Talk:Ibogaine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Ibogaine was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 13, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
October 5, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Fewer Templates?[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

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)


iInconsistency[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 15:33 & :34, 29 November 2012

Secondary Studies[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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?[edit]

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). [Ibogaine 1]

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 existCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

. 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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Lack of data in humans?[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 16:58, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
See the OP. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 27 September 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 [11], 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[edit]

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.

http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/informacoes-tecnicas13?p_p_id=101_INSTANCE_FXrpx9qY7FbU&p_p_col_id=column-2&p_p_col_pos=1&p_p_col_count=2&_101_INSTANCE_FXrpx9qY7FbU_groupId=219201&_101_INSTANCE_FXrpx9qY7FbU_urlTitle=ibogaina&_101_INSTANCE_FXrpx9qY7FbU_struts_action=%2Fasset_publisher%2Fview_content&_101_INSTANCE_FXrpx9qY7FbU_assetEntryId=2863784&_101_INSTANCE_FXrpx9qY7FbU_type=content

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[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=Ibogaine> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Ibogaine}} template (see the help page).