[Ibogaine] How many times does this guy repeat himself?

Matthew Shriver Matt at ITSupport.net
Thu Nov 15 20:11:05 EST 2007

This mention of randomized controlled trials reminds me of Richard Alpert
talking about the absurdity of double blind trials for acid back in the day.
You would have the control group saying "yeah I think I might feel
something" and the other groups saying "holy fucking shit I can't begin to
describe what is happening" and everybody knew who got the placebo and who
got the real deal.  And nevermind the fact that it would be inhumane to tell
someone going into withdrawal that you were going to give them something
that would help with the withdrawal and then give them a friggin sugar pill.
Seriously, it's ridiculous.


But even so, given that the most common and most accepted treatment for any
drug addiction is going to a "rehab" and "detoxing", I think anything even
remotely effective would have to fare better in a comparison of long term
abstinence.  The success rate for traditional rehabs is abysmally low.  I
think any serious comparison with ibogaine would demonstrate a huge
difference in efficacy and that difference alone would seem to suggest
ibogaine's value in this area.  And as far as cost effectiveness, even at an
ibogaine treatment facility you are looking at a much lower financial cost
then traditional rehab.  Given that rehab is the most common alternative, I
think it's a pretty weak case to argue against ibogaine's cost





From: ibogaine-bounces at mindvox.com [mailto:ibogaine-bounces at mindvox.com] On
Behalf Of Dana Beal
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 12:43 PM
To: The Ibogaine List <ibogaine at mindvox.com>
Subject: [Ibogaine] How many times does this guy repeat himself?


I think the thalidomide ref is a cheap shot. But what he's saying here is
pretty much in lockstep with John Morgan's position at the NORML formal.



Users Choice Major session: Ibogaine

Alex Wodak

Title: The lack of evidence for Ibogaine as a treatment for heroin

Since the tragic experience of thalidomide some decades ago, medicine has
been based firmly on scientific evidence. All interventions are assumed to
be ineffective, unsafe and cost-ineffective until proven otherwise. Harm
reduction is also based firmly on scientific evidence while conventional
drug policy relying heavily on supply control has a weak committment to
evidence. Theoretical justifications for interventions are of interest but
they are no substitute for rigorous scientific evidence of effectiveness,
safety and cost-effectiveness. For example, oral naltrexone has been
strongly advocated by critics of harm reduction as a treatment for heroin
dependence on the basis of attractive theory. However, empirical studies
showed that clearly naltrexone is ineffective, unsafe and cost-ineffective
as a treatment for heroin dependence. Published evidence for Ibogaine as a
treatment for heroin dependence is unimpressive. Persistent and sincere
advocacy for ibogaine is no substitute for rigorous evidence. 'Evidence'
means several rigorous scientific trials published in reputable
peer-reviewed scientific journals demonstrating major benefits consistently
and in the absence of unacceptable side effects. Evidence of effectiveness
preferably (but not necessarily) requires randomised controlled trials where
this is possible. 'Evidence' is not a strong theoretical rationale.
Advocates for Ibogaine and harm reduction clinicians and scientists will be
brought closer together when all agree that all prevention and treatment
interventions have to be based on rigorous scientific evidence of
effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness.


Any one care to pick this apart. You can't do it point by point, since he's
only saying the same thing over and over until he fills up 300 words. 


The are no randomized trials for medications used to treat acute opiate
withdrawal because of difficulty of eliciting a placebo effect in some one
who's kicking dope.


There are published studies, but I suspect Wodak has never read them. It is
also somewhat disingenuous to demand results from clinical trials after
lobbying against clinical trials, on the grounds that there's not enough
evidence to justify doing a clinical trial to begin with. That's the
position Morgan finds himself in. Does anyone know if Wodak is on record
discouraging ibo research--I mean, apart from telling the Iranians ibogaine
is full of shit?


Or maybe that was some one else from Australia.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mindvox.com/pipermail/ibogaine/attachments/20071115/bcf76684/attachment.html>

More information about the Ibogaine mailing list