[Ibogaine] More from Alex
simonloxton at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Feb 15 06:12:03 EST 2008
What does this pompous; I dont think idiot is the right word; individual need? Further evidence other than the words straight from the mouths of the people who have taken it in terms of ibogaine's efficacy. Does setting up needle exchanges make you more of an authority on a drug you cant even spell correctly? I wonder if this person believes in the efficacy of any natural remedies that have not gone through the avenues he needs to deem them acceptable for human consumption? Man I would actually pay to hear this person speak and would love to give him a large dose of LSD while he was doing it. Sheesh; if there is any higher intelligence out there I would definitely not be surprised if they give this planet a miss. Nick; I don't know how you can remain so composed.
----- Original Message ----
From: Nick Sandberg <nick227 at tiscali.co.uk>
To: The Ibogaine List <ibogaine at mindvox.com>
Sent: Friday, 15 February, 2008 12:34:07 PM
Subject: [Ibogaine] More from Alex
Thanks for your reply and for details of your background. I do not for a second dispute that appropriate animal and clinical trials are necessary prior to a drug becoming available. The point I'm trying to make, in discussing this matter with you, is that the existing financial climate that prevails makes it exceptionally hard to get studies done without the backing of the Pharmaceutical houses.
Now if you want to take a "hardline" attitude and say "That's how it is, and ibogaine hasn't been adequately tested" then I agree with what you are saying but I also feel that it is good to simultaneously point out the financial and political issues, just to give the listener a fair picture of what is going on. >From a man who clearly has invested a considerable amount of his time in trying to make life better for drug-users, I would expect you to be interested in this side of it.
The reality with ibogaine is that it has now become, as Frank Vocci, Director of NIDA, stated, a "vast, uncontrolled experiment," with thousands of addicts either self-treating, being treated by lay practitioners, or being treated in one of many private clinics that have set themselves up over the last decade. It's a complete chaos and at the heart of it is a medication with specific benefits in treating addiction but which cannot get legally where it's needed simply because of the dominance of the "for-profit" healthcare model.
Pharm houses appear to have many grievances with ibogaine. Certainly the following are among them...
* ibogaine is primarily a one-shot medication, thus reducing the potential financial returns it could make against the considerable R&D outlay. Repeat dosing can be undertaken, to help promote longer-term drug abstinence where it's needed, but it's certainly not of the "take 3 times a day" model.
* ibogaine is naturally occurring and only use patents would be available.
* there's an industry prejudice against developing psychoactive medications.
The situation, by anyone's standards, is appalling. High profile scientists like Deborah Mash and Stanley Glick have been working with ibogaine or closely related drugs for years but simply cannot get Pharm house funding to continue studies.
I do urge you to take account of the vast financial and humanitarian issues when giving your talk.
From: Alex Wodak [mailto:awodak at stvincents.com.au]
Sent: 14 February 2008 00:53
To: Nick Sandberg
Cc: gerry.stimson at ihra.net
Subject: RE: Ibogaine Talk
Dear Mr Sandberg,
People (like you) who want to give me a hard time because I am resolute about the need for due scientific process for new drugs should know that I am not someone who gives up easily
It is perfectly true that I associate iboguaine and thalidomide
But it is also true that every drug that has been newly considered since thalidomide has been influenced by the lessons so painfully learnt from the sorry tale of thalidomide
And as iboguaine is being considered since thalidomide, it is going to have to go through the same proper careful scientific process (that you obviously know so little about) as every other drug since thalidomide has had to go through
Now if you still want to call referring to this history as 'manipulation', I suggest that you first learn about this process of scrutiny and then buy yourself a dictionary and look up the word 'manipulation'
Dana Beal has already hectored me about ibogiane in New Orleans in December.
More to the point, he promised to send me published papers providing evidence forthe efficacy and safety of iboguaine
He has not done so - though I am not surprised by that
You have sent me just 2 (two) references to support your claims
The abstract of the first paper you have cited as evidence refers to 'the purported efficacy' - note the word 'purported'.
That means the authors think that the alleged efficacy is not yet supported by enough evidence.
The abstract then refers to 'preliminary efficacy for opiate detoxification'
These authors then report decreased cravings and decreased depression scores.
And that's it.
I am sorry Mr Sandberg but that one paper is not 'evidence for efficacy and safety'
The next paper is about 'the iboguaine subculture'
I will read that paper
But I don't expect a paper with that title to provide any more 'evidence for efficacy and safety' than a paper on the methadone subculture would give me 'evidence for efficacy and safety' of methadone
Your comments about animal studies indicate to me that, frankly, you are quite out of your depth
Finding a drug that helps cockroaches to stop using heroin is interesting
But it doesn't tell us whether that drug is going to be effective and safe when used on your or my son in Bristol
I will leave to others the judgment about whether I am or am not compassionate about injecting drug users
But I started (with colleagues) as an act of civil disobedience the first needle syringe programme in Australia in 1986 when this was in breach of the Drugs Misuse and Trafficking Act (1985)
That led to the acceptance and implementation of needle syringe programmes in Australia
I started (with colleagues) as an act of civil disobedience the first medically supervised injecting centre in Australia in 1999 when this was in breach of the law
That led to the acceptance and implementation of the first official medically supervised injecting centre in Australia
I started (with a colleague) the first organisation of injecting drug users in Australia (in 1989)
I have been the director of a major alcohol and drug treatment service for more than 25 years
I have been responsible for getting drug users included on many official Department of Health committees
Let's try and find where we can agree:
1 Do you agree that all new pharmaceutical drugs should be carefully assessed before widespread implementation to make sure that they are safe?
2 Do you agree that all new pharmaceutical drugs should be carefully assessed before widespread implementation to make sure that they are effective?
3 Do you agree that ibogaine should be carefully assessed before widespread implementation to make sure that it is safe?
4 Do you agree that ibogaine should be carefully assessed before widespread implementation to make sure that it is effective?
5 Do you believe that ibogaine has already been carefully assessed and shown to be safe?
6 If so, what is your evidence?
7 Do you believe that ibogaine has already been carefully assessed and shown to be effective?
8 If so, what is your evidence?
9 Do you think that these above questions are fair and important?
10 If not, why not?
Although this has been a private correspondence, I will refer to your answers - or lack of answers to these questions - in my talk in Barcelona
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
-=[) ::::::: MindVox | Ibogaine | List Commands ::::::: (]=-
(][%] :: http://mindvox..com/mailman/listinfo/ibogaine :: [%][)
-=[) :::: Change Account Settings :: [Un]Subscribe :::: (]=-
Sent from Yahoo! Mail - a smarter inbox http://uk.mail.yahoo.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ibogaine