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, "...one 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.