Talk:Ibogaine/Archives/2021

Antagonist to reserpine?

Chapter "Interactions": "Ibogaine is an antagonist to reserpine", the source cited describes this very vaguely and doesn't offer any explanation. I think this statement on its own has some potential to cause harm, especially if someone experimenting takes it at face value and uses Reserpine/Ibogaine to reverse the effects of Ibogaine/Reserpine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.46.225 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

Maybe someone should remove a few of the templates at the end of the page; half of the page at the moment is nothing more than a bunch of template boxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.145.9 (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In Popular culture =

The claim that Hunter S Thompson was the first to write about ibogaine, looks to me to be original research and pretty much non-neutral. Can we really make the claim, that no one anywhere in the world wrote about iboga before him? I have serious doubts that the claim is true. Unless someone can provide a source that shows that Thompson was the first person in the world to write about it, I'm going to delete the sentence and perhaps the whole section (it's a trivia and fan cruft magnet as is). TheRingess (talk) 23:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There was also an episode of CSI that focused heavily on Ibogaine. Not only did it predate the LO:SVU, much more of the episode focused on the drug as a treatment for chronic addiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.118.109 (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Answer: Iboga is known since centuries. People claiming being "the first" to speak/write about it can't be taken seriously. ? – now: Traditional use of the root of iboga for medicinal and ceremonial purposes in Gabon. The word iboga (or eboghe) derives from the Tsogo verb boghaga ("to care for“) 1864: Dr. Griffon Du Bellay, a navy surgeon reports traditional medicinal uses as inebriating, tonic, aphrodisiac and promoting sleeplessness 1885: Father Henri Leu reports ceremonial use as a potent philter that promote a deep sleep “obsessed by uninterrupted dreams taken as actual events” 1889: Henry Baillon establish the genus Tabernanthe at the National History Museum of Paris from an Iboga sample brought back from Gabon by Du Bellay 68.67.211.194 (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this a proper noun or a common noun?=

I ask, because it appears in the article in both capitalized and lowercased form. Which should it be? Nightscream (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical use of psychedelics for treatment of addiction=

Sorry I added a note to the main page without checking if I was logged in, the note was simply to the effect that this type of treatment is not unique to Ibogaine and was originally tried with LSD. Let me know if there are any questions or problems with my edit Drunkenduncan (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

in Popular culture =

I've removed a commercial link and a link to a "forum" that is completely empty of any new information or users, which looks like it serves to promote ibogaworld a commercial ibogaine provider, both of these are recent links, despite the very obvious and visible mandate to stop adding external links to the link section.

I've also restored the in popular culture links that have been present in the article at one time or another but seem to have been arbitrarily removed by a user named the ringess. Either have a In popular culture section, or don't. What was removed makes no particular sense in context of the article. Spectrum13 (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

harm reduction =

i wud really appreciate yours discovery,,this is amazing,,as u have done all effots to do so,,i am sure it works if u work it,,,people are using harm reductions all over the world taking donations,,however it wud work in the same direction as well or in different,,,as me too was going through aadiction after taking psy drug,,i wud jst work in it,,non either rehab..worked,,i wud be glad even to be take such experience,,phsically as well as mentally,so far its damn new brother..people all over the world are suffering and it wud be a good karma even u make it publicly profitable as like harm reduction,,here in NepAl are all using again n again..i wud be glad if u haver ever thuught of these opening world wide..i wud just handle here in nepal..according to urs logicistic..hope u got ,,,thankew......peace and love...babin gurung(FB-ID)

                                                                                KAthmandu,,nepal..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.34.4.250 (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC) 

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ibogaine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 00:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Before we begin, could you source the various citation needed tags that have been recently added? (one by me) Sasata (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, done. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't had a really thorough look yet, but it seems to me that there's major issues with the quality of the sourcing. Much of the article is sourced to drug advocacy websites that don't qualify as reliable sources. Why should the following be considered reliable: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]? The sections "Pharmacodynamics", "Psychoactive effects", "Side effects and safety", "Therapeutic uses", and "Pharmacology" should adhere to WP:MEDRS sourcing standards, but in addition to lower-quality web sites currently being used, there's a number of statements being cited to primary literature.

Erowid is not on its face an overall unreliable source, and it's not being used to reference specific controversial facts or supply primary or anecdotal evidence. It's a notable site (see comments and refs on its page to being discussed by professionals), so I don't think it's an obvious WP:External links failure. At worst it's WP:ELMAYBE #4, and its notability (in general) and depth of content (albeit not all WP:MEDRS) beyond what we would include here in article push it up for me). DMacks (talk) 18:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• the short pharmacodynamics section is filled with jargon and little contextual information, and would be difficult for anyone without pharmacological training to understand.
  • Too technical wording? Ok. Should I re-add the other substances as examples?
    • I'm not sure what was there before, but ideally, it should be written in language understandable by a bright high-school student. Sasata (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• surely more can be said about Naranjo's use of ibo in psychotherapy?
• can we dump the trivia list of television episodes where the drug makes an appearance?
  • Yes, we can, but why? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's encylopedic, and it's very existence encourages others to insert mentions of the drug's every appearance on TV, movies, and novels. See WP:Trivia. Sasata (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• there's more, but I'm not sure the sourcing problems can be dealt with in the normal time frame for a GAN. What do you think? Sasata (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Going to be cutting and sourcing. Going to be on it in 1 hour. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 22:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I think I can do it quickly. Could you post all the rest? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
      • I prefer to wait until the new sources are added. When reviewing, I like to have the source open so I can verify the text as I go along. Also, some of the text may change when you source it, so there's no point in giving a detailed commentary until this is done. Sasata (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • So if there is any more concerns about reliable sources, please tell me. I think I have fixed the problem. "it should be written in language understandable by a bright high-school student." is telling me nothing, but I've described agonist and antagonist. The legal status will need to be improved though. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Reply? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure what part of my statement was difficult to understand, but WP:Make technical articles understandable is our guideline for this. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments. I'm still reluctant to give a detailed analysis, it seems like there's a lot important info missing:

• the organic synthesis is mentioned in the lead, but not the body of the text. What year was this achieved?
  • I think that having that in the text would not be good, but added the year.
• what plants other than T. iboga is the compound found? What are typical concentration ranges in nature?
  • None other.
• when was the chemical structure determined?
  • It was isolated and determined in 1901. : J. Dybowski, E. Landrin. (1901). Plant Chemistry. Concerning Iboga, Its Excitement-Producing Properties, Its

Composition, and The New Alkaloids it Contains, Ibogaine. It was also independently isolated that same year by Haller y Heckel.

Catamai (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• • What article has that information?
• the article mentions Lotsof's 1985 patent, but not the 1969 French patent for Ibo use in psychotherapy
  • Done.
• what method(s) are typically used to extract the drug from plants?
• what is its IUPAC name?
  • Done.
• it should be mentioned somewhere that the root extract is a mixture of not just ibogaine, but also smaller amounts of ibogaline and ibogamine
• is ibogaine auto-oxidized in solution? Do we know its stability half-life?
• what analytical methods are used to detect ibogaine?
• the marketed formation Lambarebe is mentioned, but what about Iperton and Endabuse?
• is ibogaine absorption dose-dependent? Gender dependent? Is there a first pass elimination effect? Any data on plasma levels after administration?
• how is the drug eliminated?
  • Found nothing about that.
• no mention is made of interactions with muscarinic (M1 and M2) receptors or nicotinic acetylcholine receptors.
• is the pharmacological profile of noribogaine significantly different than ibogaine?
• have there been many pharmacodynamic studies performed in humans?
• does repeated use lead to psychological or physiological dependence? How about tolerance? Any cross-tolerance with similar drugs?
• the legal status section needs to be expanded to provide a more worldwide view.
  • Agree.
• "The pharmacology of ibogaine is quite complex, affecting many different neurotransmitter systems simultaneously." This sentence is word-for-word from Mačiulaitis et al. 2008, although this is not given as the source; two other sources are cited.
• "Because of its fairly low potency at any of its target sites, ibogaine is used in doses anywhere from 5 mg/kg of body weight for a minor effect to 30 mg/kg in the cases of strong polysubstance addiction. It is unknown whether doses greater than 30 mg/kg in humans produce effects that are therapeutically beneficial, medically risky, or simply prolonged in duration." I can't verify these statements in the cited source. Could you point them out to me?
• Similarly, I can't see where the sentence "… these results suggest that neurotoxicity of ibogaine is likely to be minimal when ibogaine is used in the 10–20 mg/kg range typical of drug addiction interruption treatment regimes, and indeed death from the other pharmacological actions of the alkaloids is likely to occur by the time the dose is high enough to produce consistent neurotoxic changes." is supported by the second cited source. I don't have access to the first cited article, but, as a case report/primary study, it shouldn't be used to source this type of general statement.
• In general, there's still too many statements that are being cited to primary research, which goes against WP:MEDRS guidelines. There's several general reviews (and textbooks) available so this shouldn't be necessary.

There hasn't been a lot of effort to address the concerns I've listed above, and I think it would be better if these were worked on outside of the constraints of a GA review. All of the extra information I've asked to be included in the article is available in the sources that are already being used. I hope my comments have been useful, and I hope to see an improved version of this article for review in the future! Cheers, Sasata (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • I agree this article need much more work. The referencing need to be more accurate. Ibogaine and noribogaine are 2 different drugs with different pharmacology.
    • the apparent binding affinities provided are issued from a book chapter (not an original research article) where there is no information on the methods used to deliver these numbers.

Catamai (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Inconsistency =

a κ-opioid antagonist in pharmacodynamics but a κ-opioid agonist in metabolites

since the first has a citation, we should change the second.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sboosali (talk • contribs) 15:33 & :34, 29 November 2012

Secondary Studies =

Does anyone know of a secondary study into the use of Ibogaine for adddiction? I saw a primry on the NIH website but that was from 1997; wouldn't research have been conducted in countries like Canada where it is less restricted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• There's a lot of info here but it's collapsed from view at the bottom. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The article cited for ibogaine being a kappa agonist does not show this. Catamai (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hallucinogen or not? =

The intro calls it a hallucinogen, then later in the article it explictly states "It is not a hallucinogen." Which is it?

Popular opinion of medical documentation on the internet, along with statements found on web sites of treatment centers world-wide support the idea that it is a hallucinogen. For example, TheDetoxDrug.com on along with information that correlates with the main article, also mentions people experiencing dream like visions (this is on a low dose used in detox treatment (e.g. cocaine, heroine, opiates in general), so the assumption is that higher doses will result in hallucinations).

I would argue that it is not a hallucinogen, at least not if one adheres to the medial definition of the word 'hallucination'; that is, perceptions of objects which do not physically exist but which the user cannot distinguish from objects that do exist. Psychedelic (that is, tryptamine & phenethylamine compounds) visuals are easily distinguishable from physical reality. Any references to ibogaine being a 'hallucinogen' are merely a misuse of the word; it's a psychedelic tryptamine, like all 5-HT agonists are.

Also, while some people consider 'psychedelics' to be a sub-category of 'hallucinogens', I would argue against this. Psychedelics are a category unto themselves.

I'd like to change the first paragraph from "A hallucinogen with both psychedelic and dissociative properties" to "A psychedelic with dissociative properties", as well as the psychoactive effects section. Does anybody have a problem with this?

(Psychonaut25 - 13375p34k / C0n7r1b5 11:59 PM EST, 20 September 2013 (UTC))

—Preceding undated comment added 3:57, :59, 04:00, :10, :12, :14, :35 UTC, 21 & 11:50 UTC, 26 September 2013‎

Me1atwiki (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)yes, i have a problem with this. this is a discussion. i haven't made any change, haven't figured out the process of editing.my questions are: why is medical the authority on hallucinations? what are perceptions? what are objects? what is physical?? you haven't cited a source. so why do i believe you?Me1atwiki (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Ibogaine in Norway =

Your article says that "Ibogaine is unregulated in Norway.[62]", but according to your reference (https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/2013-02-14-199), all tryptamines are illegal. Look at the bottom of the page.84.210.54.80 (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Article Needs Expert Review =

In the pharmacokinetics and phamacodynamics sections, ibogaine is listed both as a k and mu opioid agonist and and antagonist in various places. Research needs to be done to figure out which is accurate, it can't be both.cteckerman (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe in the pharmacodynamics section it is discussing noribogaine, an ibogaine metabolite. This entire article needs help though. Sizeofint (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2015 (UTC)