[Ibogaine] Barcelona Ibogaine session setforInternationalHarmReduction Conference

Dana Beal dana at phantom.com
Wed Feb 13 09:55:34 EST 2008

How convenient. It's not about efficacy, or the deletion of the GDNF  
information. It's just Dana acting like a loon, again.

Even half dead from fatigue from the ride to New Orleans, I know way  
more about the science of ibogaine than Alex Wodak.

And you'll be happy to know Ken Alper's new powerpoint is so good,  
that I can cut my presentation in D.C. down to just the GDNF part.

If you attend, you're perfectly willing to ask me that question that  
leaves me stumped. But Ken's on the panel, so he'll just answer it.  
If he had been willing to go to New Orleans or Barcelona, there would  
be no need for me to have developed my presentation. But this trip to  
D.C. is a first for him. Previously he was unwilling to do anything  
outside New York City.

You're always free to organize your own ibogaine forum, and book any  
one you please. My bona fides are that I remember all the stages of  
the evolution of our understanding of ibogaine, and how to explain  
them terms lay folks can understand. If you don't want me on one of  
the panels of your conference, fine. Just don't put me on, and then  
kick me off.

I strongly suspect that Stijn, the INPUD organizer, was not the one  
behind the decision to put Wodak on the panel in the first place,  
just as my removal was not unrelated to the need of conference higher- 
ups to find a slot for Perez Alonso. There's only so much time in two  


On Feb 13, 2008, at 3:40 AM, Eric Madison wrote:

> I think there are two issues happening here. Alex Wodak's  
> presentation is heavily biased based only on his introductory  
> paragraph, I can't imagine it gets any better from there.
> The other issue is a personal one for you Dana. You got banned from  
> a panel you were previously part of. For some reason I don't think  
> that's because they couldn't handle the truth, its far more likely  
> that you really pissed someone off who then threw you off the panel  
> for acting like a loonie. Having you not present on a scientific  
> topic isn't something that makes the world a worse place.
> There are a lot of people associated with ibogaine who are neither  
> PHDs or MDs who do present on science (Howard Lotsof, Patrick  
> Kroupa, Jon Freedlander), but when listening to them speak I  
> believe they know what they're talking about. On the other end of  
> the board is you. Your "scientific" and "medical" presentations are  
> sloppy, borderline incoherent. If there is anybody in that audience  
> with even a basic scientific background and they question you about  
> anything you're talking about, you're dead. You're not going to be  
> able to give an answer that makes sense. I don't think this is  
> something the world needs to mourn. Your "scientific" presentations  
> are really not helping the ibogaine movement. Despite the fact that  
> you insist on booking yourself talking about science at all these  
> ibogaine conferences that you fund and despite the fact that all of  
> these HRC and DPA panels run by Lotsof or Kroupa, place you on them  
> and then let you talk about god knows what, it doesn't make you an  
> effective speaker on scientific or medical aspects of ibogaine.
> I remember you from the HRC conference in New Orleans in 2004,  
> screaming your head off at Dr. Peter Cohen and threatening to punch  
> him because you disagreed with him. Maybe the problem is you, not  
> some committee being unable to handle the truth.
> Do you honestly think you understand even half of what you're  
> talking about?
> I've heard you talk on other aspects of ibogaine and you do a good  
> job, I don't understand why it's so important to you to keep  
> presenting about areas you don't understand or effectively  
> communicate to anybody else.
> On Feb 12, 2008 10:16 AM, Dana Beal <dana at phantom.com> wrote:
> Yeah, but the point is that none of the other presentations speak  
> to efficacy, or present on GDNF. The information that would  
> contradict Wodak has been replace by his general observations on  
> clinical trials, which are not specific to ibogaine, and that is  
> disingenuous.
> Dana/cnw
> On Feb 12, 2008, at 6:45 AM, Nick Sandberg 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 :::: (]=-
>  -=[) ::::::: MindVox | Ibogaine | List Commands ::::::: (]=-
> (][%]  :: http://mindvox.com/mailman/listinfo/ibogaine ::  [%][)
>  -=[) :::: Change Account Settings :: [Un]Subscribe :::: (]=-
>   -=[) ::::::: 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/20080213/3f6035f9/attachment.html>

More information about the Ibogaine mailing list