[Ibogaine] Barcelona Ibogaine session setforInternationalHarmReduction Conference

Randy Faulconer bicuitboy714 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 12 07:17:28 EST 2008


       Very well said Nick. I think Alex will take another look at Ibogaine
after reading your letter. Thanx for standing up for what is right dude.

          Peace Love and Solidarity
               Randy

On Feb 12, 2008 6:45 AM, Nick Sandberg <nick227 at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>  Hi again Dana,
>
>
>
> Checking out a bit more, I see that there are 4 speakers and only one is
> skeptic. I've written to Alex and cc'ed to Gerry, the UK head of IHRA,
> saying I find it reprehensible that he compares ibogaine to thalidomide, but
> I would consider it fair to have one skeptic in discussions also. My mail
> copied below.
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
>
>
> Dear Alex,
>
>
>
> I wanted to get in touch with you as I was quite concerned by the précis
> of your proposed talk at the upcoming Barcelona Harm Reduction Conference,
> which I've copied below….
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> It seemed to me completely misrepresentative of the drug and I felt
> strongly to get in touch with you and try and see where you were actually
> coming from. I have been involved with ibogaine in the UK for the past 10
> years, running the website www.ibogaine.co.uk. I mention here that I do
> not sell ibogaine, I do not treat people, and I have no financial stake in
> the drug whatsoever. I set up and maintained the site for nearly a decade
> because I was concerned about the plight of addicts and saw first-hand just
> how incredible this treatment was. I am currently the manager of a leading
> new-age community in Dorset, England and I am trained and qualified as a
> Humaniversity Therapist, a humanistic psychology school that run a
> Therapeutic Community, working directly with addiction, based in Holland.
>
>
>
> Now, to be honest, I find the opening sentence of this précis to be
> utterly manipulative. I find it hard to believe that someone who had any
> concern for truth or for the treatment of addiction could make such a
> misleading comparison. If you have a strong argument it will stand up
> without resorting to such manipulative techniques. As to the argument
> itself, I find it only fair that, whilst making the statements you do, you
> also accurately articulate the means by which new drugs are assessed and
> come to the market. I say this because when this is done the truth of the
> situation becomes a great deal more clear. For sure, be sceptical. I've no
> problem with it, but please at least do some basic research and represent
> the points fairly.
>
>
>
> As point of fact, there have been proper scientific studies of ibogaine.
> They have given a preliminary demonstration of the drug's safety and
> efficacy. There certainly need to be more studies, but the issues that have
> blocked them taking place thus far are not related to the drug's
> effectiveness. The studies that have been done have taken place without the
> financial backing of the Pharm business. They have been financed by private
> money. Ibogaine has been so disregarded by the State and by the Pharm houses
> that it is, in my opinion, nothing short of miraculous that the work that
> has been carried out has happened at all. It has happened for the sole
> reason that the drug's effects are so positive and so stunning that people
> just get involved. In a political climate where big business effectively
> completely controls the development of new medications, that so much work
> *has* been done with ibogaine should be applauded, not subjected to
> manipulative sermonizing.
>
>
>
> Ibogaine is not going to go away. If it was it would have done so years
> ago. The reason for this is that it only takes one treatment for people to
> actually see for themselves just how remarkable this drug is. People get on
> board. They often just drop what they're doing and get on board. Dr Ken
> Alper, an associate professor of psychiatry at the NY School of Medicine,
> recently published an academic survey of clinical and non-clinical ibogaine
> treatments, covering many thousands of sessions. In the background there are
> more and more moves to bring psychoactives to the market. Clinical trials
> are currently going on with MDMA, LSD and Psilocybin. MAPS are financing
> more studies with ibogaine, again work which hasn't been sanctioned by big
> business. Ibogaine will get legal eventually. I have personally no doubt
> about this.
>
>
>
> I urge you to re-think your talk. For sure present the issues, but please
> do it fairly. It's awful to see people who are in theory trying to do good
> for addicts stoop to such manipulation, and absurd to think any good will
> come of it.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Nick Sandberg
>
> Thorngrove House, etc
>
>
>
>
>  -=[) ::::::: MindVox | Ibogaine | List Commands ::::::: (]=-
> (][%]  :: http://mindvox.com/mailman/listinfo/ibogaine ::  [%][)
>  -=[) :::: Change Account Settings :: [Un]Subscribe :::: (]=-
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mindvox.com/pipermail/ibogaine/attachments/20080212/190b0769/attachment.html>


More information about the Ibogaine mailing list