Tryptamines and dissasosiatives taken together mimicing iboganes addition qualitys?

[Nexus298]

To start off I have yet to indulge in Ibogaine, I was eating morning glorys and also a nice third plataeu on dxm. I was deep in thought and realized I was having thoughts carictaristic of what Ive read about Ibogaine and its anti-addictive qualitys. Is there any truth in this?

 

[lineartransform]

In my personal opinion, I believe the anti-addiction properties of ibogaine to be a result of:

1. It being a powerful psychedelic.
2. The user goes into the trip with the expectation of confronting their addiction.

I do not believe it to be an effect unique to only ibogaine.

Perhaps if you could expand on these thoughts you were having?

 

[vecktor]

I doubt the psychedelic effects of ibogaine have much to do with its activity as an anti addictive, other than encouraging an open mind.
rather Ibogaine is also a sub type selective nicotinic antagonist, other drugs with similar pharmacology are also antiaddictive, but without the high toxicity and dangerous (lethal) side effects of high dose ibogaine. High dose Ibogaine does nasty things to Purkinje cells in animals probably in humans too.

there are combination therapies emplying dissociatives for addiction, the results are mixed.

 

[lineartransform]

I was under the impression that nicotinic antagonists were primarily relevant to tobacco addiction. I do not see the potential for addiction therapy with other compounds unless there is some sort of additional activity (ie inhibiting dopamine release).

 

[immad]

I doubt the psychedelic effects of ibogaine have much to do with its activity as an anti addictive, other than encouraging an open mind.
rather Ibogaine is also a sub type selective nicotinic antagonist, other drugs with similar pharmacology are also antiaddictive, but without the high toxicity and dangerous (lethal) side effects of high dose ibogaine. High dose Ibogaine does nasty things to Purkinje cells in animals probably in humans too.

there are combination therapies emplying dissociatives for addiction, the results are mixed.

Probably offtopic, but could you elaborate on the toxicity of ibogaine? What kind of nasty things do you mean?

 

[vecktor]

I was under the impression that nicotinic antagonists were primarily relevant to tobacco addiction. I do not see the potential for addiction therapy with other compounds unless there is some sort of additional activity (ie inhibiting dopamine release).

perhaps it's a good job you are not leading an antiaddictive drug discovery program then.
check out 18-MC. (18-Methoxycoronaridine)

 

[vecktor]

Probably offtopic, but could you elaborate on the toxicity of ibogaine? What kind of nasty things do you mean?

purkinje toxicity,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8377927

google purkinje toxicity ibogaine to get the primary literature.

Ibogaine has also killed people undergoing Ibogaine therapy, whilst the ibogaine believers (like the organisation that used to advertise on this site) would like to spin it a different way. dead is dead. high dose ibogaine is dangerous.

 

[Nexus298]

My thoughts during this trip were that maybe NMDA antagonism along with 5HT2a agonism had some quality when used together that make the user have such clear and unbias reflection on thier own life. I personally have had a cocaine addiction running 6 years now and an Opiate addiction in the works. I am 22 and have absolutely nothing to show for it. This combination shed a new angle on self reflection unfelt by either alone.

Maybe Ibogaine is only antiaddictive in that It creates this combonation and is the only one known to do so. (atleast with any kind of history)

It would really help if someone that has tried ibogaine could run an experiment using a dissasociative of thier choice and a Tryptamine of thier choice cuncurrently and see how much this combo mimics Ibogaine (if at all)

K and DMT together would probably result in conversations with the spirit world. These entitys would laugh at your addiction and you would understand with clarity unheard of.

 

[nuke]

perhaps it's a good job you are not leading an antiaddictive drug discovery program then.
check out 18-MC. (18-Methoxycoronaridine)

This is kind of a big maybe. For instance, dextromethorphan is an α3β4-nicotinic receptor antagonist yet there are numerous cases of addiction to the drug. Bupropion is another antagonist and yet in one study of bupropion for children with ADHD the experimental group was shown to begin and continue smoking at twice the rate of the active control group (traditional stimulants). I think it's closer to a "serotonin receptor downregulation via SSRIs cures depression" sort of answer to drug addiction, and will only help in certain cases.

 

[fastandbulbous]

My thoughts during this trip were that maybe NMDA antagonism along with 5HT2a agonism had some quality when used together that make the user have such clear and unbias reflection on thier own life

My thoughts kept pointing me to this sort of conclusion as well. As far as I'm aware, combinations of your bog standard NMDA antagonist (say ketamine) & a 5HT2a agonist (say DPT - why those two? Personal experience) do have a quite dramatic influence on issues surrounding compulsive drug use (again all purely personal observations from self administration), but lack ibogaines cardiotoxicity (purkinje cells); although they don't seem to have ibogaine's overall efficay in such matters.

If I were to speculate (which I will anyway as I'm waiting for the kettle to boil foer a cuppa before bed! ), I'd say the main factor in the brea king of the addiction cycle lay in the NMDA antagonism, the 5HT2a agents acting as an amplifier of the conditioned response; or to give it a snazzier name 'psychedelic metaprogramming' (I do hope no-ones called it this before, but I'll not get too excited as original things like that are difficult to come by! ).

Right, kettle's boiled and to be honest I'll probably look back on tonights posts and think, "bloody hell I was really stoned last night juding by the quality of babbling"

 

[LuxEtVeritas]

The main question that still exists, as it needs to be determined in humans which to date is lacking, is whether the quasi-psychedelic/hallucinogenic aspects of Ibogaine and/or NMDA antagonists (et al.) are intrinsic to their being significant in their efficacy as anti-addiction therapies or whether a substance such as 18-MC that appears to lack such qualities can produce results in a similar range of efficacy

Is there a need for what FnB termed 'psychedelic meta-programming' (perhaps better 'meta-psychedelic reprogramming'...?) to create results of such profound efficacy as has been seen with Ibogaine, disregarding of course its harsh potential negative aspects

Knowingly anything with psychedelic properties will as is seem be stigmatized and not accepted or even legal in most countries as a viable therapy, so one might hope that aspect is not intrinsic to the efficacy and that a non-psychedelic producing substance can be found to be of similar efficacy as seen with Ibogaine sans the toxicity and 'psychedelicity'

I know someone trying to conduct such a study, but he can't find the needed test subjects

 

[vecktor]

Knowingly anything with psychedelic properties will as is seem be stigmatized and not accepted or even legal in most countries as a viable therapy, so one might hope that aspect is not intrinsic to the efficacy and that a non-psychedelic producing substance can be found to be of similar efficacy as seen with Ibogaine sans the toxicity and 'psychedelicity'

I know someone trying to conduct such a study, but he can't find the needed test subjects

I think this is a very worthwhile area for exploration, I personally do not think that the psychedelic effects are that important, instead it is the altering and reprogramming of the dopaminergic reward pathways which gives it its efficacy.

This has huge therapeutic implications and could change the whole addiction industry. The person would have no difficulty finding test subjects if the person was willing to work to FDA or other accepted trial standards with respect to informed consent. otherwise the study is unethical and flawed and couldn't be used to develop therapies. Perhaps independant third party verification could be used instead of full disclosure to the trial participants.

 

[LuxEtVeritas]

I am surprised by how narrow-sighted someone who is intelligent and posts on a board such as this which i would think usually is to be likely of having a mindset that engenders progressive ideas could not easily see ways in which hard, ethical science can be done outside of the mainstream which as I see it is mandatory due to the inherent corruption...

Meeting obligations of disclosure/informed consent and hard standards as are implicit of valid scientific trials is easy and certainly not the stumbling block to garnering test subjects...what makes things more difficult is working outside the mainstream and having marginal funding...garnering appropriate test subject actually indeed will in the end not be that terribly difficult, though far moreso than that which is mainstream for what i would think are obvious reasons

Anyway, just making a point as i am not looking to argue the subject as why bother when you know you're 100% right

 

[hamhurricane]

is their evidence that ibogaine is neurotoxic to Purkinje cells at concentrations equivalent to human doses? ive also read that harmaline exerts the same sort of Purkinje cell toxicity but no motor abnormalities have been observed in south american ayahuasca drinkers who use the stuff weekly, and they go HEAVY on the caapi...

 

[LuxEtVeritas]

In my view I think for someone with a serious addiction problem any of the risks associated with Ibogaine are well worth the strong potential upside. Of course in some respects everything we do is risk vs. reward in many ways. i think due to its efficacy and actual low potential for ill effects it is a clear choice that should be able to be made by people who hopefully are well-informed.

It is far superior safety profile as I would gauge it as regards the dosing scheme required than many, many pharmaceuticals for conditions less serious than a serious addiction, which of course is highly destructive to one's life in many ways.

Now where the issue arises is the stigma and illegalities associated that will never change and thus an alternative that is hopefully of similar efficacy can be realized as it would IMO be to the great benefit of society. Of course such an alternative due to stigma and corruptive oppression certainly cannot have any substantial overtones of a neo-psychedelic nature as of course we know that is simply 'evil' Notable of course as well is while I have stated I believe from my informed evaluation the risk vs reward is favorable as relates to Ibogaine of course optimally we wish to have something that does not have such issues at all and has as close to no negative effects as is possible.

 

[vecktor]

Now where the issue arises is the stigma and illegalities associated that will never change and thus an alternative that is hopefully of similar efficacy can be realized as it would IMO be to the great benefit of society. Of course such an alternative due to stigma and corruptive oppression certainly cannot have any substantial overtones of a neo-psychedelic nature as of course we know that is simply 'evil' Notable of course as well is while I have stated I believe from my informed evaluation the risk vs reward is favorable as relates to Ibogaine of course optimally we wish to have something that does not have such issues at all and has as close to no negative effects as is possible.

there are people in the pharmaceutical industry who, if approached the correct and proper way would be happy to collaborate with such a venture, bringing their resources and a wealth of knowledge and experience to it. If indeed it has no negative consequences then one would have a blockbuster drug, and the world would be changed for the better. If the stumbling block is money then develop a collaborative agreement for sharing of the rights and eventual profits (if there are any).

Clandestine research in order to legitimise a medicinal claim is highly counterproductive, because the data is essentially worthless and it makes it easy for those who do not support the use of these substances to demonize them, "they must be bad, and the researcher knew it, the research was done covertly because it would not withstand open scrutiny." game over.

Whether that is the truth is irrelevant.
Lotsof and the other iboga accolytes have been hacking away for 50 years with no progress sadly more years will pass and he will have wasted his entire life work, they will never make it until they play the game. Until then Ibogaine will remain illegal and unavailable.

Do not presume to second guess me, my ethics or beliefs as you do not know me and to tar everyone in pharma with the same brush, even if it suits your dogma, is just plain wrong.

sorry for dragging this way off topic.
V

 

[Refluxer]

NMDA antagonist (say ketamine) & a 5HT2a agonist (say DPT - why those two? Personal experience) do have a quite dramatic influence on issues surrounding compulsive drug use

And still you're a drug pig?

As several of you are certainly already aware of, NMDA antagonist/5HT agonist-combo can have effects which are not merely additive effects, and in fact may add up to a state which is not one of psychedelia or hallucinogenesis.

 

[LuxEtVeritas]

hey vecktor i am not going to argue with you in this form of discourse as it is simply not suitable to such, though in other formats i am sure we could discourse amiably in a productive manner

notably i have high respect for your straightforward insightful intelligence and clarity and i would never question your ethics as firstly i do not know you personally of course and secondly from what I can gather from how you seem to be and conduct yourself i would lean to believe you are very likely of a solid ethical mindset so i am sorry if you took it in a personal manner

my harsh stance on the pharma industry is of course not inclusive of all those who work in the industry as I am sure there are many people trying to do good and ethical science and manifest a benefit to society...but, as a general rule, IMO at least, it is very well established as to the intensive corruption and ill-motivated nature of Big Pharma

 

[Hammilton]

I am surprised by how narrow-sighted someone who is intelligent and posts on a board such as this which i would think usually is to be likely of having a mindset that engenders progressive ideas could not easily see ways in which hard, ethical science can be done outside of the mainstream which as I see it is mandatory due to the inherent corruption...

Meeting obligations of disclosure/informed consent and hard standards as are implicit of valid scientific trials is easy and certainly not the stumbling block to garnering test subjects*...what makes things more difficult is working outside the mainstream and having marginal funding...garnering appropriate test subject actually indeed will in the end not be that terribly difficult, though far moreso than that which is mainstream for what i would think are obvious reasons

Anyway, just making a point as i am not looking to argue the subject as why bother when you know you're 100% right

You seem to take your opinion of the pharmaceutical industry entirely from the media. I have no doubt that if you weren't taking your only information regarding corruption from the news media, your claims would carry a lot more weight, though your conclusions would be greatly different.

You should have no problem finding a local drug trial and seeing what the enrollment process is truly like. I did this about 3 weeks ago, but don't plan on actually taking part. It was a trial looking at the use of a CII drug to treat addiction (to nicotine, of all things), though I have a hard time that this particular drug would ever be moved from II to III so an approved formulation could be used under DATA.

* Those things aren't even difficult to comply with. Unfortunately, it seems unwillingness to meet basic international and national standards for human drug trials is the bigger stumbling block.

These aren't difficult or even complicated.

I don't have a problem with skipping some steps where human research is crucial. Addiction isn't something that's well modelled in rodents. They're good at predicting a drugs ability to engender abuse and addiction, but I have yet to see a good way to use animals to test a drugs ability to end addiction. This doesn't mean animal studies should be skipped, but once in vitro assays are completed, and in vivo animal studies show a good therapeutic ratio, I don't have a problem with proceeding to human studies.

I don't see what "progressive" has to do with anything. It's not progressive to hold back the results of animal studies or even what the drug is, the only part that could be considered progressive is the extra-establishment nature of the study. Perhaps this can be considered progressive. I don't know that generating results that will have absolutely no benefit to the society at large is very useful. That's the biggest reason ibogaine derivatives haven't been a wider benefit to society. Few know about them, and even fewer have access.

Yeah, having research around in general is a benefit to those intelligent enough to seek it out- and truly, not everyone, addicts probably included more than other groups, is capable of doing this. Either through sloth, ineptitude or internet access, only a small proportion of drug addicts will ever learn about this.

When Vecktor says that this is a drug with really huge monetary potential, he's not exagerating. There was just an article published that detailed buprenorphine's orphan drug status, and the massive profits they've been generating from the drug added to a class that was supposed to have less then 200K likely consumers. We're not even talking about a psychedelic drug (well, supposedly not, or not that I know). The drug in question is, anyway, ibogaine obviously is.

The reason I don't put a whole lot of stock into the psychedelic effects being the main reason for the antiaddictive effects is that these anti-addictive effects aren't seen with other psychedelics. That statement isn't entirely true, I know. Psychedelics have been used with good results to interrupt addictions, and LSD showed very positive results in the treatment of alcoholism. They probably do have a good place in addiction treatment, but none of them seem to have the profound antiaddictive effects of ibogaine.

Now, this can mean one of two things:

1. Ibogaine, due to other effects has much strong anti-addictive effects
2. The "Ibogaine Lobby," the hard core adherents have either,
a. A vested interest in it's success, as in money or pseudoreligious devotion
b. haven't done much in the way of careful objective research that can be compared to the work previously done with 'plain' psychedelics.

I think it's probably Option 3, all of the above.

Ibogaine itself has so many relevant pharmacological activities that it's hard to makes heads or tails of it. 5HT2a agonism, NMDA antagonism, nicotinic receptor antagonism, mu agonism, sigma-2 agonism, etc. It's practically a who's who of of recreational drug activities.

I don't think the fact that Dextromethorphan has similar binding to α3β4-nicotinic receptors and produces addiction to it does anything to suggest that the α3β4 antagonism isn't the primary reason for the anti-addictive effects. 18-MC retains α3β4 affinity, loses α4β2 affinity, retains μ and κ affinity, but loses most σ affinity, and loses 5HT2a and NMDA affinity. However, 18-MC retains it's anti-addictive effects. Mecamylamine and Bupropion both have α3β4 affinity and are commonly used for their anti-addictive properties. Or at least I think mecamylamine is still used, I don't really know.

Dextromethorphan seems to be much less addictive than ketamine or pcp, too, for whatever that's worth. Probably not much. DXM simply has other effects that are more pro-addiction.

 

[LuxEtVeritas]

I firstly in a response to being highly insulted, which is what you have just done, iwrote out a response that was in some ways perhaps argumentative and i do not like to be reduced to that, ...as such I will just re-post my last post and maybe you can think about what you post and how it might be very insulting

hey vecktor i am not going to argue with you in this form of discourse as it is simply not suitable to such, though in other formats i am sure we could discourse amiably in a productive manner

notably i have high respect for your straightforward insightful intelligence and clarity and i would never question your ethics as firstly i do not know you personally of course and secondly from what I can gather from how you seem to be and conduct yourself i would lean to believe you are very likely of a solid ethical mindset so i am sorry if you took it in a personal manner

my harsh stance on the pharma industry is of course not inclusive of all those who work in the industry as I am sure there are many people trying to do good and ethical science and manifest a benefit to society...but, as a general rule, IMO at least, it is very well established as to the intensive corruption and ill-motivated nature of Big Pharma