[Ibogaine] GDNF IS the strong theoretical argument!

Randy Faulconer bicuitboy714 at gmail.com
Fri Feb 22 10:21:46 EST 2008


            What!!! Dimitri??.........totally discombobulated?? Heresy
I say.........can't be true..........this is madness............please
tell me you're mistaken.

        Peace Love and Greeks
             Randy

On 2/21/08, Dana Beal <dana at phantom.com> wrote:
>
> Alex Wodak wrote:
> > Research gets carried out when either: (i) there are strong
> > theoretical arguments why a treatment might work; or (ii) there is
> > some empirical data suggesting that a treatment does work.
>
> Nick, wasn't the point of all this originally that the strong
> theoretical arguments had been eliminated from the Users' Choice
> Session in Barcelona, and Wodak inserted in their place? You may
> fault my presentation, but I've honed the powerpoint and it's quite
> snappy now. In fact, as I predicted before the D.C. forum, I was able
> to cut the beginning off of it because Ken had already explained that
> stuff, and just focus on the GDNF mechanism. You have to understand
> that they're trying to use GDNF for a lot of dopamine-related
> problems like Parkinson's, even proposing surgical implants of little
> pumps in the brain. So if you could switch on a self-reinforcing GDNF
> loop with ANY compound that would be sufficient reason to study it.
>
> The empirical data is in Ken's paper, but nothing I've seen indicates
> Wodak has read Ken or Mash's paper except for the abstracts.
>
> He definitely is not familiar with the work of Janak, He, or Dorit
> Ron. And they were studying ibogaine and alcohol, a drug of abuse
> where there is no complicating considerations of an illicit status.
>
> I was eliminated from that panel to send a message: IHRA wants to
> have INPUD representing their needle-exchange clients, and they don't
> want those who follow the cannabis/psychedic harm reduction path
> butting in. Even if we're 80% of all users of illicit drugs, and our
> drugs ARE less addictive and safer by any objective standard.
>
> It's unfortunate that you seem to have fallen for Eric Madison's ad
> hominems in the place of substance. I have my good days and my bad
> days as far as giving a really coherent presentation, mostly related
> to the amount of sleep I get the night before. For instance, I didn't
> get enough sleep before I presented in London or in New Orleans, and
> in addition Peter Cohen ducked out of the room instead of coming
> right before me as he was supposed to -- so I couldn't respond, and
> Dimitri, who came next, was totally discombobulated.
>
> Very manipulative behavior, if he was really that sure of his
> arguments, I'd say.
>
>
> Dana/cnw



More information about the Ibogaine mailing list