Howard, Patrick, Nick and Lee (was: risk, therapy)

Vector Vector vector620022002 at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 11 06:34:40 EDT 2005


At least from what I've seen of their writing, Howard and Patrick are
both a little too blase' about human life (in my humble opinion) and
maybe they've both seen and done a lot more then me, so I don't mean
any disrespect to either of you with that comment, both of you know
there are deaths and mostly you don't seem to care too much, seen it
all, been there done that, whatever, <shrug> ;)

Your whole identity is vested in ibogaine, this is to Howard and you've
spent I don't even know how many decades working with it so this is
your right. Patrick you're more gifted at seeing all the sides,
presenting positive, negative and then ending up at do whatever you
want, those were the facts, I don't care what you do <shrug> ;) If
there was someone's photo in the dictionary when you looked up the
yin-yang symbol, it'd be yours. The symbol of chaos does work for you,
that's you. Nick Sandberg goes more out of his way to phrase what he
writes in a dramatic way but you're also not anywhere near being
hysterical and only present facts and give opinions. In a weird way all
three of you have a lot of common ground, Howard is over with positive
more often, Nick with negative more often and Patrick is manic
depressive and goes through the entire spectrum in every message ;) (no
disrespect either, you're the only person I know who can drop academia
speak, medical terms, words I need to look up, then go into prose and
litter it up with shit and fuck all in a few paragraphs :)

If Patrick's picture was under the yin-yang symbol, Lee if you looked
up the word "zealot" or added "ibogaine zealot" that's where your
picture would go.

To give you alot of respect you have calmed down a lot, stopped
preaching, started talking and turned into someone who's messages I
like to read during the last year. You're a different person then the
messianic loonie who first came here :) I don't know you but I like
you, you are obviously changing a lot and alot of respect to you for
all that.

You sound reasonable sometimes, but honestly I don't think it would
matter what facts or data anyone ever presented, that would make you
change your mind and stop dosing yourself with ibogaine 30 times a year
(or more for all I know). If there is a opposite of objective, that's
you. You need only load up your web site to make that obvious. I don't
see that as a problem, but just admit it, stop the denial and come out
and say "everyone should do ibogaine all the time! like me!" ;) 

Just say it, it'll set you free! :) You obviously feel that way :) and
maybe it's working for you! "<shrug>" ;)

.:vector:.

--- Lee Albert <myeboga at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Hi Nick,
>  
> I am trying to follow your argument so please forgive me if I am a
> bit slow on this.
>  
> 1. I submit there is no valid basis on which to currently state that
> ibogaine is more dangerous for drug users without significant body
> damage than for non drug users.
>  
> I agree when you add the words: "without significant body damage."
> That is why at least 99 out of a hundred drug users are not dying
> from taking ibogaine. But the fact is within the drug using community
> individuals with perhaps 20 years of H or whatever use have weakened
> systems due to poor diet etc. You cannot seriously think that someone
> who has lived a reasonably healthy life and does not have body damage
> is in the same risk group?
>  
> Ok. Lets rephrase matters then. Regardless of whether one is a drug
> user or not, one falls into the 1 in a 100 category if one has
> significant body damage. Do you agree with that or is your position
> that all deaths due to ibogaine are simply a matter of mystery?
>  
> You also state that noone knows why deaths occur exactly. Yet,
> whenever a case is raised and information comes through, as in the
> examples you put forward, out comes the info that either the person
> had congenital heart defects or was a long term drug user or
> whatever. 
>  
> How many cases do you know of that have been attributed to anything
> other than liver, vascular or heart disease? If the answer is zero in
> 20,000 or even 1 in 20,000 then I suggest you may not be representing
> matters in as fair a light as possible.
>  
> 2. You mean, create an arbitrary mental division with no basis in
> statistical reality through which they may be discounted? Lee, if you
> don't know WHY people are dying you can't create a meaningful
> context. 
> 
> So what you are saying here is that the autopsy's carried out are
> meaningless?
> 
> Nick don't get me wrong. I think its great you take such an extreme
> position as it focuses the debate. I just want to be sure of exactly
> how extreme your position is as i am struggling to represent the
> dangers of ibogaine use in my book rewrite as accurately as is
> possible withouyt allowing my own bias in, i.e. I would be happy to
> include some of what you write if I believed it were presented fairly
> but as yet I am not convinced.
>  
> 3. This whole "context" issue, which I assume is that of "drug users"
> against "non drug users," is purely an arbitrary mental division of
> the information available and one which is inevitably highly biased
> as the majority of recorded treatments have been carried out on drug
> users. Statistically, it is as weak as fuck. Thus, I ask, what
> compels individuals to assert that this is a valid criteria to
> distinguish ibogaine risk groups through? Inherent bias towards
> ibogaine, basically. OK, fair enough. Some people may have a
> considerable investment in believing ibogaine to be some wondrous
> healing balm, and will do pretty much anything to hold onto this
> belief in the face of rising evidence that there are significant
> risks involved. That's their issue. I like to think that I don't. 
> 
>  
> I am not sure you you are refering to here except to say that even
> you have to admit that the healing potential of ibogaine at times is
> startling and at other times lame. So its not about promoting false
> ideas of the dangers or safety of ibogaine. Its about saying: "hey,
> here is a potentially revolutionary drug which can work for some and
> not for others but be careful as it can be dangerous like all drugs.
> Look, here is a reasonable assessment of the risk." Thats the
> position i am trying to move towards. 
>  
> I have no ajenda whatsoever in people taking ibogaine even if it
> appears to the contrary. (Maybe I came across more zealously before.
> I am becoming more detached now with experience.) 
>  
> My interest is to help with information so people can make an
> informed choice and know that one exists and also to record whatever
> observations I can that may be of use. If anyone decides to take it I
> consider that a matter between themselves and whatever form of God
> they ascribe too. I certainly hope that noone takes it who is not
> meant to as that only drags it down.
>  
> BTW thanks for the discussion.
>  
> Lee
>  
>  
> Nick Sandberg <nick227 at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Albert [mailto:myeboga at yahoo.co.uk]
> Sent: 10 September 2005 11:45
> To: ibogaine at mindvox.com
> Subject: RE: [Ibogaine] risk, therapy
> 
> 
> HI Nick,
>  
> Thanks for your reply. Regarding low dose therapy my gut feeling is
> that for a normal healthy adult the risk is probably approaching
> zero. Personally I push the position to start low with ibogaine as
> the body grows accustomed to it and one can also judge ones reaction
> better. I also take the position that its an individual decision and
> nobody should push another towards it regardless of how positive an
> influence it may be in certain cases. It's definitely not for
> everyone and should not be for everyone.
>  
> Yet having said all that i recognise the huge potential ibogaine has
> for healing in conjunction with other modalities. Like aspirin or
> penicillin, there will be those who will have negative reactions
> leading to death. Yet society depends on these drugs and its the
> absence of ignorance that allows them to flourish.
>  
> Hence the reporting of risk should be carried out imo in as impartial
> a manner as possible. Otherwise newspapers etc will pick up any bias
> that suits their reporting and individuals will be left confused or
> misinformed.
>  
> With all due respect but I think your bias is evident. What harm does
> it do to expand your assessment of the dangers by putting it into
> more context?  
>  
> Hi Lee,
>  
> As I wrote in reply to Howard, the word "context" here is the same as
> "bias." I submit there is no valid basis on which to currently state
> that ibogaine is more dangerous for drug users without significant
> body damage than for non drug users. If you can point me to some I
> would be very happy to hear it. 
>  
> This whole "context" issue, which I assume is that of "drug users"
> against "non drug users," is purely an arbitrary mental division of
> the information available and one which is inevitably highly biased
> as the majority of recorded treatments have been carried out on drug
> users. Statistically, it is as weak as fuck. Thus, I ask, what
> compels individuals to assert that this is a valid criteria to
> distinguish ibogaine risk groups through? Inherent bias towards
> ibogaine, basically. OK, fair enough. Some people may have a
> considerable investment in believing ibogaine to be some wondrous
> healing balm, and will do pretty much anything to hold onto this
> belief in the face of rising evidence that there are significant
> risks involved. That's their issue. I like to think that I don't. 
>  
>  
> Is it that the lack of knowledge on these deaths that gives you the
> bumps? 
>  
> Yes, it is. Absolutely! If someone can explain just why some of these
> guys died it would certainly make me feel a lot happier about
> promoting ibogaine. As it is, I'm happy with 1 in a 100.
>  
>  
>  
> I recall the near death of H's brother in Holland, who required
> hospitalization, and S, in Germany, who died. I believed neither were
> using ibogaine for drug problems, though I haven't been able to get
> specific information here. There were rumours of health issues in the
> latter, as I recall, but I was told she cleared medical. I'm also
> still a little concerned about X in France, who seemed to disappear
> off the face of the internet earth after a second high ibogaine dose
> "for spiritual reasons." There are more rumours but, of course, who
> knows about these things.
>  
> 
> If so does anyone have any useful information to put these deaths
> into proper context? 
>  
> You mean, create an arbitrary mental division with no basis in
> statistical reality through which they may be discounted? Lee, if you
> don't know WHY people are dying you can't create a meaningful
> context. You can make guesses statistically through examining their
> backgrounds but to do this you finally also have to demonstrate that
> the context you come up with is equally valid for each side. In this
> case it means that you need the same or similar number of recorded
> treatments on both drug users and non drug users. You don't have
> this. You don't have anywhere near this. Thus, this whole "context"
> issue, I submit, is merely the mind trying to distance itself from
> the thought that.....actually, ibogaine is potentially really quite a
> dangerous drug. 
>  
>  
>  
> Don't get me wrong. Ibogaine deaths scare me also. I think its a huge
> responsibility to provide for people in a high risk group and I take
> my hat off to them. I am not sure I could do it. 
>  
> Again, this "high risk group" of yours has no statistical validity to
> it. It's a misapplied criteria.
>  
> Nick 
>  
> Nick, clearly there are dangers with ibogaine in the same way that
> there are dangers with all manner of things. That is why a potential
> user of ibogaine will seek imo to have as full and as complete
> knowledge as they can in order to find the safest route possible and
> to weigh up the odds of taking ibogaine vs the odds of surviving in
> their present lifestyle. Then an individual, if determined, can find
> their own way through the dangers rather than take pot luck. In that
> sense I applaud your more realistic assessment where it applies. 
>  
> Lee
> 
> Nick Sandberg <nick227 at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: HSLotsof at aol.com [mailto:HSLotsof at aol.com]
> Sent: 10 September 2005 05:40
> To: ibogaine at mindvox.com
> Subject: Re: [Ibogaine] risk, therapy
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 9/9/05 7:27:12 AM, nick227 at tiscali.co.uk writes:
> 
> 
> Thanks for mailing. It's nice to hear from you. Personally, I don't
> see a massive need to segregate druggies from non-druggies here
> because, as far as I'm aware, no one really knows why people
> sometimes die after taking ibogaine. More addicts have taken it than
> non-addicts but, especially with the mysterious cardiac problems, I
> haven't seen any evidence that the fact that they were or had been
> drug users was a factor in why they died. Tendencies towards liver
> problems for sure is higher among opiate-using groups but the main
> mysterious deaths were cardiac related. Drug users tend to take more
> ibogaine than "spiritual seekers" but, again, this doesn't introduce
> a factor which would indicate that drug users are inherently more at
> risk.
>  
> As I see it, most of the data is from people that take ibogaine for
> drug issues. Liver problems aside, this does not indicate to me that
> the drug is inherently more dangerous for drug users than non. There
> is simply a lack of data.
>  
> Personally, I try throughout my site to retain a relatively unbiased
> edge, one that is neither pro nor anti ibogaine. Probably I fail a
> fair bit here and there, but my intention is to approach the subject,
> one surrounded in much emotional furore, from a relatively unbiased
> perspective. I'm not interested in promoting ibogaine at the expense
> of genuine risk considerations. I'm not interested in re-wording
> something to make it more attractive.
>  
> When there's evidence that the cardiac related fatalities were either
> predictable in advance, or clearly related to someone's drug usage, I
> will happily change the wording.
>  
> 
> Hi Nick,
> 
> One reason for separating chemical dependent ibogaine treated
> subjects from non-chemical dependent ibogaine treated subjects us
> that there is an issue of all of the ibogaine related fatalities
> occurring with purified ibogaine or purified extract having occurred
> in either chemically dependent individuals or persons with cardiac
> disorders.  This sort of leaves the non-chemical dependent,
> non-cardiac disorder population out of the fatality chart.  
>  
> Hi Howard,
>  
> If I recall there were deaths associated with cardiac disorders not
> diagnosed until autopsy, despite some prior testing. I'm not 100%
> sure about this but to me it puts a different slant upon things if
> so. 
>  
> I'm also generally concerned that not enough is really known about
> why some of these guys died to say that prior drug use was even an
> issue. The non-chemical dependent, non-cardiac disorder population
> may be out of the fatality chart but, to me, this by no means implies
> that ibogaine is likely safe for non-addict non-cardiac people for
> the following reasons - (i) the majority of recorded studies were
> done on those with drug use issues, (ii) dosage levels for drug use
> issues are higher generally, and (iii) too little is known about why
> these guys died. 
>  
> If we had a lot of recorded treatments for those who didn't use
> ibogaine for drug issues I could move from this position, for sure.
>  
>  
>  
>  Not that they should be excluded from being at risk but, you do have
> to sort out different patient populations.  
>  
> Well, I find that you come from more of an "ibogaine proponent"
> position than myself. You can fiddle about with stats and get them to
> mean all sorts of things - to me this by no means implies that
> ibogaine is safe. Generally, I find that some list members, quite
> naturally, do have an emotional investment in believing ibogaine to
> be fundamentally safe. Whilst this is useful to counterbalance the
> negative vested interests of some medical establishment people, at a
> personal level I find I also have to really look and ask myself - Do
> I really believe this drug is safe? Is enough really known and aren't
> there plenty of warning signs?
>  
>  Of course I may be missing a few fatalities you are aware of that I
> am not.  
>  
> I recall the near death of H's brother in Holland, who required
> hospitalization, and S, in Germany, who died. I believed neither were
> using ibogaine for drug problems, though I haven't been able to get
> specific information here. There were rumours of health issues in the
> latter, as I recall, but I was told she cleared medical. I'm also
> still a little concerned about X in France, who seemed to disappear
> off the face of the internet earth after a second high ibogaine dose
> "for spiritual reasons." There are more rumours but, of course, who
> knows about these things.
>  
>   Additionally, chemical dependent substance use disorder patients
> have a higher mortality rate than the general population excluding
> any issue of ibogaine administration.
> 
> I was recently looking at the package insert for Neurontin, a drug
> proposed for pain management and anxiety control (off label) as well
> as, as an anti-seizure medication.  The fatality rate from a clinical
> 
> study described on the package insert is 11 in 2500 but, my numbers
> might be off and you can check that. And these were in a very watched
> clinical study.  All drugs have fatality related effects possibly
> excluding cannabis and the war on drugs group would certainly
> question that. 
>  
> Well, to be a little facetious, I wouldn't consider the FDA to be a
> useful body from whom to draw statistics on drug safety though I do
> appreciate that they are the legally appointed one. The drugs
> business is a racket. There is however a deeper issue here -
> Fundamentally, I take a personal position and write what I consider
> responsible on the basis of how I personally weigh up the information
> available. Mine is a personal website, it does not represent any
> other body. Thus, I can't really say that ibogaine is safe because a
> legally appointed body approves medications with similar fatality
> rates, if I don't believe it myself. And I don't.
>  
> Nick
>  
>  
> 
> I send persons seeking ibogaine therapy to your page because there is
> no way they can escape the fatality issue and I think patients should
> be informed of this issue.  You don't find this discussion of
> fatalities on Mash's treatment pages.  I DO think the ibogaine
> association deals with it. Anyway if anyone reads your page
> <ibogaine.co.uk> they have fair warning about ibogaine related
> fatalities.  Do remember that there are an average of over 100,000
> (one hundred thousand) drug related fatalities from FDA approved
> drugs in US hospitals every year. 
> 
> Howard 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace: A true story based on the use of eboga / ibogaine over
> a six year period. Includes section on the Eboga Healing Process:
> www.myeboga.com/amazinggrace.html.
> 
> 
> My Eboga: A website dedicated to practical guidance and spiritual
> interpretation of the eboga experience. Includes a mailing list for
> those already initiated: www.myeboga.com/network.html. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing Grace: A true story based on the use of eboga / ibogaine over
> a six year period. Includes section on the Eboga Healing Process:
> www.myeboga.com/amazinggrace.html.
> 
> 
> My Eboga: A website dedicated to practical guidance and spiritual
> interpretation of the eboga experience. Includes a mailing list for
> those already initiated: www.myeboga.com/network.html. 
> 
> 


	
		
______________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! for Good 
Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert 
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/shelter 




More information about the Ibogaine mailing list