I wonder about the editorial choice to use veterans rather than, say, women who have PTSD from assaults, which is a much larger group of people. (Approximately 4% of US men and 8% of US women experience PTSD every year across all reasons like accidents, sexual assaults, combat, etc.)
Presumably this treatment would help everyone? Or is it somehow supporting only vets?
The war machine is the one funding so the framing makes sense.
Not that I like it... I would prefer that the concept of a war veteran was non existent but that is akin to wishing the moon was made out of cheese.
The research on ptsd began with US veterans afaik. It’s probably the group that is most studied for it and also receives trials.
The US also spends a large amount of money on each veteran. If they can find a cure for trauma they would benefit hugely from it. The side effect of this is that others would benefit as well.
It's who the trials are done on. US veterans have their own health care system, so that may have played a role in why they were targeted for the research.
Way back in something like 2002, I was in college. One day at my then-girlfriend’s apartment east of campus, she got a phone call. An old friend of hers was in town, so she told him to come over. I don’t know his name, but let’s call him J., which is a randomly selected letter.
J. was a traveling Ibogaine ... healer? He went from city to city, summoned by the loved ones of advanced heroin addicts, to attempt one last Hail Mary shot at recovery.
These were situations of absolute desperation, and I can’t overstate the seriousness with which he took his adopted occupation. He described to us in detail his process.
First, he interviewed the person requesting help, seeing what else they had tried and trying to suss out if Ibogaine would be worth the risk. He turned away most callers.
Those who he accepted would be dropped off at his van, inside which was a mobile, DIY ICU of sorts: a bed, food, water and emergency medical supplies. He would administer the ibogaine (I don’t know what form this took), and then, in his words, the patient would undergo a 2 to 3-day continuous hallucination.
During this time, in J.’s observations, the patient was almost always ‘visited’ by dead relatives, who typically admonished the patient for what had become of them, laying into them with real talk about the state of their life.
J. said half of the patients came out of this experience fundamentally changed, and effectively cured of their addiction to heroin. I don’t know if he had any data (anecdotal or otherwise) on recidivism, but the implication was that this was likely to be permanent.
But, he said, the other half went insane, which is why he spent a great deal of effort screening families and informing them of the risks.
I don’t know how much, if any, of this is true. I don’t know what ‘insane’ means, or meant. But I remember vividly how seriously this guy took it, without ever coming off as some kind of self-satisfied guru or medicine man, believing himself to be a god, or anything like that. He never accepted money. He lived somewhat roughly. I wonder whatever happened to that guy.
It's political posturing, makes it more likely to get bipartisan support. Female rape victims are not as unimpeachable as the (superficially) hallowed veteran in American society.
I mean, that does sound pretty crazy. Specific wars are often ill-advised or largely pointless, but "stop doing war" presupposes that all other countries in the world will also "stop doing war", otherwise what you're suggesting is just unilateral surrender under the guise of stopping war.
My interpretation of the parent comment is: Americans should stop aggressing other countries, slaughtering the population, and then publishing scientific breakthroughs on treating ptsd among the killers.
I'd say the comment says nothing about wars of survival, which is not what veterans have ptsd for. No one is 'doing war' at America.
Game theory and history say otherwise. If you want to be a fool, have at it. Just don't expect the rest of us to go along or respect you because of it.
The article acts like ibogaine is a newly discovered drug. This is an old hallucinagenix drug that has helped thousands of people get over ptsd. The only thing holding this back is government bureaucracy and red tape. I’m happy that people will get there chance to benefit from this after decades of stupid government policy.
I always wonder why ECT doesn't get more press. It very very often works on depression (and bipolar disorder, catatonia; anything affective-related really), although the effects may wane over time when the treatment is discontinued. Memory loss is one of the side effects, and it could actually be beneficial here.
This is nuts. Bringing ECT into the discussion of a novel psychedelic medicine.
Totally different ballparks. Well-established results vs. very little formal research.
Have you had ECT, or do you know anyone who has? It's a last resort for horrible depression and not much else. It has huge risks, and while it does often make these people's lives manageable, it shouldn't be in the same discussion as a medication that's been out of discussion for political reasons.
Sorry if I find that things like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39804212/ existing in checks 2025 repulsive. Especially when those are the same arguments put forward for lobotomies. If somebody is capable of _ELECTING_ ECT, fine. But don't pretend that dosing somebody unconcious with benzos so they Can't seize, and reducing shock duration and intensity so theres no skin burning makes intentionaly brain damaging somebody to fit in with society any less horifying. If you don't like that example- theres plenty more for things like dementia among the elderly. Especially if they're in a retirement facility.
As for TCMS? It works- if you can find a place that's not a farm.
My point exactly. I am not saying psychedelics do not help people, they clearly help some people with some problems. But the balance of research and general interest is not proportional to how promising both paths already look. For example, which treatments are safer long term? It's unclear. At the same time it's clear that there can be unwanted long term side effects. In one very particular case, pregnant women that unfortunately do need something, we already know from physics and data on anesthesia that ECT is the better choice.
While I’m broadly open to research on the therapeutic applications of these drugs, right now the landscape is perilous because of the combination of illegal status and a spike in “wellness” pseudoscience. Outside of the few supervised, IBR-approved studies there is a world of (for lack of a better term) therapeutic cults that prey on some of the most psychologically vulnerable people. (related 2023 article: https://www.wired.com/story/psychedelic-therapy-mess/)
Would the treatment be any different? It's my understanding that were have no way of accelerating repair from neurological damage and instead focus on therapies to regain ability.
Nope - I mean PTSD. there is a growing body of evidence that PTSD may be caused (In many of most or the diagnosed cases) by concussions causing brain damage. This manifests from either enemy munitions, or the shock wave from your own artillery, explosives, or large-caliber weapons.
The WWI name of "shell shock" describing the same phenomenon was probably more accurate than "PTSD".
There are 0 requirements for head trauma with PTSD, it's a stress response.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is the top tier, evidence based treatment for PTSD. 60-80% can actually lose their PTSD diagnosis through CBT in some studies.
I'm not saying CBT is the magic cure, but it's very helpful for retraining the body's fight or flight response.
For TBI, there is not really any amount of CBT that can impact it due to the physical changes in the brain. This is why things like ibogaine and psilocybin are encouraging, because they seem to be causing neurogenesis.
I'm somebody that has spent my life dealing with both of these issues through combat sports and military combat. It's something I stay on top of.
Saliva divinorum is inherently dysphoric due to its agonism of the kappa opiod receptor. For a different cheap legal drug that affects serotonin and the NMDA receptors like ibogaine does, there's always off label use of dextromethorphan (cough medicine)!
Again I'm a bit baffled as to what the unstated thought process is. Ibogain and Saliva divinorum share a short term dysphoric experience from kappa opioid receptor interference that might be an effective way to eliminate Trauma from earlier memories. Why use the more dangerous of the two and why avoid the experience if the experience is the intervention?
"The action of ibogaine at the κ-opioid receptor may indeed contribute significantly to the psychoactive effects attributed to ibogaine ingestion; Salvia divinorum, another plant recognized for its strong hallucinogenic properties contains the chemical salvinorin A, which is a highly selective κ-opioid agonist"
I've been assuming it was some sort of profit motive as TX has been pumping money into it. It seems like there might actually be science driven though. For tramatic brain injury combined with ptsd ibogaine causes a release of glial cell factors that help neuroplasticity wire around the damage. Its also horribly unsafe from a cardiac perspective so you would need a constant eeg during therapy driving up prices. So probably a little of the original motivation too.
Not really "horribly unsafe", it seems that with proper prescreening and magnesium supplementation cardiac risk can be safely managed. I was looking into this a few weeks ago.
However there is certainly a lack of data, and facilities doing treatment now are probably incentivized not to share adverse events.
As someone who takes antidepressants this is nonsensical to me. I don’t feel 100% normal on an SSRI, I experience the normal side-effects of flat affect and weird tastes, etc. But the alternative is regular panic, exhaustion, indigestion, and general volatility that makes my life difficult and hard for others to interact with me.
If dissociation is better than regular PTSD, then go for it. We don’t expect people with hip replacements to have 100% mobility. We don’t expect cochlear implants to hear better than healthy ears. Mental health interventions have similar tradeoffs.
Exactly this - I don't believe that it's meant to be a "you're now completely fixed" type of solution, but it does seem like it would increase quality of life as it is meant to. Similar to SSRIs.
Very America to create a drug and sell it back to people instead of intermittent fasting, couple with talk therapy coupled with 1, micro dose HBOT 1.5 session. Diet changes and talk therapy while you let your cells repair and watch what happens. Talk to your doc but the answer isn't more drugs. We already have solutions all around us the army just doesn't want to spend the money nor create a PR mess when folks actually start healing and folks realize how jacked up the stress from combat makes you. Won't be as easy to recruit etc
I'm working on it, I have to find someone who's not after the money and is well endowned. As no one really benefits other than the patient and we know what drives innovation in this space.
Only veterans?
I wonder about the editorial choice to use veterans rather than, say, women who have PTSD from assaults, which is a much larger group of people. (Approximately 4% of US men and 8% of US women experience PTSD every year across all reasons like accidents, sexual assaults, combat, etc.)
Presumably this treatment would help everyone? Or is it somehow supporting only vets?
The war machine is the one funding so the framing makes sense. Not that I like it... I would prefer that the concept of a war veteran was non existent but that is akin to wishing the moon was made out of cheese.
The research on ptsd began with US veterans afaik. It’s probably the group that is most studied for it and also receives trials.
The US also spends a large amount of money on each veteran. If they can find a cure for trauma they would benefit hugely from it. The side effect of this is that others would benefit as well.
I read it less as "this only helps veterans" and more as "veterans are the group this particular research and funding path is centered on"
It's who the trials are done on. US veterans have their own health care system, so that may have played a role in why they were targeted for the research.
Way back in something like 2002, I was in college. One day at my then-girlfriend’s apartment east of campus, she got a phone call. An old friend of hers was in town, so she told him to come over. I don’t know his name, but let’s call him J., which is a randomly selected letter.
J. was a traveling Ibogaine ... healer? He went from city to city, summoned by the loved ones of advanced heroin addicts, to attempt one last Hail Mary shot at recovery.
These were situations of absolute desperation, and I can’t overstate the seriousness with which he took his adopted occupation. He described to us in detail his process.
First, he interviewed the person requesting help, seeing what else they had tried and trying to suss out if Ibogaine would be worth the risk. He turned away most callers.
Those who he accepted would be dropped off at his van, inside which was a mobile, DIY ICU of sorts: a bed, food, water and emergency medical supplies. He would administer the ibogaine (I don’t know what form this took), and then, in his words, the patient would undergo a 2 to 3-day continuous hallucination.
During this time, in J.’s observations, the patient was almost always ‘visited’ by dead relatives, who typically admonished the patient for what had become of them, laying into them with real talk about the state of their life.
J. said half of the patients came out of this experience fundamentally changed, and effectively cured of their addiction to heroin. I don’t know if he had any data (anecdotal or otherwise) on recidivism, but the implication was that this was likely to be permanent.
But, he said, the other half went insane, which is why he spent a great deal of effort screening families and informing them of the risks.
I don’t know how much, if any, of this is true. I don’t know what ‘insane’ means, or meant. But I remember vividly how seriously this guy took it, without ever coming off as some kind of self-satisfied guru or medicine man, believing himself to be a god, or anything like that. He never accepted money. He lived somewhat roughly. I wonder whatever happened to that guy.
It's political posturing, makes it more likely to get bipartisan support. Female rape victims are not as unimpeachable as the (superficially) hallowed veteran in American society.
Vets kill themselves a lot so I guess it's easier to propose crazier stuff because the alternative is very bad.
Veterans also make it easier to get wider political support for legalizing the treatment.
Though notably never anything really crazy like “let’s stop doing war”
I mean, that does sound pretty crazy. Specific wars are often ill-advised or largely pointless, but "stop doing war" presupposes that all other countries in the world will also "stop doing war", otherwise what you're suggesting is just unilateral surrender under the guise of stopping war.
You're strawmanning I think.
My interpretation of the parent comment is: Americans should stop aggressing other countries, slaughtering the population, and then publishing scientific breakthroughs on treating ptsd among the killers.
I'd say the comment says nothing about wars of survival, which is not what veterans have ptsd for. No one is 'doing war' at America.
Game theory and history say otherwise. If you want to be a fool, have at it. Just don't expect the rest of us to go along or respect you because of it.
Just because it used to happen doesn't mean it should continue. It will be death of all of us collectively.
But didn’t you know: game theory!!!!
Nash equilibrium is the religion for millennials who didn’t get sucked into the boomer/gen-x Ayn Rand bullshit
Hey if that’s the world you wanna live in then continue to do what you’re doing
People like to use us war veterans to wash their agendas through
We’re one step below “think of the children”
The article acts like ibogaine is a newly discovered drug. This is an old hallucinagenix drug that has helped thousands of people get over ptsd. The only thing holding this back is government bureaucracy and red tape. I’m happy that people will get there chance to benefit from this after decades of stupid government policy.
I always wonder why ECT doesn't get more press. It very very often works on depression (and bipolar disorder, catatonia; anything affective-related really), although the effects may wane over time when the treatment is discontinued. Memory loss is one of the side effects, and it could actually be beneficial here.
This is nuts. Bringing ECT into the discussion of a novel psychedelic medicine.
Totally different ballparks. Well-established results vs. very little formal research.
Have you had ECT, or do you know anyone who has? It's a last resort for horrible depression and not much else. It has huge risks, and while it does often make these people's lives manageable, it shouldn't be in the same discussion as a medication that's been out of discussion for political reasons.
shivers at the thought of ECT
Because ECT is whitewashed shock therapy, which in turn- is a whitewashed lobotomy.
What about transcranial magnetic stimulation?
I suggest you read some publications on the topic, and not internet forum conspiracies.
Sorry if I find that things like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39804212/ existing in checks 2025 repulsive. Especially when those are the same arguments put forward for lobotomies. If somebody is capable of _ELECTING_ ECT, fine. But don't pretend that dosing somebody unconcious with benzos so they Can't seize, and reducing shock duration and intensity so theres no skin burning makes intentionaly brain damaging somebody to fit in with society any less horifying. If you don't like that example- theres plenty more for things like dementia among the elderly. Especially if they're in a retirement facility.
As for TCMS? It works- if you can find a place that's not a farm.
It's strange how much attention novel psychedelic treatments get compared with older, less glamorous interventions that already help a lot of people
My point exactly. I am not saying psychedelics do not help people, they clearly help some people with some problems. But the balance of research and general interest is not proportional to how promising both paths already look. For example, which treatments are safer long term? It's unclear. At the same time it's clear that there can be unwanted long term side effects. In one very particular case, pregnant women that unfortunately do need something, we already know from physics and data on anesthesia that ECT is the better choice.
While I’m broadly open to research on the therapeutic applications of these drugs, right now the landscape is perilous because of the combination of illegal status and a spike in “wellness” pseudoscience. Outside of the few supervised, IBR-approved studies there is a world of (for lack of a better term) therapeutic cults that prey on some of the most psychologically vulnerable people. (related 2023 article: https://www.wired.com/story/psychedelic-therapy-mess/)
Another very interesting possible benefit of ibogaine not mentioned in the article is potential for treating TBI.
from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41883580/:
>Longitudinal analyses assessed cortical thickness, subcortical volume, and predicted brain age (pBA), estimated from T1 scans. pBA was significantly reduced at 1 month relative to baseline (-1.3 years). Cortical thickness analysis revealed post-treatment increases in 11 regions. Subcortical analyses revealed significant volumetric expansion in 8 regions. Magnesium-ibogaine therapy was associated with increased cortical thickness, subcortical expansion, and reduced pBA at 1 month.
It feels promising, but also exactly the kind of treatment that should move through careful clinical trials
This is, I am assuming from the context, not opporating under the assumption PTSD often is rooted in brain damage from exposure to shockwaves.
Would the treatment be any different? It's my understanding that were have no way of accelerating repair from neurological damage and instead focus on therapies to regain ability.
PTSD doesn't have anything to do with brain damage.
PTSD is a trauma response.
Are you thinking of TBI? TBI is a cumulative impact of small and large head trauma.
Nope - I mean PTSD. there is a growing body of evidence that PTSD may be caused (In many of most or the diagnosed cases) by concussions causing brain damage. This manifests from either enemy munitions, or the shock wave from your own artillery, explosives, or large-caliber weapons.
The WWI name of "shell shock" describing the same phenomenon was probably more accurate than "PTSD".
What in the world are you talking about?
There are 0 requirements for head trauma with PTSD, it's a stress response.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is the top tier, evidence based treatment for PTSD. 60-80% can actually lose their PTSD diagnosis through CBT in some studies.
I'm not saying CBT is the magic cure, but it's very helpful for retraining the body's fight or flight response.
For TBI, there is not really any amount of CBT that can impact it due to the physical changes in the brain. This is why things like ibogaine and psilocybin are encouraging, because they seem to be causing neurogenesis.
I'm somebody that has spent my life dealing with both of these issues through combat sports and military combat. It's something I stay on top of.
It seems strange to me to choose ibogaine when Salvia divinorum seems like it has a similar psychological experience without the physical heart risk.
Saliva divinorum is inherently dysphoric due to its agonism of the kappa opiod receptor. For a different cheap legal drug that affects serotonin and the NMDA receptors like ibogaine does, there's always off label use of dextromethorphan (cough medicine)!
Again I'm a bit baffled as to what the unstated thought process is. Ibogain and Saliva divinorum share a short term dysphoric experience from kappa opioid receptor interference that might be an effective way to eliminate Trauma from earlier memories. Why use the more dangerous of the two and why avoid the experience if the experience is the intervention?
Really difficult to find a cough syrup with only high amounts of DXM and nothing else. All the brands changed their recipes in the late 90s.
DXM is also the active ingredient in the antidepressant Auvelity (combined with bupropion)
Lot of interesting studies and anecdotes on its efficacy as an antidepressant
What? These two substances aren't even in the same ballpark.
Maybe I have a liberal view of ballpark sizes but:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibogaine
"The action of ibogaine at the κ-opioid receptor may indeed contribute significantly to the psychoactive effects attributed to ibogaine ingestion; Salvia divinorum, another plant recognized for its strong hallucinogenic properties contains the chemical salvinorin A, which is a highly selective κ-opioid agonist"
Or LSD, or magic mushrooms.
I've been assuming it was some sort of profit motive as TX has been pumping money into it. It seems like there might actually be science driven though. For tramatic brain injury combined with ptsd ibogaine causes a release of glial cell factors that help neuroplasticity wire around the damage. Its also horribly unsafe from a cardiac perspective so you would need a constant eeg during therapy driving up prices. So probably a little of the original motivation too.
Not really "horribly unsafe", it seems that with proper prescreening and magnesium supplementation cardiac risk can be safely managed. I was looking into this a few weeks ago.
However there is certainly a lack of data, and facilities doing treatment now are probably incentivized not to share adverse events.
Or DMT. I also question how they derive the consclusion of a "horrible heart risk". Imo there is not enough evidence for that.
Does it really help or are they just too dissociated after taking it
As someone who takes antidepressants this is nonsensical to me. I don’t feel 100% normal on an SSRI, I experience the normal side-effects of flat affect and weird tastes, etc. But the alternative is regular panic, exhaustion, indigestion, and general volatility that makes my life difficult and hard for others to interact with me.
If dissociation is better than regular PTSD, then go for it. We don’t expect people with hip replacements to have 100% mobility. We don’t expect cochlear implants to hear better than healthy ears. Mental health interventions have similar tradeoffs.
Exactly this - I don't believe that it's meant to be a "you're now completely fixed" type of solution, but it does seem like it would increase quality of life as it is meant to. Similar to SSRIs.
Original title: Ibogaine is a banned hallucinogenic drug. Scientists believe it can help veterans overcome PTSD
Ibogaine may or may not work. Iocane powder usually effects a complete cure.
Very America to create a drug and sell it back to people instead of intermittent fasting, couple with talk therapy coupled with 1, micro dose HBOT 1.5 session. Diet changes and talk therapy while you let your cells repair and watch what happens. Talk to your doc but the answer isn't more drugs. We already have solutions all around us the army just doesn't want to spend the money nor create a PR mess when folks actually start healing and folks realize how jacked up the stress from combat makes you. Won't be as easy to recruit etc
Go ahead and run your randomized clinical trials and report back.
The healthcare community would be thrilled to find out – with certainty – that your interventions work.
I'm working on it, I have to find someone who's not after the money and is well endowned. As no one really benefits other than the patient and we know what drives innovation in this space.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24905167/
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/1...
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3...
CBT is on the VA PTSD page.