Replies

45Auto:

Oh, not the old Ibogaine con game again!

LadyDoc:

This is a new variation of an old lie.

I'd say there's a greater than 90% probability that you two are correct and that this stuff would not pan out - that either the results are exaggerated, or that there are side effects that would be unacceptable, or both.

But, I have two questions for both of you:

1. Do you favor at least finding out what the effects of ibogaine on addiction are? (In humans that is - the previous research cited by 45Auto was all on rats.)

After all, since it's never been tried on people except for this rather sensationalized incident reported in the article, it's at least remotely possible that in the right dosage, it could be an effective tool for treating addiction. So, in the interest of finding a way to deal with addition, you would be in favor of further research, right? Or if not, why not?

2. Let's just suppose that this stuff does pan out, and is effective in treating addiction, with side effects that were either minor or controllable. Would you have any object to its usage to treat addition, even though it would be a "short-cut" over full scale withdrawal? Or would you prefer for people to endure regular withdrawal?

I'm guessing from your other posts that the two of you would give completely different answers to these questions.

such "cure all" reports done by non scientific groups don't tend to pan out in scientific studies.

First they have to check if this causes brain or health damage. (LSD causes permenant changes in the PET scans of brains, for example, so it might be immoral to use it).

Second, you need to get informed consent.

Third, you need to take away all the cultism of the treatment.

Four, you try it on animals. Physical withdrawal symptoms can be measured. Does it really stop withdrawal symptoms?

Five, you do a controlled study. Probably overseas places with less ethical and legal (i.e. lawyers willing to sue) will try it first, and we will hear reports before we try it.

If then it works, then fine.

However, other hallucinogens didn't work. Neither did inhaling CO2, nor "withdrawal under anesthesia", or other fads in addiction.

And, as I mentioned, the withdrawal is not the major problem. it is the relapse rate, and the tendency of druggies to do poly pharmacy...

I'm all in favor of research with this drug or any other that might have some benefit. From what I already know about ibogaine, it is a long shot that it will ever have any long-term beneficial effects on the treatment of narcotic addiction. However, it would not hurt to accumulate some more hard data from controlled pharmacological studies, including a clinical trial, if toxicology data from animals demonstrates a margin of safety.

Mounting a Phase I clinical study in humans with ibogaine faces several hurdles: the drug is listed as a Schedule I controlled substance. Obtaining approval for study of those drugs would be very expensive and there are political/legal considerations which are even more formidable. I don't know if an IND (Investigational New Drug) application is on file with the FDA; if not, we are talking about a considerable amount of animal work (and money) which would be necessary in order to apply for and IND. A controlled Phase I human clinical trial would cost something in 7 figures to mount.