Hacker News Reader

Comment by pyre | Hacker News Reader

> Ibogaine causes long QT syndrome at therapeutic doses, apparently by blocking hERG potassium channels in the heart.

Yea. That doesn't necessarily sound good:

> Clinical studies of ibogaine to treat drug addiction began in the early 1990s, but concerns about cardiotoxicity led to termination of those studies. There is currently insufficient data to determine whether it is useful in treating addiction.

I'm not really sure this is some sort of miracle drug that the establishment just doesn't want us to know about.

View on HN

I'm not really sure this is some sort of miracle drug that the establishment just doesn't want us to know about

The thing is, it doesn't matter if you're "sure" or not, because while it's on Schedule I there can be no federal funds used for research into whatever degree it may be a "miracle" (nirvana fallacy) drug. I hope we can agree that therapeutic substances have been derived from harmful ones.

Can't research be done on other countries? Has research anywhere, of any kind, determined ibogaine to be useful in the treatment of addiction?

Here's a relatively recent roundup of the state of research: http://psychedelictimes.com/iboga/the-evidence-for-ibogaine-...

I'm not inclined to trust the Psychedelic Times to be particularly neutral on the topic or scientific.

The yellow words are hyperlinks. Many of them go to outside websites.

It can be done in the US with proper licensing, "just" if you get the funds from elsewhere. Not a small hurdle by any means, but it's not like you'll be blackballed (you can see plenty of studies of schedule 1 substances on PubMed, which is run by the US government).

I don't necessarily agree with it being Schedule I, but at the same time it's not "one weird trick" that the establishment doesn't want you to know about either. It's not something that's only waiting to be packaged up and sent to drug trials to start getting used (but is held back because "the man" thinks it will upset the status quo).

The drug is toxic in humans but I think it also means we can't do comparative trials on the mechanism in mice. There might be something to discover about the mechanism that could be brought by a different drug that doesn't have the cardiotoxicity.

Is the cardiotoxicity worse than the side effects of the drugs they would replace?

I'm not sure there is an ethical way to find out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com