[Ibogaine] Reply from Alex

Scott Doran doranman2 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 19 21:41:18 EST 2008


Did a google on Thalidomide and was surprised to see it still available...
online at $3.600 for 3 grams, which makes it steeper than Ibogaine. Mmm....
think i'll take the Ibogaine, much better deal.

On Feb 19, 2008 7:06 PM, Warren L. Theriot <wleetheriot at ca.rr.com> wrote:

> I correct myself about Thaidomide. Wikipedia states that either D or L
> form converts to racemic in-vitro so Thalidomide isnt at all safe. Ibogaine
> has yet to prove any birth defects however as far as I know so it is still
> not fair to compare Ibogaine with thalidomide. Peace,
> Warren
>
> On Feb 13, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Warren L. Theriot wrote:
>
> How can any "scientist" compare Ibogaine to Thalidomide? Lamborene was
> available for 40 years in France and there were no reported birth defects
> such as with Thalidomide. And there is no reported such problem with the
> Bwiti in Africa. If such a thing had happened in Africa with the Iboga root,
> it would have been demonized by the natives literally ages ago. And Ibogaine
> isn't supposed to be administered during pregnancy anyway. So what is it
> about the difference between Ibogaine and Thalidomide the good doctor
> doesn't understand? Besides, the racemic Thalidomide was the problem. One of
> the purified stereoisomers of Thalidomide is safe from causing birth
> defects, I don't know which at this moment.Peace,
> Warren
>
> On Feb 13, 2008, at 2:48 PM, Matthew Shriver wrote:
>
> Nick's response was just below Alex's email.  Check it out Simon I thought
> he nailed it.
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* ibogaine-bounces at mindvox.com [mailto:ibogaine-bounces at mindvox.com<ibogaine-bounces at mindvox.com>]
> *On Behalf Of *simon loxton
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:32 AM
> *To:* The Ibogaine List
> *Subject:* Re: [Ibogaine] Reply from Alex
>
>
>
> "I assume that all interventions are ineffective, unsafe and
> cost-ineffective until proven otherwise and that includes iboguaine."
>
>
>
> Maybe he is confused and is not taking about ibogaine at all:) Well Nick
> you are the best at answering this in my opinion and would like to see the
> response. Quite a strong statement above. Does this mean that the word of
> some one who has taken ibogaine or some one without the required
> qualification to be recognised who has administered ibogaine is worthless?
> If so then you may as well argue with a brick wall for all its worth. Good
> luck; I look forward to the outcome of the convention.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Nick Sandberg <nick227 at tiscali.co.uk>
> To: The Ibogaine List <ibogaine at mindvox.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 February, 2008 5:23:30 PM
> Subject: [Ibogaine] Reply from Alex
>
> I got a reply back from Alex Wodak and replied, both copied below
>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Alex Wodak [mailto:awodak at stvincents.com.au<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 <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
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
>   -=[) ::::::: MindVox | Ibogaine | List Commands ::::::: (]=-
> (][%]  :: http://mindvox.com/mailman/listinfo/ibogaine ::  [%][)
>   -=[) :::: Change Account Settings :: [Un]Subscribe :::: (]=-
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> Sent from Yahoo!<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mailuk/taglines/isp/control/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51949/*http:/uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html>- a smarter inbox.
>
>   -=[) ::::::: 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/20080219/abeafa5c/attachment.html>


More information about the Ibogaine mailing list