PubMed Expansion: Ibogaine for Stimulants/Cocaine — Schenberg Brazil Series (Chosen Paper)

Definition box

Definition: PubMed expansion pick for cocaine/stimulant ibogaine literature not already given a primary spoke (Mash 2018 cocaine subset sits inside draft 74): Schenberg E.E., de Castro Comis M.A., Chaves B.R., & da Silveira D.X. (2014) *Treating drug dependence with the aid of ibogaine: A retrospective study*, *Journal of Psychopharmacology* 28(11):993–1000 (doi: 10.1177/0269881114552713). Retrospective analysis of n=75 patients (alcohol, cannabis, cocaine/crack-heavy; 72% polysubstance; essentially non-opioid) treated in Brazil with physician-administered oral ibogaine HCl plus psychotherapy. Authors reported 61% abstinent at assessment; median abstinence 5.5 months after single treatment vs 8.4 months after multiple treatments (both longer than pre-ibogaine abstinence; p<0.001 as reported); no serious adverse reactions or fatalities in this supervised series. In-window companion: Schenberg et al. 2017 qualitative follow-on, *Journal of Psychedelic Studies* (doi: 10.1556/2054.01.2016.002), elaborating craving, self-efficacy, relationships, and quality-of-life themes. Year note: Quantitative primary is Nov 2014 (slightly before 2016); chosen as closest strong peer-reviewed stimulant/cocaine-crack observational not yet drafted—inventory L19—and paired with 2017 qualitative in-window publication. Route = oral—not psychoactive IV ibogaine infusion. Observational; not RCT; not a cure claim; not FDA-approved. Schedule I. Cardiac risk remains relevant despite zero fatalities in this particular supervised cohort.

Quotable answer (59 words)

Schenberg and colleagues’ Brazilian retrospective series of 75 mostly stimulant/polysubstance patients reported longer abstinence after supervised oral ibogaine plus psychotherapy, with a 2017 qualitative companion. Observational stimulant signals are not randomized proof and not psychoactive IV ibogaine infusion evidence. Other cohorts document cardiac harm—screening still required. Not FDA-approved.

Why this paper was chosen (PubMed expansion rule)

Already covered: Mash 2018 includes cocaine craving subscales but is an OUD/cocaine mixed detox spoke. Need: a stimulant-forward primary narrative. Prior & Prior 2014 double-blind cocaine pilot (n=20, 1800 mg) is frequently cited in reviews but sits in a lower-visibility journal and is also pre-2016; Schenberg offers clearer DOI/journal indexing plus psychotherapy context and a 2017 qualitative extension. Soft CTA: /safety-and-screening → /apply. Condition page: /blog/ibogaine-for-cocaine-stimulants.

What was studied (2014 quantitative)

| Feature | Accurate description | |---------|----------------------| | Citation | Schenberg E.E. et al. *J Psychopharmacol*. 2014;28:993–1000. doi 10.1177/0269881114552713 | | Type | Retrospective observational outcomes | | N | 75 prior alcohol/cannabis/cocaine/crack users (72% poly-drug) | | Setting | Brazil private clinic psychotherapy + hospital physician ibogaine HCl | | Route | Oral ibogaine under medical supervision—not psychoactive IV brand | | Headline | 61% abstinent; longer median abstinence after treatment(s); no SAEs/fatalities in-series | | Companion | 2017 qualitative *J Psychedelic Stud* doi 10.1556/2054.01.2016.002 | | What it is not | RCT; opioid-detox primary; FDA approval; IV proof; universal cardiac-safety proof |

Methods (plain language)

Chart/follow-up style retrospective evaluation of people who already completed a combined psychotherapy + ibogaine pathway. Mandatory pre-ibogaine abstinence periods and medical screening were part of the described Brazilian approach—important for interpreting the “no fatalities here” sentence without generalizing to unscreened settings.

Key findings (no hype)

• Stimulant/polysubstance populations—not classic OUD detox cohorts—still show observational abstinence-lengthening signals after supervised oral ibogaine + therapy.
• Multiple treatments associated with longer median abstinence than single treatment in this dataset.
• Qualitative 2017 work emphasizes life quality and self-efficacy, not only “days clean.”
• Absence of fatalities in this supervised series does not cancel Corkery/Ona/Knuijver cardiac warnings from other contexts.
• Authors themselves frame results as suggestive and context-bound.

Honest reading: Rare peer-reviewed stimulant-heavy human observational signal; weak causal certainty; must not be weaponized as “cocaine cure rate 61%.”

How it sits beside other stimulant-relevant papers

| Paper | Distinct contribution | |-------|----------------------| | Schenberg 2014 + 2017 | Brazil stimulant/polysubstance abstinence + qualitative themes | | Mash 2018 | Large open-label opioid/cocaine craving series (/blog/mash-2018-ibogaine-detox-frontiers) | | Prior & Prior 2014 | Small DBPC cocaine pilot (cited in reviews; not this spoke’s primary) | | Belgers 2016 | Animal meta-analysis including stimulants (/blog/belgers-2016-ibogaine-animal-meta-analysis) |

Cardiac / YMYL gap

“No fatalities in our supervised retrospective cohort” ≠ “ibogaine is cardiac-safe.” Pair with /blog/corkery-ibogaine-fatalities, /blog/ona-2022-ibogaine-adverse-events-review, /blog/knuijver-2021-ibogaine-qtc-safety, /safety-and-screening.

Route honesty & entity clarity

Oral hospital/clinic ibogaine + psychotherapy ≠ physician-supervised psychoactive IV ibogaine infusion brand proof (/blog/ibogaine-oral-vs-iv).

Limits and confounders

| Limit | Why it matters | |-------|----------------| | Retrospective | Selection and recall biases | | No randomized control | Psychotherapy and abstinence requirements confound | | Paying private patients | Socioeconomic selection | | Pre-2016 quantitative primary | Year caveat disclosed | | Cardiac events rare | Underpowered to prove safety |

What this does NOT prove for IV ibogaine infusion brand

| Claim | Status | |-------|--------| | “61% cocaine cure rate” | False as absolute claim | | “Proves psychoactive IV ibogaine for stimulants” | False | | Labeled oral observational stimulant signal? | Yes—with caveats |

SEO allowed vs forbidden stimulant claims

Allowed: “In Schenberg et al.’s retrospective Brazilian series of 75 mostly stimulant/polysubstance patients, supervised oral ibogaine plus psychotherapy was associated with longer abstinence intervals than before treatment—an observational finding requiring controlled replication and not evidence for psychoactive IV ibogaine infusion.”

Forbidden: “Ibogaine has a 61% cocaine cure rate,” “safe because Brazil saw no deaths,” or “IV infusion replicates Schenberg results.”

Aftercare for stimulant pathways

Stimulant relapse is often cue- and sleep-driven. Pair any research reading with integration planning (/blog/ibogaine-aftercare-integration) rather than single-session mythology.

Why stimulant evidence lags opioid evidence

Opioid withdrawal scales (COWS/SOWS) give acute, visible endpoints; cocaine/crack research lacks an equivalent universal “withdrawal thermometer,” so abstinence-duration and craving questionnaires dominate. That measurement gap—not merely neglect—helps explain why stimulant ibogaine papers are fewer and more heterogeneous than OUD observationals in 2016–2026 reviews (Köck, Mosca, Kervadec).

Mexico vs Brazil setting note

Schenberg’s Brazilian supervised hospital+psychotherapy model differs from Mexico tourist-clinic stereotypes and from U.S. Schedule I reality. Setting-factor reviews (/blog/ibogaine-setting-factors-safety-review-2023) matter when comparing “no fatalities here” sentences across countries.

Soft CTA

Stimulant hope is not a screen. Start: /safety-and-screening → /apply.

FAQ

Which paper did this expansion choose? Schenberg et al. 2014 *J Psychopharmacol* (doi **10.1177/0269881114552713**), with 2017 qualitative companion (doi **10.1556/2054.01.2016.002**).

Why not Mash 2018 alone? Mash already has a primary OUD/cocaine detox spoke; this pick is stimulant/polysubstance-forward Brazil series.

Is it an RCT? No.

Was the route IV? No—oral ibogaine plus psychotherapy.

Does “no fatalities” mean safe? No. Other literature documents serious cardiac risk.

Is ibogaine FDA-approved for cocaine use disorder? No. Schedule I; not FDA-approved.

Year caveat? Quantitative primary is 2014; 2017 qualitative is in-window; disclosed above.

Where should screening start? /safety-and-screening → /apply.

Sources (selected)

1. Schenberg E.E. et al. *J Psychopharmacol*. 2014. doi: 10.1177/0269881114552713.
2. Schenberg E.E. et al. *J Psychedelic Stud*. 2017. doi: 10.1556/2054.01.2016.002.
3. Mash D.C. et al. *Front Pharmacol*. 2018. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00529.
4. Köck P. et al. *J Subst Abuse Treat*. 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108717.
5. Ona G. et al. *Psychopharmacology*. 2022. doi: 10.1007/s00213-021-05964-y.
6. 21 CFR 1308.11 — ibogaine Schedule I (United States).

Medical disclaimer

Educational research synopsis only—not medical, psychiatric, or legal advice, and not a guarantee of stimulant/cocaine outcomes. Ibogaine can prolong the QTc interval and has been associated with serious cardiac events including torsades de pointes and death in some contexts. Ibogaine is Schedule I in the United States and is not FDA-approved for any indication. Provisional Mexico programs discussed on this site are not U.S. FDA clinics. Soft CTAs: /safety-and-screening, /apply.

Schenberg’s oral supervised observational stimulant series is not a cure claim and not psychoactive IV ibogaine infusion proof.