The Cocaine Vaccine—For Control of the Masses?

by Heidi Stevenson

7 October 2009

As reported yesterday, an ineffective cocaine vaccine has been developed. In Orwellian Newspeak, the abject failure is being billed as a success. The real issue, though, is why. What's really going on?

Is it simply more profits for Big Pharma, or could it be plans for controlling the masses? If that sounds outrageous, then consider that the issue is being seriously discussed in high places. The terminology doesn't even try to evade the issue.

In "Bridging the Valley of Death",⁽²⁾ published by the journal, Life Sciences and Public Health, the ethics of using such vaccinations is discussed in reference to the cocaine vaccination:

...this potential physiological revolution has already prompted much discussion about the public health implications of vaccinating current or possibly future users.

U.S. government and public health officials in other countries might be able to contain the spread of cocaine contagion by inoculating parts of the general population.

Should TA-CD be considered in the standard childhood battery of measles, mumps, and rubella shots? Should it be administered to all adolescents? Or should it be limited to more deniable "at risk" groups, such as those arrested for drug use who are about to be released from prison?

As reported in the same Life Sciences and Public Health article, the National Academy of Sciences has produced a book, New Treatments for Addiction: Behavioral, Ethical, Legal, and Social Questions, on the subject of vaccinations for controlling behavior in drug use. That book discusses issues like making such vaccines permanent.

The World Health Organization (WHO), an arm of the United Nations, produced a book called Neuroscience of psychoactive substance use and dependence⁽²⁾. In it, immunotherapies (vaccines) for street drugs are discussed. In Chapter 7, "Ethical Issues in Neuroscience Research on Substance Dependence Treatment and Prevention", the book states:

The initial motive for developing these immunotherapies has been to reduce relapse to substance use in persons who have been treated for substance dependence (Fox, 1997). However, these immunotherapies could be administered to children and adolescents with the intention of reducing their likelihood of becoming dependent.

Chapter 7 then goes on to quote the "Declaration of Helsinki", the United Nations' statement of "ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects." After that, it goes on to discuss how these rules can be interpreted to allow the sort of testing they're advocating. For example, it declares:

The principle of beneficence therefore requires that an action produces benefits and that its benefits outweigh its burdens. In the context of biomedical research, this means that the benefits of the research to society should outweigh its risks to participants. [emphasis mine]

If this doesn't chill you to the bone, then I don't know what will. This is a clear statement that people can be used in medical research at great risk to themselves if those in power deem the potential benefit to everyone else to make that risk to the individual acceptable. Just how does this differ from the human experimentation that went on during Hitler's reign?

Funding of Drug Vaccine Research

The primary researcher, Dr. Thomas Korsten, has been involved and well-funded since the mid-nineties—in spite of poor outcomes. He and his wife have been provided with superb research facilities at Yale University School of Medicine and Baylor School of Medicine. Money for the research has been provided primarily by government agencies.

Ultimately, of course, a pharmaceutical company would sell the vaccines. The very inefficiency of these vaccines would assure their profitability. Since regular boosters—at this point anticipated as once every two months—would be necessary, a constant market would be available, a market that most likely would have no choice but to submit.

According to "Bridging the Valley of Death", Kosten has $3 million in grants from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) to study his cocaine vaccine, and he has received as much as $15 million since the 90s.

The company that holds the rights to the vaccine, Celtic Pharma, is based in Bermuda. (Note that the American government seems to have no concern for where the profits will ultimately go. They won't stay inside the United States, so the people won't even gain the benefit of taxes on those profits.) Exactly how much Celtic Pharma, or the previous chain of companies owning the vaccine that were bought out, provided in funding is unclear, though it appears that it's minor, primarily associated with providing the vaccine for studies.

Celtic Pharma sees its role primarily as pushing the vaccines through the approval process to "build build real value by driving them through the final stages of the approval process" and "achieve extraordinary returns for its investors by monetizing these important and innovative drugs." "Bridging the Valley of Death" refers to this as "a novel financial pathway".

Other Drug Vaccines

Although the cocaine vaccine is the one that's making headlines, it's not the only one being studied by Kosten. Nic-VAX, which is virtually the same as the cocaine vaccine, using a nicotine molecule in place of the cocaine molecule, has already been fast-tracked by the FDA. (American citizens might appreciate the fact that the money provided for its development comes from the federal stimulus program, which is supposed to provide money to stimulate the economy.) Other vaccines for different drugs, using exactly the same technique, are being developed.

Control of the Masses With Medicine

People's ability to choose the healthcare methods they wish are being severely impinged. Vitamins and natural products are under attack. These things that have always been available to anyone who chooses are being taken away under the guise of safety—of public protection. It's clear, though, that what's being protected is Big Pharma's profits. We're told that vitamins are terribly risky and we need to be protected from them. We're told that foodsare actually drugs if we dare to make health claims for them. Beware the Jewish mother bearing chicken soup!

Yet, the same governments are also forcing extremely dangerous drugs on us, ostensibly for our protection—but utterly without concern for the harm done. Fluoride is put in water and salt. Vaccines are forced on children. And now, we can look forward to drugs that control behavior. Where does it stop?

Share on Facebook