5 ms·
> Rather than activate the receptor, another drug called naltrexone blocks the receptor and can decrease cravings over time. Naltrexone is essentially a vaccin
by tcj_phx 9y ago
> Rather than activate the receptor, another drug called naltrexone blocks the receptor and can decrease cravings over time.
Naltrexone is essentially a vaccine against both opioids and and alcohol. My recovered-alcoholic friend found that Naltrexone eliminated her ability to consume large amounts of alcohol. But she drank "to make it all go away", and Naltrexone didn't provide any relief for her emotional problems. She took herself off Naltrexone and drank herself into a 2-year prison sentence for her 3rd DUI. She tried to stay sober after getting released, but was unsuccessful because of her anger at her ex-husband (which I somewhat helped her release).
Gabor Maté [0] says that virtually 100% of his most-hopeless drug addict patients had experienced "adverse childhood experiences".
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16023802 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16023802
Last month I met "Henry" - our mutual friend said he was trying to get off "Black" (black tar heroin). A while later Henry tagged along with us... Mutual friend disappeared for a bit. Henry told me how scared he was of Black... That he'd once gone to Mexico with his family, thought he took enough to get him through the week, but started to go into withdrawal at the end of the trip.
He also said how much he loves G (meth amphetamine), and that he'd tried to find some that day, but was unsuccessful. He then said, "A junky like me has to shoot something...", and said he'd used Black in the Taco Bell bathroom that afternoon, shortly before getting in my car.
I told him I thought my friend (whom I've mentioned here before) was predisposed to addiction on account of her being adopted. Henry immediately said that he was adopted -- that he was found in a dumpster at 4 months old, screaming his little heart out.
> But people struggling with addiction to cocaine or stimulants such as methamphetamine don’t have treatment options like these. They don’t exist.
I've read some studies that found that Naltrexone is also helpful for reducing people's stimulant use, and that the anti-psychotics (anti-dopamine drugs) cause people to use more cocaine/amphetamine.
Really there's no need for developing "vaccines" for "addictive drugs" - we have tools (naltrexone, the MAOIs, etc) that work well enough to address the reasons that people self-medicate with substances that cause long-term harm. Doctors just need to consider the full conditions of the person who can't limit their use of addictive substances to "recreation".
It would also help to stop teaching addicts to be helpless in jail.
This week I finally found the rest of a quote about 'feeling safe' that I've referenced for years [1]. Someone had asked about "ego" - the response was, "It's very important to develop an ego. When a person feels safe, the false-ego goes away."
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15024780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15024780
- hookdump 9y agoInteresting points. Something else I'd point out is that science often goes through the trouble of finding paliative solutions rather than developing a fundamental understanding of the root causes. If you don't tackle the root causes of addiction, they'll respawn identically or in the form of other addictions, in my opinion. Re. your quote about the ego, I didn't quite get its meaning. Can you elaborate on it?
- fake-name 9y agoI don't think any of the people involved in the science here want to be doing paliative solutions, but rather it's the best they can get funding for. It's much harder to fund "we have to completely rework our public health infrastructure" (in the US, at least), then "We can help save these lives in <insert relatively short timeframe>".
- tcj_phx 9y ago> I don't think any of the people involved in the science here want to be doing paliative solutions, but rather it's the best they can get funding for. Elisabeth Rosenthal wrote An American Sickness about this phenomenon. This essay is a good preview: How Economic Incentives have Created our Dysfunctional US Medical Market - https://medium.com/@RosenthalHealth/how-economic-incentives-have-created-our-dysfunctional-us-medical-market-b681c51d6436 https://medium.com/@RosenthalHealth/how-economic-incentives-...
- mattkrause 9y agoThe claim in that article--"a lifetime of treatment is preferable to a cure"--is bonkers. It might be true if there was only one pharma company, but surely most companies would prefer that you buy their one-time cure than become a lifetime customer of their competitors. Diabetes is a particularly bad example because an ungodly amount of time and money has been spent trying to protect, repair, or regrow beta cells. Despite this, we have made very little progress. However, Accu-Chek is not bribing researchers to tank their experiments in the hopes of selling more test strips. The problem is that biology is absurdly complex and messy. Plus, we have a nice counter-example. Until recently, patients with Hepatitis C were treated with a long course of interferon (6 months to a year), with relatively mixed results and fairly nasty side effects. About 50% of patients did not clear the virus, and needed liver transplants. In 2013-4, Gilead got approval for sofosbuvir, which needs to be taken for only 12 weeks, has a much higher cure rate, and more mild side effects. To be fair, it is eye-wateringly expensive, especially in the US, but that's one way to make 'cures' work.