[Ibogaine] GDNF IS the strong theoretical argument!

Nick Sandberg nick227 at tiscali.co.uk
Fri Feb 22 15:29:06 EST 2008


Hey Dana,

 

Like I said, I haven't heard you speak recently, so for sure you could be
great now. It was just that I thought that it's better to get scientists to
do academic presentations. I linked Alex to both those papers, by the way. I
think he just prefers his safe position. It seems to me to be really about
something else, but I'm not sure what. I think he's scared to be involved in
backing something he feels might be dangerous, something like that. It's a
shame as he seems a prominent character on the scene.

 

All the best to you

 

Nick

 

  _____  

From: ibogaine-bounces at mindvox.com [mailto:ibogaine-bounces at mindvox.com] On
Behalf Of Dana Beal
Sent: 22 February 2008 01:29
To: The Ibogaine List <ibogaine at mindvox.com>
Subject: [Ibogaine] GDNF IS the strong theoretical argument!

 

 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mindvox.com/pipermail/ibogaine/attachments/20080222/079e8ee2/attachment.html>


More information about the Ibogaine mailing list