The motherfucking ibogaine thread

Discussion in 'Narconon' started by Anonymous, Oct 26, 2012.

  1. Anonymous Member

    In another thread Anonymous said this about ibogaine
    When asked for dox Anonymous said
    Anonymous knows it is not fair to dump 338 references at PubMed to review and refute. That's why he said, "Hope you've got the time to read it all."

    When you are talking to honest people they don't pull shit like this. They can summarize the evidence and how it was obtained with links to one or two papers that back up what they are saying.

    So now I'm going to do the homework that Anonymous should have done. I'm going to try to find the relevant dox in those 338 references for him.

    Protip: Make a username at PubMed so you can create a "Clinical Trials" filter for search results. Yes it is annoying that the filters aren't available if you don't sign in.

    Studies involving yeast or mice or whatever do not predict how well a drug will work in humans. But they help work out some of the chemistry and it is nice to know the rats didn't all die before the first human takes the new substance.

    Searching PubMed on "ibogaine" with the "Clinical Trials" filter on gives only three results:


    Notice that these three papers are from over a decade ago. That usually means the treatment didn't pan out.

    The first study looks like it might have had a treatment group and a comparison group, which is good. But I can only see the abstract which doesn't give details. It concludes, "We report here that ibogaine significantly decreased craving for cocaine and heroin during inpatient detoxification. Self-reports of depressive symptoms were also significantly lower after ibogaine treatment and at 30 days after program discharge."

    That is promising but from the abstract we don't know if there was any blinding. I suspect not. Usually new drugs are tried without blinding. Then if that looks positive people do blinded studies, which are a little more complicated. But subjective symptoms like feeling cravings or depressed mood ultimately have to be assessed with double-blinding.

    The second paper is an observational study of about 30 heroin addicts who used ibogaine during a 72 hour acute withdrawal phase. There were no controls. One person died but we don't know why. The author wrote, " fatality possibly involving surreptitious heroin use." Gee, you'd think the coroner would have been able to measure high levels of opiates in the blood of this dead person. So it is weird that the author has to speculate about the cause of death.

    The third paper has no abstract and is not a study, just someone writing up his "observations" of something.

    So you can see, there is not enough evidence at PubMed to support the use of ibogaine for drug withdrawal at this time.

    For any new drug or supplement or whatever, the minimal evidential standard has been two controlled trials. That is a very low standard, but we set the bar low because it sucks being sick and we're willing to take things that may not work if we don't have good alternatives.

    If we set the evidential bar any lower than two controlled trials, medical research will be so overwhelmed with spam that we will go insane collectively.

    If every American made a commitment to ignoring ibogaine and other new drugs that don't yet have two good studies in support of their use, we could put all that wasted energy into something useful and maybe solve our profound economic problems. At the same time, a zillion con artists would be forced to quit pitching useless quackery.
    • Like Like x 6
    • Winner Winner x 5
  2. muldrake Member

    William S. Burroughs swore by ibogaine for heroin addiction.

    Of course, he shot smack on and off well into his 70s.

    Then again, he lived to 83.
    • Funny Funny x 2
  3. Anonymous Member

  4. Anonymous Member

    One problem with that:

    Americans don't want to make commitments that require any form of work on their behalf.

    Some/Most Americans don't want to do any research and just take what their healthcare provider/spiritual leader/neighbor/celebrity/family/friend recommends regardless of the adverse affects to their health. They don't want to think for themselves: If it works for X, it will work for me.

    Even if they do research, they rely on questionable sources. Fox News/Wikipedia/Google are as about as far as they go for "research" and will use selective bias in order to come to their conclusions. (ie: First site they come to that speaks highly of X is their "reliable" source" despite the 100s that come before it saying X is deadly/bad for health.)

    Basically: Hoping that all the people will do their own research or fact finding here in the US is the same as hoping you will shit a gold brick.

    Otherwise, you are spot on about everything else.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  5. Anonymous Member

    Clonidine from the 1950's period if used in a controlled clinical environment works extremely well in reducing the effects of opiate withdrawal coupled with counseling. It calms the patient removes most if not all of the withdrawal symptoms as well if used in a controlled environment for the required duration.

    Depending on the patient disposition this drug will find patient success in combating opiates. While there are other more recent drugs Subutex, Suboxone, Methadone etc.. etc...

    During the acute withdrawal process additional anti-anxiety medications can be co-administered for the 72-120 hr period, Ie. Valium, Xanan to assist in the process.

    Here we have a drug from the beginning of the last century that is Very Effective in combating opiate withdrawals. Note depending upon severity the treatment needs to occur in a controlled environment with the appropriate psychological counseling to reinforce a drug free lifestyle.

    Discussing over and over again various treatment protocols does not really address the problem. If a facility has quality personnel coupled with older successful treatment protocols addicts can be properly addressed.

    They can be counseled to live opiate free lives coupled with psychological treatment and continuing positive reinforcement cycles and monitoring.


    That is unless facilities are only interested in profits and post-treatment reinforcement is not addressed by those who initially sent the patient for treatment. Various facilities can string a patient out for years on methadone, suboxone and parents or loved ones post treatment can think, Hey it's over.

    It is a long a laborious time however if you couple professional treatment along with caring family members success is within reach for any and all participants. Otherwise don't waste your time and trouble telling others how you tried so hard, sorry it's that simple.

    We do not need untried tested drugs to treat addiction we only need professionals on intake and caring family members to participate during treatment as well as post-treatment.

    Narconon is an unprofessional non-scientific dangerous facility that only contributes to drug addiction coupled with other programs that use the same protocols.

  6. Anonymous Member

    Well there are only so many hours in a day. Do you want to be up all night Googling about that rash on your foot or would you rather crack jokes with your lover, your children, or your friends?

    Please God save me from a world where I must research everything.

    If we rig the expertise game correctly, the experts will police each other. That will be good for us, the lazy non-experts who don't want to learn calculus and statistics.

    To create a functional system of expert peer review we will require:
    1. a way to tag legit experts verses crap wannabe experts
    2. a way to monitor the health of the self-policing process.

    So long as the self-policing within a scientific field is working, we can spend our evenings goofing off. When the self-policing breaks down, then we will have to make some effort to get the system functioning again.

    How will we recognize problems within some scientific field? I think that is easy: when bad articles get published and aren't later retracted and when implausible hypotheses are studied. When we see more than rare examples of these events then we should say, wtf who fell asleep at the wheel?

    It is my impression that the self-policing within medicine has weakened over the past 20 years and we do need to step in and help the doctors and scientists to rebuild their "dox or STFU" community. But once peer review is working again we can go back to being lazy fucks.

    One way the public can support medical science without much effort: just ask, "Are there two studies with controls for [novel product with health claim]?" If the other person says, "I don't know," then ignore the product. If everyone did this companies would be forced to prove their claims before spamming us all with marketing misinformation.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Anonymous Member

    You are so Full of Shit there are reliable treatments already out there from reliable resources one need only look. Your dribble is just that dribble from an infant with No Knowledge!
  8. Please do not make it any harder for ibogaine to become a known aid in addiction interruption, as it is something pretty amazing in that field. Am not able to provide much links as Ibogaine therapy is in its infancy. I can post some links, if you so wish. It would be unfair to judge this treatment only because Beau G advertises it in the same website he goes on about his other adventures in the drug addiction rehabilitation field..

    FDA I believe, concluded, I believe in late 90's / early 2000 that ibogaine has no potential as it prologues the QT interval. Well so do hundreds, accepted for human use, molecules in medicine. Ibogaine has no potential for Big Pharma as it can not be patented thus it would not generate cash flow. It would prevent BP from making profits as it is a very powerful addiction interruptor indeed. Old Bill was right about Ibogaine as well.

    To compare Clonidine to Ibogaine is foolish. Clonidine only alleviates withdrawals to pretty small extent whereas ibogaine stops/prevents them, full stop. :)
  9. ..oh and BTW there are NO reliable treatments out there to cure addiction nor to interrupt it. None whatsoever.
    I've been reading this site for some hours now and am very grateful I do not live in a country where as far as I know Narconon practices "drug rehabilitation". Scientologists are present here, too. :/
  10. Anonymous Member

    Ibogaine has been used by shamanic holistic healers for millions of years as a natural spiritual transducer of opioid connectedness for those who interpret the truth as LRH has revealed it.
  11. Anonymous Member

  12. Anonymous Member

    Two clinical trials with contols at PubMed or GTFO.
  13. muldrake Member

    Suck a fuck!

    Welcome to reality!

    I tried to come up with (LOL) a SFW equivalent, but it was something like "eat a blowjob" and didn't make any sense at all.

    Sorry, dumbfuck, we live in a world where there are a lot of liars, a lot of creeps, a lot of scam artists. Do not make major decisions based on material misrepresentations of fact from criminals.

    If you do that, you will be scammed.

    I'm sorry you think that reality should conform to your beliefs.

    Unless God magics up a world where your beliefs automatically get believed, well, you'll just have to deal with our current dumb world where dumb beliefs often get enacted into law because a bunch of dummies elect dumb people to pass them into law. Sometimes, dumb beyond belief law.

    I was considering improving this post, but why bother? Fucking look at this thread.
    • Winner Winner x 2
  14. Anonymous Member

    frasco_Lambarene.jpg AWwtHYFCQAEMNWx.png

    The history of iboga is going generations back in the origins the west African cultures. The Bwiti use the hallucinogenic rootbark of the Tabernanthe Iboga bush, specially cultivated for the religion, to induce a spiritual enlightenment, stabilize community and family structure, meet religious requirements and to solve problems of a spiritual and/or medical nature.
    In the western world ibogaine was first introduced to the public in France from 1939 till 1970. It was an extract sold in 8 mg tablets, called Lambarene.
    In the 1960´s Howard Lotsof (1943-2010) from New York city, then a heroin addict, by accidentally found out the anti-adictive effects of ibogaine. Howard was cured from his addiction and became most active in promoting the use of ibogaine. Howard became ibogaines leading advocate, he authored or co-authored numerous research papers, lobbying public officials, pharmaceutical companies and independent researchers to investigate ibogaines efficacy. In 1982, Howard formed a non-profit corporation, the Dora Weiner Foundation, whose purpose was to promote the development of ibogaine.
    Due to Howards work, individuals got inspired to do research, organise seminars, conferences and start treatment centres. Since the 90’s several informative websites and mailing lists got online which provide information specialised on ibogaine, it’s research and developments.
    In the late 80’s ibogaine has been scientifically proven to be anti addictive by Dutch and and American Doctors. Even though the scientific proof, there are no governments, pharmaceutical companies or regular healthcare centres interested in the use of ibogaine.
    In the last few decades there has been continuing interest in Europe, North America, and Mexico in the use of ibogaine for addiction therapy. Several small treatment centres have come up to provide alternative treatment for substance abuse.
  15. Anonymous Member

    Howard Lotsof Dies at 66; Saw Drug Cure in a Plant

    Published: February 17, 2010
    Howard Lotsof was 19, addicted to heroin and searching for a new high in 1962 when he swallowed a bitter-tasting white powder taken from an exotic West African shrub.

    Enlarge This Image
    Malcolm Mackinnon

    Howard Lotsof

    “The next thing I knew,” he told The New York Times in 1994, “I was straight.”

    The substance was ibogaine, an extract of Tabernanthe iboga, a perennial rain-forest plant found primarily in Gabon. In the Bwiti religion it is used in puberty initiation rites, inducing a powerful altered state for at least 48 hours during which young people are said to come into contact with a universal ancestor.

    By Mr. Lotsof’s account, when he and six friends who were also addicted tried ibogaine, five of them immediately quit, saying their desire for heroin had been extinguished.

    It was the start of a lifelong campaign for Mr. Lotsof. And now thousands of former addicts around the world and some scientists contend that ibogaine should be scientifically tested for its ability to halt heroin and cocaine cravings and even end addiction. Ibogaine is used in drug treatment clinics in many countries, but is banned in the United States.

    Mr. Lotsof, who was 66, died on Jan. 31 at a hospital near his home on Staten Island. The cause was liver cancer, his wife, Norma said.

    Virtually from that day 48 years ago when he first tried ibogaine, Mr. Lotsof became perhaps its leading advocate, lobbying public officials, pharmaceutical companies and independent researchers to investigate its efficacy. In the mid-1980s, he persuaded a Belgian company to manufacture ibogaine in capsule form and begin offering it to addicts in the Netherlands.

    By then he had started the Dora Weiner Foundation, named for his grandmother, to develop ibogaine as a medication, to disseminate information about chemical dependence and to refer people to treatment. Mr. Lotsof ran the foundation.

    In 1986 he received a patent for the use of ibogaine as a remedy for heroin and cocaine addiction. Five years later, he began working with Jan Bastiaans, a Dutch psychiatrist who had gained renown by using LSD therapy for Holocaust survivors.

    They treated 30 addicts from around the world, two-thirds of whom stopped using drugs for periods ranging from four months to four years. With 75 percent of addicts typically relapsing within six months of conventional care, the results spurred scientific interest.

    “His great achievement,” said Kenneth Alper, an associate professor of psychiatry and neurology at the New York University School of Medicine, “was in inducing the National Institute on Drug Abuse to undertake a research project on ibogaine that produced scores of peer-reviewed publications and paved the way for F.D.A. approval of a clinical trial.”

    The Food and Drug Administration did approve the trial, Dr. Alper said, but it was never completed because of contractual disputes and lack of financing. Ibogaine remains banned by the federal government.

    “In the uncontrolled environments in which ibogaine is typically used, clinics or nonmedical settings,” Dr. Alper said, “the observations indicate that there is a resolution of withdrawal, meaning the addict is detoxified and no longer has withdrawal symptoms and is no longer physically dependent.” Scientifically controlled testing is needed, he said.

    Herbert D. Kleber, director of the division on substance abuse at the New York State Psychiatric Institute at Columbia University, said he was skeptical about the efficacy of ibogaine in treating substance abusers, including those addicted to opium-based drugs like heroin.

    “At various times ibogaine has been proposed to treat opioid withdrawal as a cure for opioid dependence and as a cure for cocaine dependence,” Dr. Kleber said. “But there is a lack of controlled scientific studies to back those beliefs.

    “A number of deaths have been associated with its use, especially to treat opioid withdrawal and dependence,” Dr. Kleber continued. “I therefore do not feel it is something that should be used in the absence of such evidence.”

    Howard Stephen Lotsof (pronounced LOTS-uv) was born in the Bronx on March 1, 1943, the only child of Abner and Lillian Weiner Lotsof. Besides his wife, the former Norma Alexander, he is survived by two sisters, Rosalie Falato and Holly Weiland.

    Mr. Lotsof, who dropped out of Fairleigh Dickinson University in the 1960s, graduated from N.Y.U. in 1976. Over the years he wrote or co-wrote scientific papers on ibogaine that were published in respected academic journals, including The Journal of Ethnopharmacology and The American Journal on Addictions.

    “These accomplishments are all the more extraordinary,” Dr. Alper said, “in view of the fact that Mr. Lotsof, a graduate of New York University who majored in film, was without a doctoral-level degree.”
    An earlier version of this article misspelled the university's name as Farleigh Dickinson University and incorrectly referred to Mr. Lotsof's sisters as his daughters. Mr. Lotsof has no children.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Anonymous Member

    Some people go to college, medical school, residency, and then do a sub-specialty fellowship. This adds up to about 14 years of specialized study. If they are a research physician they may defend a doctoral dissertation for a PhD as well. Then within their own specialized area of investigation they may further invest years in mastering complex laboratory techniques involving sequences of actions, each with its potential for error. These people are in the best position to judge the research output of others using those same techniques and working on similar problems.

    If you think a lay person with perhaps six months to live can "research" the internet and somehow match the expertise of someone like this, you are wrong.

    We all must rely upon the word of others who demonstrate expertise in some field. Rather than attempting to sift technical evidence ourselves, it would be wise for us to make sure that the community of relevant experts is effectively spanking the liars, creeps, and scammers through redundant systems of peer review.

    I would add to the peer review a high penalty for any incidents of fraud. A scientist caught cooking the books should be out of science forever. Let him sell real estate.
  17. Random guy Member

    That's bullocks. Ibogaine is a fairly "raw" natural product, where the substances that actually work is mixed in with a heap of other ingredients, some with their own effects, good or bad. Looking into Ibogaine and separating the wheat from the chaff as it where, perhaps find a way to synthesize the relevant substances will make for a patentable medicine.
  18. Anonymous Member

    Wake me when the pro-Ibogaine tribe produces two controlled trials in support of efficacy and safety. Meanwhile, I will hate them for pretending that testimonials are just as good.
  19. Anonymous Member

    Back in the day, Bayer took good old extract of willow bark, refined it to ASA and had a nice profitable patent on Aspirin for many years. These days, outlaw chemists are always tweaking molecules on designer drugs to dodge the law.

    A big drug company could give Ibogaine a little twist/refinement and patent it, easy. No money in addicts? Insurance companies would pay for real cures. Some of them even pay for Narconon, and how dumb is that?
  20. Anonymous Member

    Oh how wrong you are.

    What is it called when the people promoting some new treatment have a major financial interest in that treatment that they fail to disclose? Is that fraud? I'm not sure.
    • Like Like x 1
  21. muldrake Member

    I personally think it's pretty appalling to take a natural product, when the locals have been using it for hundreds or even thousands of years, then "patent" its contents, when the locals have been using it forever for exactly the same purposes, then capture all the profits while screwing the locals.

    Ibogaine certainly has good properties. Part of the reason it hasn't been "patented" already is that its good properties have been known, for a very, very long time, by the people who have been using it, for a very, very long time, for those very properties. In patent law, this is called "prior art."
    • Like Like x 1
  22. muldrake Member

    Note: just that something has a patent application doesn't mean it's legit. E.g., any number of joke applications for swingsets, wheels, perpetual motion machines, and etc.

    The term is "conflict of interest," though. That doesn't mean whatever they're saying is wrong. It just means you should take into consideration their interest when you listen to what they say, just like you would if someone is trying to sell you a car.

    But why wouldn't someone promoting some treatment methodology patent it? They'd have to be retarded not to patent it. Also, why bother patenting it if you don't think it's worth something? Patenting something indicates you genuinely think you might make money on it. Why might you make money on it? Well, maybe because it's a good idea. You, the patent applicant, obviously think so.

    I'd be more suspicious of the guy who is selling a product and didn't even bother patenting it. That guy apparently doesn't think the idea is worth anything.
    • Like Like x 1
  23. Anonymous Member

  24. muldrake Member

    I don't think this. Nobody in their right mind does.

    Having a lot of academic qualifications does mean your opinion can and should carry more weight, at least in the relevant field.

    It doesn't make someone omniscient or incorruptible, though, and when lots of money is involved, you can always hire some whore with a degree to say whatever you want.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. Anonymous Member

    The last ibogaine thread had similar pro-ibogaine posts. Looks like someone hired a marketing firm with sockpuppet minions. That costs a lot of money.

    Why would people spend money on marketing before they spend money on two controlled clinical trials?

    Howard Lotsof died two years ago. Presumably he dropped loot which must be liquidated, including ownership of his patent on ibogaine as an addiction treatment. So his heirs are kicking up the perceived value of the old patent before they unload it.

    BigPharma doesn't want you to know... blah blah blah --that's just bluster to distract you from the lack of clinical trials. This strategy works because Americans think Googling up stuff means you are doing your skeptical homework and not merely believing what you are told by the powers that be.

    In science as opposed to Google, you must know *all* the evidence pertinent to some question before you can render an opinion.
  26. muldrake Member

    People were talking about ibogaine as long as 100 years ago.

    It's just not very patentable. You can't easily patent something that's being used already and has been for hundreds of years.

    It's also not a magic silver bullet that cures addiction, though it probably has uses in treating addiction. We don't even consider or research it, though, because it is itself a "drug" and some people enjoy it, and therefore, it is evil.
  27. Anonymous Member

    My summary of the ibo conversation:

    pro ibo: this stuff is amazing
    skeptic: dox or stfu
    pro ibo: low quality dox
    skeptic: where are clinical trials with controls?
    pro ibo: BigPharma won't fund them because you can't patent a plant.

    But Mr. Pro Ibo forgot to say that his pals did patent ibo already. Those pals were involved with the preliminary studies.

    tl;dr: Don't baww about not being able to patent stuff when your people have the patent.
  28. Anonymous Member

  29. Anonymous Member

    Yes you hire another expert for a second opinion. But what happens when you can't tell a legit expert from one who is daft?

    Consider the Elizabeth Wray story. Her parents took her to two board certified MDs who said she has PANDAS. Then they take her to Boston Children's Hospital where more than one doctor reportedly said she does not have this diagnosis. The disagreement might reflect a lack evidence to settle the question one way or the other. Or it might signify that physicians are having a hard time calling out their peers right now.

    I don't think it's fair to ask you to form an opinion about that situation. But I would like you to think about the problem of how humans create and sustain a culture of expert peer review. I think that problem deserves a bit more attention that the problem of people being too lazy to research technical scientific issues on their own.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Anonymous Member

    Dude you are confusing me because there is a link above to the patent, patent #5591738.
  31. Anonymous Member

  32. Random Guy, all you state has been done already. Also noribogaine has been patented, by Deborah Mash. No Big Pharma around. Probably BP will not be around as FDA does not like the idea of Ibogaine being used to help these desperate people who are especially in the USA mostly addicted to legal opiate pain killers (addicts actually generate BP a lot of cash flow, too, when addicted).

    Many privileged addicts are able to get treated with it nevertheless, but not those who are poor and not connected, who have nobody who cares about them.. And so shall it remain unless nothing changes. That is why I wrote here: to keep Beau G and Ibogaine separate issues.

    I know a great deal about Ibogaine as I have studied it for > 5 years in the real world. If Motherfucking Ibogaine is something that interests, it is useful to understand that by no means is it a magic bullet that cures each and every addict. Far from it. It does not cure anything or anybody. But it can help tremendously. It also seems it is the best thing we have in order to give people who are chronically addicted to legal pain killers or to heroin a chance to change their lives.
  33. Anonymous Member

    Personal experience?
  34. anon walker Moderator

    Ah, Bayer...guess who invented heroin as a cough suppressant. And guess what they named the product.
  35. Anonymous Member

    Why is the promotion of Ibogaine so important to you?
  36. anon walker Moderator

    I've heard that it hits addiction, no matter what the addiction is. I'd be willing to test drive it, see if my tobacco habit miraculously disappears and goes poof!
  37. Anonymous Member

    Wasn't presidential candidate Edmund Muskie addicted to that stuff?
  38. Why is it important to me? Here you go.

    - Because I was able to brake free from 2 decades of opiate addiction with it. Having tried all other modalities that exist, most of them many times. Except Narconon!
    - I distantly know Beau G and it does not seem fair to me that Ibogaine would take hits because of the jackass.
    - I am not someone who promotes it anywhere, I am happy to leave that to others who wish to do that. I came here only because I was curious to read how hard Beau G will fall and whilst reading other threads here I noticed this Ibogaine thread and it seemed that people here did not know much about it. I believe everyone can make up their own mind about anything in the world, wether it is good, bad (that is totally irrelevant to me, what you decide over the matter, for your life or perception of the world) or insignificant, but it's definitely nothing like Narconon or Beau G. So basically I begun to feel bad that Ibogaine would have to loose the near to nonexistent bits of credibility because of him.
    - If someone around the area I live in came to me and asked if I could help them do what I have done with my addiction, I'd point them to the right direction if I thought my path would be something they'd benefit from. Has not happened yet as I do not believe Ibogaine therapy as we know it today is for everyone and I do think people should try other modalities before taking this chance. When I took the Ibogaine path I was ready and prepared to die. As I wanted to break free from the addiction or not live, even I was on legal pain killers, not on street drugs. Opiates kill your soul, and soul does not care are they legal or illegal - both kill your soul. So for me it was the perfect timing to go for Ibogaine as it is still experimental and it is potentially dangerous and I was scared to take it. So I'd not point addicted people to the Ibogaine path very easily.
    Helping people only because you know how hard and desperate the situation they live in is does not need to be motivated by money as some of you suggested. It can be motivated by sheer want to help if asked. Helping others if asked, being involved in Narcotics Anonymous etc is the form of activism I practice. As helping others may well help me too. Am I naïve or what! ;)

    I hope you're satisfied with the answer.
  39. Muskie being addicted to ibogaine was Hunter's joke. A joke that has been widely believed to be true.

    Ibogaine is not something anyone would take for fun or kicks. At least anyone who knows what it is like. It is not at all enjoyable. It is not possible to get addicted to it. Even the world does carry many weirdoes on it.. but you'd need to be a pretty weird person to like it. Actually weird is not enough, triple crazy could be.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins