rights.
Do not wait, Tony. LEAVE NOW!
Posted by Quintal on February 3, 2007, at 16:05:47
In reply to Re: Anti-drug jabs given at birth, posted by linkadge on February 3, 2007, at 13:31:59
>Are you serious? Is this legal? I can't see this kind of operation not having collateral dammage on the capacity of an individual to experience pleasure.
It does indeed leave the person unable to derive any sort of pleasure from life. Yes, it's legal - I think it's going on in Japan or China as an extreme treatment (punishment) for cocaine addicts.
Q
Posted by linkadge on February 3, 2007, at 17:04:57
In reply to Re: Anti-drug jabs given at birth » linkadge, posted by Quintal on February 3, 2007, at 16:05:47
Thats intenstly wrong.
Addiction is not exactly a persons fault.
How do you deal with the potential side effects.
Such and such a person is now perma-anhedonia.
Thats as stupid as cutting someones hands off for stealing. Sure they may not steal again, but they're not going to be able to provide for themselves.
Why don't they first work on perfecting a drug that is capable of shutting off addiction genes in people who have become addicted. Stuff like ibogaine research.
Since they havn't even perfected that, why on earth are they even thinking of testing
drugs that could do a lot more harm, and a lot less good, on a lot more innocent.Linkadge
Posted by Sebastian on February 3, 2007, at 20:17:51
In reply to Re: Anti-drug jabs given at birth, posted by Quintal on February 3, 2007, at 12:37:12
If you take out the part of the brain that gives you pleasure, will that get pleasure out of anything at all, besides drugs.
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 4, 2007, at 5:40:26
In reply to Re: Anti-drug jabs given at birth, posted by NYCguy on February 3, 2007, at 15:18:00
Whats wrong with Blair? I'm not a supporter by any means (he did away with student grants just as I was entering university - so I now have massives of student loans!). I'm just curious. Is he any different, do you think, than the Tories? I don't really know much to be honest.
Posted by NYCguy on February 4, 2007, at 14:01:51
In reply to Re: Anti-drug jabs given at birth » NYCguy, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 4, 2007, at 5:40:26
When I wrote that I had just spoken to my uncle who's all up in arms over this cash for honours scandal. I was a bit worked up. This isn't a board for politics, so I shouldn't have mentioned it. Sorry.
I don't favour the Tories, I just think nearly ten years is enough time in power for anyone. Some of the things accomplished by New Labour have been very welcome, but IMHO it's time for Brown to have a shot at being PM.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.