[Ibogaine] Reply from Alex

marko marko at phantom.com
Thu Feb 14 12:54:54 EST 2008


Unfortunately, we are talking different languages here. We are discussing

Ibogaine

12-methoxyibogamine

(6R, 6aS, 7S, 9R)-7-ethyl-2-methoxy-6, 6a, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 
13-octahydro-5/H/-6, 9-methanopyrido[1',2':1,2]azepino[4,5-/b/]indole

and that <insert your feelings about A.W. here> talks about

*iboguaine*

And I must say that I share his feelings about *iboguaine*!
I have no idea what this *iboguaine *is, or what it does, but I surely 
trust that someone with such a Hu6E reputation cannot be wrong on 
subject of *iboguaine*!!!

I see the problem elsewhere, and it deserves a new E-mail...

Marko



Nick Sandberg 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/20080214/e34e297d/attachment.html>


More information about the Ibogaine mailing list