Talk:Ibogaine/Archives/2020
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Ibogaine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Lack of data in humans?
In the 2nd paragraph, it says: "...it may help with drug addiction, however there is a lack of data in humans." And then contradicting itself just a few words later, "... It is used as an alternative medicine treatment for drug addiction in some countries..."
It would seem that if it's being used in some countries, then the statement regarding its "lack of data in humans" must be false -- certainly the countries using it started by acting on existing data, and have generated additional data by now. The statement regarding the alleged lack of data has a footnote; maybe the statement and its footnote should be deleted? At least, the contradicting statements need to be resolved.
In countries that prohibit Ibogaine, there may be, instead, resistance towards recognizing existing data and incorporating it into policy, perhaps as a general policy against mind-expansion and / or consciousness raising. Such an attitude would help explain authorities whom assert "there is lack of data," but "schedule" a chemical which then stops the generation of data. But stating that the data doesn't exist demonstrates a state of denial, which is poorly placed in this encyclopedic resource.
Nei1 (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is clear you are trying to make a point, but I have no idea what it is. This talk page is for discussing changes to the content of the article. Do not abuse it as a WP:SOAPBOX. \
- So what is the change you are proposing to the content? Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- > So what is the change you are proposing to the content?
- At least, the contradicting statements need to be resolved.
- I suggested removing the line about there being a lack of data in humans, since the same sentence says Ibogaine is already being used in other countries. However, I don't know if that's the best resolution to the contradicting statements; just because I think removing the offending phrase would be proper doesn't make it so. I'm not prepared to make that decision, because I'm not familiar with subject matter beyond what I'm reading here. All I can say for sure is that what I'm reading here contradicts itself.
Nei1 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think what is confusing you is that "lack of data" means that it has not been studied in clinical trials, where data could be gathered to determine if it is actually safe and effective or not. "As yet not randomised controlled clinical trials in humans have been published. There are no long-term effectiveness studies of ibogaine treatment published, but anecdotal reports of long-term abstinence following treatment have been noted." (p 86 here). There is no contradiction. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I also find the statement "there is a lack of data" problematic. For what purpose is there a lack of data? To form a consensus among medical scientists? To secure regulatory approval? To render medical use of ibogaine wholly uncontroversial? As it stands, the statement is uninformative, and sounds more like FUD than encyclopedic content. Perhaps the person who originally wrote that can add a clarifying clause. Acone (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- data is how we (humanity, through its scientific institutions) know if a claim is true or false. if there is a lack of data about X it means that any claims that ibogaine does X are unsupportable. summarizing the sources that say there is a lack of data, communicates that the claim is unsupportable. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Data collected and interpreted by scientific institutions is only one way humanity knows if a claim is true or false. I will not further recap what is discussed amply at WP:Reliable. It seems that your concern here is that by the scientific standards understood (at least in some cultures) as the foundation of medicine, this claim is not currently supportable. That may well be, but I think that should be stated more explicitly. To me and I suppose to Ne1, it is not clear in its current form. Also, I read the source, and I found no statement that there is a lack of data necessary to establish medical usefulness. The article discusses what research exists, but does not specifically claim there is a lack of evidence to state that ibogaine is useful. It seems more NPOV to simply summarize what the article does directly claim, rather than infer by its omissions what research is lacking. A claim that research is "lacking" may be appropriate in a research or review article, but does not seem to summarize what the article actually says. Acone (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Data is the only way we know things in medicine and science. when people write "anecdotal reports say X" in the biomedical literature, they are saying "there is no data on this". Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's not what the article says. I will update the language, see if you agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acone (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- See the OP. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's not what the article says. I will update the language, see if you agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acone (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Data is the only way we know things in medicine and science. when people write "anecdotal reports say X" in the biomedical literature, they are saying "there is no data on this". Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Data collected and interpreted by scientific institutions is only one way humanity knows if a claim is true or false. I will not further recap what is discussed amply at WP:Reliable. It seems that your concern here is that by the scientific standards understood (at least in some cultures) as the foundation of medicine, this claim is not currently supportable. That may well be, but I think that should be stated more explicitly. To me and I suppose to Ne1, it is not clear in its current form. Also, I read the source, and I found no statement that there is a lack of data necessary to establish medical usefulness. The article discusses what research exists, but does not specifically claim there is a lack of evidence to state that ibogaine is useful. It seems more NPOV to simply summarize what the article does directly claim, rather than infer by its omissions what research is lacking. A claim that research is "lacking" may be appropriate in a research or review article, but does not seem to summarize what the article actually says. Acone (talk) 22:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- data is how we (humanity, through its scientific institutions) know if a claim is true or false. if there is a lack of data about X it means that any claims that ibogaine does X are unsupportable. summarizing the sources that say there is a lack of data, communicates that the claim is unsupportable. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I also find the statement "there is a lack of data" problematic. For what purpose is there a lack of data? To form a consensus among medical scientists? To secure regulatory approval? To render medical use of ibogaine wholly uncontroversial? As it stands, the statement is uninformative, and sounds more like FUD than encyclopedic content. Perhaps the person who originally wrote that can add a clarifying clause. Acone (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think what is confusing you is that "lack of data" means that it has not been studied in clinical trials, where data could be gathered to determine if it is actually safe and effective or not. "As yet not randomised controlled clinical trials in humans have been published. There are no long-term effectiveness studies of ibogaine treatment published, but anecdotal reports of long-term abstinence following treatment have been noted." (p 86 here). There is no contradiction. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog The medical uses section jumps from alternative medicine clinics to saying some studies were terminated. We're the alternative medicine clinics running studies? Sizeofint (talk) 21:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- per PMC 4382526 NIDA was running trials - I just copyedited to make it more clear. Jytdog (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- I edited this further. There were also contemporary trials in the Netherlands that were terminated for similar reasons, so I omitted explicit mention of NIDA. Acone (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Contraindications section
Given that there are currently no clinical indications for Ibogaine, it seems strange to talk about contraindications. The only reliable source I can find that may be useful here is the exclusion criteria from the aborted NIDA study.
Should I cite those criteria as contraindications? Or maybe just get rid of the section? Acone (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Probably merge it with the interactions sections. Sizeofint (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Recreational use
The article currently claims people in Africa chew iboga for its stimulant properties, and this constitutes recreational use. I can find no confirmation of this, least of all in the article, which does not mention any recreational or stimulate use of iboga or ibogaine. The only traditional use of ibogaine it discusses is religious. If there is any notable, citable use of ibogaine as a stimulant, we need a source that says so. What little discussion of recreational use I can find, like [1], indicates that it is not used recreationally.
Also, the use of a stimulant is not necessarily recreational. That term is not used, for example, in Caffeine or Areca nut. The word "recreational" is used in passing in Khat, but that seems possibly appropriate, given that communal Khat chewing is in part understood as a recreational activity in some cultures.
I say we scrap this subsection entirely. Thoughts? Acone (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- The ref didn't appear to support the text so I deleted that section/ Sizeofint (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Legal Status
Ibogaine is NOT approved for therapeutic or any other use in Brazil. It is currently forbidden by the ANVISA state agency for drugs & medication since it has not been tested or evaluated.
Boreal Claude (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome to update that information in the legal status section. Sizeofint (talk) 02:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ibogaine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206110946/http://www.ibogaine.org/subculture.html to http://www.ibogaine.org/subculture.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://ibogaine.org/ch01.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/view/eth%3A23217
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ibogaine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://archive.is/20120526225220/http://www.ibogaine.desk.nl/alkaloids.html to http://www.ibogaine.desk.nl/alkaloids.html
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.ibogaine.desk.nl/p234_s.pdf - Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.ibogaine.desk.nl/p234_s.pdf - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140513072529/http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/class/mccMin03Nov2009.htm to http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/class/mccMin03Nov2009.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19970122031859/http://www.ibogaine.desk.nl/clin-perspectives.html to http://ibogaine.desk.nl/clin-perspectives.html
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.ibogaine.desk.nl/naranjo.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Removing Legal Status subsection and replacing with link to new page
I have created the new page Legal Status of Ibogaine by country. I propose removing the subsection 'Legal Status' and replacing it with a Main link to the new page, as that is a more comprehensive and up-to-date source of information on the legal status of ibogaine. werewolf (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- I have gone ahead and modified this section, removing the partial list which was there previously and replacing it with a link to the main page on the legal status of ibogaine around the world. Please do not remove this or undo the edit, but rather discuss it here before making any changes. werewolf (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)