[Ibogaine] GDNF IS the strong theoretical argument!

Nick Sandberg nick227 at tiscali.co.uk
Sat Feb 23 04:31:27 EST 2008


Hi Dana,

 

Do you have your presentation in a format you can send me? I would love to
see it.

 

Nick

 

  _____  

From: ibogaine-bounces at mindvox.com [mailto:ibogaine-bounces at mindvox.com] On
Behalf Of Dana Beal
Sent: 22 February 2008 21:19
To: The Ibogaine List
Subject: Re: [Ibogaine] GDNF IS the strong theoretical argument!

 

 

On Feb 22, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Nick Sandberg wrote:





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

Now what did I say?

 

Ken Alper is not available to go anywhere outside the North East US. 

 

So some one had to present in New Orleans or Barcelona. Naturally, my
emphasis is different than his would be. But the presentations overlap.
That's how I was able to cut 2/3rds of my slides and my talk last weekend in
D.C. It's great to go on after Ken-- focuses the mind wonderfully.

 

Wish I'd been able to go on, as scheduled, immediately after Peter Cohen,
but he obviously decided to avoid that. And his attack on ibogaine left
Dimitri so flustered, he forgot his whole rap and quit talking after 5
minutes, after reacting, abruptly, to Peter. And anyway, my presentation in
New Orleans was as much on the history of the ibogaine movement as it was on
the stages of understanding of ibogaine mechanism.

 

The findings on GDNF didn't exist in 2004.

 

Eric, are you saying this presentation shouldn't be made? We are training
other people to make it, you know. If you really feel that we should give
INPUD and Alex a monopoly in this discussion, I could see your motivation,
but your motive would have nothing to do with concern for the science of the
thing. You are obviously one those people who are uncomfortable with ibo
because you want people to be free to be addicts. I don't agree with NIck
Sandberg 100%, but I do agree with him that "freedom to be enslaved" sounds
like something only a slaveholder would love.

 

The fact remains: in the GDNF finding, there exists the strong theoretical
argument to justify ibogaine research that Wodak is demanding.  The big
concern right now in harm reduction circles about crystal meth, and the GDNF
stuff shows how ibogaine works for crystal. BTW, Wodak has gotten himself
scheduled  for the first international conference on crystal meth in Prague.
So far my powerpoint has not.

 

 

Dana/cnw

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.mindvox.com/pipermail/ibogaine/attachments/20080223/1102c09f/attachment.html>


More information about the Ibogaine mailing list