[Ibogaine] Reply from Alex

Randy Faulconer bicuitboy714 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 13 20:43:09 EST 2008


          Great job Nick!!! I think you presented yourself in a manner to
which you deserve some respect no matter what degree's you do or don't have.
Having a PHD after your name doesn't make anybody a genius, we all know
that. Or to be addressed as Dr. so and so and such and suck. BUT, people
hung up on titles are usually
the people that name who goes where at these conferences. Sad but true. It's
a shame that Stanley Glick won't come around when we need him to to make it
known what he's working on with Ibogaine and it's derivatives. My step
father has a PHD and two masters degree's and he watched me get treated.
Successfully I might add, depending on what Alex wants to call successful,
I'm sure his criteria is pretty stringent along that line. Think he would
listen to him?? He was also a dean at the University of Kentucky. My mother
has her nurse practitioners lisence so she could put a pretty good
picture on the practical administration of it during an underground
treatment too.

         I don't think any of that would matter to 'ole Alex. Looks like to
me he has some kind of ax to grind somewhere for some reason. It's a shame
he can't put his personal feelings aside and be objective about something
that means so much to so many people. Ibogaine can help a lot of people.
Let's get it right this time and quit fucking around and just get down to
helping people. Shheeezz!!!

         Peace Love and Solidarity

                    Randy

On Feb 13, 2008 10:23 AM, Nick Sandberg <nick227 at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

>   I got a reply back from Alex Wodak and replied, both copied below
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Alex Wodak [mailto:awodak at stvincents.com.au]
>
> Sent: 12 February 2008 23:53
>
> To: Nick Sandberg
>
> Cc: gerry.stimson at ihra.net
>
> Subject: Re: Ibogaine Talk
>
>
>
> Dear Mr Sandberg,
>
>
>
> It is very unusual for people to debate an abstract of a talk before the
> paper has been presented
>
>
>
> I was invited to do this talk and accepted the invitation
>
>
>
> My reward for that acceptance has been to be subjected to tirades
>
>
>
> My abstract states that
>
>
>
> 'Published evidence for Ibogaine as a treatment for heroin dependence is
> unimpressive'.
>
>
>
> Please provide me with a list of publications that provides strong
> empirical evidence for iboguaine.
>
>
>
> I have defined in the abstract exactly the kinds of publications I need:
>
>
>
> ''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'.
>
>
>
> I note that you have already had the opportunity to provide this
> information for me in your e-mail and have not already done so.
>
>
>
> You refer instead to unnamed studies.
>
>
>
> Please provide more details: Author, title, journal, year, volume, pages.
>
>
>
> Please do so now.
>
>
>
> Please understand that neither of us has a monopoly on concern about the
> plight of people you describe as 'addicts'
>
>
>
> In my view it is not compassionate to advocate for a treatment unless we
> know from evidence that the treatment is effective and safe (and
> preferably also cost effective)
>
>
>
> I am sure you know the saying 'The road to hell is paved with good
> intentions....'
>
>
>
> While you may regard the statment that 'Since the tragic experience of
> thalidomide some decades ago, medicine has been based firmly on scientific
> evidence' as manipluative, I note that you did not say it was wrong.
>
>
>
> Just as well.
>
>
>
> That statement is correct.
>
>
>
> How can it be manipulative.
>
>
>
> I have just used the very same sentence in an editorial for a medical
> journal.
>
>
>
> Neither of my 3 distinguished co-authors, nor the editor nor the 2
> reviewers took exception to this comment.
>
>
>
> I don't have any position on iboguaine  - I certainly want more and better
> treatments for injecting drug users
>
>
>
> But I don't have any desire to see iboguaine come or go
>
>
>
> My position, as outlined in the abstract, is very simple.
>
>
>
> I assume that all interventions are ineffective, unsafe and
> cost-ineffective until proven otherwise and that includes iboguaine.
>
>
>
> If you want me to be impressed by iboguaine, then show me the evidence.
>
>
>
> It's that simple
>
>
>
> I assume after reviewing your qualifications that you do not appear to
> have had any training in empirical research relevant to evaluation of
> pharmaceutical treatments.
>
>
>
> None of us can cover all the areas that this field encompasses.
>
>
>
> Perhaps your qualifications and expetrience put you at a disadvantage for
> reviewing scientific literature on empirical research relevant to evaluation
> of pharmaceutical treatments
>
>
>
> best wishes,
>
>
>
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Sandberg [mailto:nick227 at tiscali.co.uk]
> Sent: 13 February 2008 15:17
> To: 'Alex Wodak'
> Cc: 'gerry.stimson at ihra.net'
> Subject: RE: Ibogaine Talk
>
>
>
> Hi Alex,
>
>
>
> Thanks for getting back to me. It is not my intention to mindlessly give
> you a hard time. It is not nice to be on the receiving end, for sure, but I
> must say that if you did associate ibogaine with thalidomide then it is
> perhaps not surprising that it happens. If not then it is certainly
> unwarranted. The 2 papers I referred to in my letter to you are as follows:
>
>
>
> - Ibogaine: Complex Pharmacokinetics, Concerns for Safety, and Preliminary
> Efficacy Measures - Neurobiological Mechanisms of Drugs of Abuse, Volume 914
> of the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, September 2000 - Ann N Y
> Acad Sci 2000;914:394-401) DEBORAH C. MASH,a,b,h CRAIG A. KOVERA,o JOHN
> PABLO,o RACHEL F. TYNDALE,c FRANK D. ERVIN,d IZBEN C. WILLIAMS,e EDWARD G.
> SINGLETON,f AND MANNY MAYOR
>
>
>
> - The Ibogaine Medical Subculture - Journal of Ethnopharmacology 115
> (2008) 9-24 Kenneth R. Alper Howard S. Lotsof Charles D. Kaplan
>
>
>
> I fully appreciate your concern as to the lack of good empiric data. It is
> true that much more research needs to be done. I would however mention that
> even a basic Medline search will reveal many hundreds of animal studies
> involving ibogaine. By no means is it the primary intention of all of these
> studies to demonstrate efficacy, but if you read at least some of them I
> believe it will become clear that ibogaine's dependence-breaking
> characteristics are increasingly well accepted by many scientists. Academics
> give ibogaine to rats often to better understand the mechanistic pathways
> involved in the neurobiology of addiction.
>
>
>
> As to the issue of manipulation. Firstly, I need to state that I am basing
> my judgment on the abstract that was forwarded to me as being written by
> yourself. If you did not write it then I unreservedly apologise.
>
>
>
> To be honest, I would accuse the writer of this piece of manipulation on
> two counts. Firstly, referring to the drug Thalidomide in the manner that
> the writer did clearly is likely to create a reasonable degree of
> association in the mind of the reader with Ibogaine. I'm not a
> pharmacologist but my understanding is that Thalidomide is not
> naturally-occurring and has not been used by native peoples for at least
> some centuries. One might claim that the word is simply being used to give
> some historical context as to the need for extensive clinical trials and,
> whilst I would consider this fair, I would still hold that the writer is
> creating an unwarranted association in the mind of the reader.
>
>
>
> Secondarily, I find the picture of clinical trials that is presented by
> the writer of this abstract utterly one-sided and, again, completely
> manipulative. It is necessary to grasp that the business of bringing new
> drugs to the market is almost wholly in the hands of "for profit" entities.
> Ibogaine does not fit into the Pharm Corporation's idea of what a suitable
> medication looks like and so they don't put money in to develop it. I can
> give you more information here if you wish. Yet the writer of this abstract
> fails to even mention this. If I were a casual reader I would be left with
> the impression that ibogaine simply isn't good enough, that it's been tried
> and found wanting. This is absolutely not the case as a decent study of the
> background and history of the drug will clearly show.
>
>
>
> You claim you are not biased against ibogaine. That is absolutely not my
> impression from reading that piece. I consider it absolutely reprehensible
> to portray in such a manner a medication that clearly has the potential to
> transform the treatment of drug and alcohol dependency worldwide. I can
> scarcely believe that the writer of it could give a damn about the plight of
> those who suffer with this worldwide.
>
>
>
> Nick Sandberg
>
>
>
>
>  -=[) ::::::: 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/20080213/0ad0a70e/attachment.html>


More information about the Ibogaine mailing list