[Ibogaine] Ibogaine is the answer to everything: GDNF IS the strong theoretical argument!

Dave Brockman davebroc at gmail.com
Mon Feb 25 10:29:58 EST 2008


don't wanna get my head bit off by saying something in the middle of
all this, but there's a shitload of science about ibogaine. a lot more
then most 'herbal remedies' the only thing i've noticed is that there
are always these big claims, Glick is developing mc-18, Mash is
submitting her data to the FDA, wait lemme check youtube there it is,
'next month' that's a vid from 2005

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cowq9EqVjY4
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5535788820502156331

so where is it? its 3 years later. where's mc-18, where's the
nor-ibogaine patch, where's the progress?

I don't think there's a lack of science, but there is a massive lack
of any kind of follow through from not any one person but looks like
every scientist involved with ibo.

dana, bro, don't stop the science, your detracters are just trying to
keep you down, smoking a blunt and listening to you talk science is
mad entertaining :-) ok mebbe nothing you say actually makes sense,
but nitpicking details is for small minds. the show must go on!

btw dana, where's the dirt-cheap synthetic ibogaine your labs were
going to produce last year? speaking of no followup whatev happened
with all that?

sofar as ken alper goes, the bro needs to reup or get some new meds,
he's one cranky motherfucker of late.

-broc

On 2/25/08, Eric Madison <ericmadison07 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dana I have never stated that any particular ibogaine presentation should
> not be made. I have only directly stated that you're not the one who should
> be giving medical and science based ibogaine presentations. The purpose of a
> presentation is presumably to enlighten the audience regarding the topic and
> subject being presented. Your "science" based talks are to be blunt, awful.
> They're sloppy, incoherent and convey no new level of understanding to the
> audience.
>
> As I stated in my opening message I do believe that Dr. Wodak's abstract
> begins in a biased manner. I've seen nothing in his interactions with Nick
> Sandberg to indicate he will change this stance. You have a panel with a
> sceptic. Accept it instead of throwing tantrums.
>
> I've no idea what Dr. Cohen said that so "flustered Dimitri he quit after 5
> minutes", while I have not been present at every panel Dimitri has ever been
> part of, those I have attended are all essentially the same power to the
> people speech which imparts no novel information beyond that of ibogaine
> working for him and his continued efforts to dose people with ibogaine
> without medical training or supervision. In New Orleans he wrapped up his
> motivational talk sooner and began screaming "fuck all of you".
>
> Be that as it may my points have nothing to do with user activism, Dimitri
> gives the same speech with varying results but he doesn't spend his time
> trying to impart knowledge or information he doesn't understand in the first
> place. If anything he remains willfully ignorant. That's fine, it's honest,
> it's user activism. No doctor or researcher needs to hear any of that, but
> he doesn't carry on about science he doesn't understand. You do Dana.
>
> Speaking of Dr. Ken Alper, I do realize that this forum is very much the
> ibogaine gathering, fair enough, but I see a lot of selective editing
> regarding what participants choose to share here.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Beal, but at your recent Washington DC forum,
> didn't Dr. Alper publicly berate Howard Lotsof for making specious claims
> about ibogaine and Hep C? Didn't Dr. Alper have some additional thoughts
> about your own presentation? My overall impression is that Dr. Alper had
> issues with both your and Mr. Lotsof's presentations and was quite upset at
> the forum with regards to the "scientific" claims being made for ibogaine.
>
> Did you perhaps attend another ibogaine forum in another universe where this
> did not happen Mr. Beal? Do you imagine that Dr. Wodak will be kinder then
> an M.D. who is already firmly in the ibogaine camp and seems to be quite
> sick of what's being passed off as the "science" of ibogaine?
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Dana Beal <dana at phantom.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Nor should it be. What do you know about GDNF and ibogaine Dana? When I look
> up this topic, what I see is: Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center, with
> Dr. Dorit Ron and colleagues. For some reason I do not find a "Dana Beal"
> listed anywhere, having any publication in any journal or lay magazine,
> explaining ibogaine and GDNF. I wonder why that is.
>
> To bring this back to focus, I am aware of your activism and tireless
> promotion of ibogaine over the years. I have much respect for this. I
> honestly do not understand why you feel the need to give scientific or
> medical presentations about ibogaine though. You contribute nothing except
> making seemingly miraculous claims seem even more ridiculous. Saying that no
> other M.D. or Ph.D. who is sympathetic to ibogaine will attend, so you have
> to give the talks, does nothing to strengthen your claims or position.
>



More information about the Ibogaine mailing list