I found this on Wiki, and then followed the references:

http://www.sciencedirect...cle/pii/030645229390500F

the same article here in pubmed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1530666

abstract:
..... We conclude that both ibogaine and harmaline have selective neurotoxic effects which lead to degeneration of Purkinje cells in the cerebellar vermis. The longitudinal stripes of neuronal damage may be related to the parasagittal organization of the olivocerebellar climbing fiber projection. Since these drugs produce sustained activation of inferior olivary neurons, we hypothesize that release of an excitatory amino add from climbing fiber synaptic terminals may lead to excitotoxic degeneration of Purkinje cells.

(personally don't like these words is science)


I don't think it is of importance, but why and how Ibogaine and harmaline are put in the same category?

Jox

iirc, the purkinje cells in question are in the substantia nigra.. D1 inputs (dopamine), and adjacent acetylcholine receptors.

@Jox:

What you do not like in the study? It is a legit study. "May"s and "hypothesize"s you will find all over in science since often you cannot be 100% sure of something.

Did you check the methods of the study and how the researchers reached to their conclusions? If you do you might find that things are not that bad...

You can save yourself some Purkinje cells by taking more ketamine.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11173925

The paper refers to purkinje cells in the cerebellum, unless I am mistaken?


If you are a mutant rat maybe!


Jox, without may and hypothesise, and possibly, and predict, science would be a dogma, nothing short of a religion.

They can be put in the same category if their effects are similar (whatever effects the researchers decided to investigate, they do not have to be psychoactive effects).

Here:

https://www.dmt-nexus.me...aspx?g=posts&t=20306

Nobody is injecting 3g of harmaline here, hopefully, so you should be safe

"don't think it is of importance, but why and how Ibogaine and harmaline are put in the same category?"

They are both indoles and are closely related. Ibogaine shares a very similar structure to the beta carbolines..and both harmlaline and ibogaine have similar receptor activity and subjective effects, though obviously not identical. Claudio Naranjo wrote about his work with both ibogaine and harmaline back in either the 60's or the 70's and he put both harmaline and ibogaine in the same category.

The study you posted that links harmaline and ibogaine to neurotoxicity is talking very very large doses over a period of time, in rats. Noone here is approaching those kinds of doses.

The purkinje cells are exclusively found in the cerebellar cortex.

To me this is a political paper to discredit the use of Ibogaine and Ayahuasca.

The words "may" in political language translate to it "is".

very obnoxious, and they actually did get funding for producing "mays" and "neurotoxicity", and all that in 1993. For courts and politicians this is "evidence".

what about the paper of positive effects? would it be funded too, and in 1993?

Jox

Aren´t you possibly being one-sided and unnecessarily defensive about those results?

Other papers show positive effects, plenty to look up. Would you rather that research showing damage was not published at all? That would be completely biased and possibly dangerous. We need to know where the limits of safety are, right? There are papers showing peopel dying from overhydration too, that doesn´t mean it was a political paper against water... Unless you have sufficient reason to believe results have been manipulated in some way, and can make some informed criticism on the methodology?

Also, do you have any evidence or indication that this paper has political intentions, appart from the fact that you don´t like the results? Maybe something regarding the authors, or who financed it, etc ?

Also I remember that both Iboga and Caapi have been patented by some university in Florida, during the same time in the 90ties.

@ endlessness
I don't see too much research at all, and we all know why... Let alone procedures established by MDs especially regarding Ibogaine full flood.

So yes I think the whole paper is pure political propaganda, but we are in chat here, and I don't have means to do source reporting.

So without actually taking time to read publications, you already discard any publication title or abstract that does not fit your world view (for example that psychedelics are ´good´ ) off-hand, and call it as political propaganda ? Do you not see how biased you are being and how narrow-minded this is (no personal offense intended)?

and no, I don´t know why you don´t ´see too much research at all´, and neither know what you mean by ´proceedures established by MDs specially regarding ibogaine full flood´. Please explain yourself.

So is Coca Cola, does that mean that any research on it is invalid?



The whole paper has good methods, solid rationale, and a valid question. The question is answered, but no, it can not be used as evidence, since all the mice were mice and not humans, let alone mutant mice. The doses administered were over the top, so if anyone brings this paper to court, one can negate this argument by bringing up that overdosing on salt can be as lethal as overdosing on ibogaine or harmine. It's a paper on the organic dangers of these substances on mice, in extremely high doses.

Propaganda? I do not see it.This is research, if journalists conduct propaganda on it, that's a different issue. Could you be so kind as to clarify where you see the propaganda in this study?

P.S. I remember that you generally do not like seeing results with negative connotations on the substances you like. No offense, but that resembles a fan of a band who accuses the band to have changed styles and no longer performing under the genre you personally like.

Bringing up the argument that these substances should be researched for their psychedelic (psychoactive) effects does not warrant legitimate research. Overdosing on anything has the potential to induce an altered state, so this argument cannot stand. In "their" eyes, you could be a person who shouts "if you eat rat poison but not enough to kill you, you trip, and you can heal yourself!". All aspects of a substance should be studied, whether we like the results or not.

Who's funding it? (just curious)

people see "neurotoxicity" and freak out.
lots of compounds are neurotoxic (ex. capsaicin)

Here's a review on the neurotoxicity of Ibogaine, by Molinari (one of the two authors of the paper in question), published 3 years later.


And our beloved CO !

Is there a way to find out who funds different studies?

The most direct method is of course emailing one of the authors with this question. Usually, unless the paper states it at the end (e.g. if it was a study that came from a NGO where credit is due) it's usually funded by the University itself. Then you'd have to go to that Uni's website, check the respective department, and see the affiliations and sponsors. Those usually are the ones who keep the department well funded.

The source of the funding for a study is almost always included in any scientific publication and its inclusion is mandatory by the majority of journals.

For the paper in question the funding is included in the very last bit, just before teh References section and reads: