This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Ibogaine does in the body
Nothing approved. People travel to clinics outside the United States to take it for opioid withdrawal, and the published observational studies of those clinics are the entire clinical evidence base
Ibogaine blocks a specific nicotinic receptor found in a small pair of brain structures that sit between the emotional and reward circuits, and it also blocks the NMDA receptor and acts at opioid receptors. Nobody has isolated which of those actions ends opioid withdrawal. It stays in the body for days as a long-lived metabolite, noribogaine, which is why one dose has an effect measured in weeks. The same molecule also plugs a potassium channel that resets the heartbeat, which lengthens the QT interval and is the mechanism behind the recorded deaths.
What happened in people
One on-treatment death among 14 prospectively enrolled New Zealand patients, reported by the investigators alongside their efficacy result
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.
That effect sizes of d = 2.2 to 2.8 from an uncontrolled, unblinded, self-selected veteran cohort receiving multiple concurrent interventions estimate the drug's effect
Where it acts
Medial habenula and interpeduncular nucleus, where α3β4 nicotinic receptors are densest; ventral tegmental area; and cardiac ventricular myocardium, where the hERG channel sits
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
Supervision
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · 3S814I130U · read 2026-08-29
Its recorded molecular formula is C20H26N2O, weighing 310.4.
PubChem record · 197060 · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The four opening statements run to 142 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Protein
A protein is a folded chain your body builds to do a specific job.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A protein is like a tool bent into one shape for one task.
Where that stops being true. A tool keeps its shape. A protein can change shape and stop working.
What people get wrong. Protein in food and a protein in the body are related but not the same thing.
A polymer of amino acids folded into a defined structure that determines its function.
Enzyme
An enzyme is a protein that speeds up one chemical change.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
An enzyme is like a machine on a production line doing one cut.
Where that stops being true. A machine is switched on and off by a person. Enzymes are controlled by the cell.
What people get wrong. Enzymes are thought to be used up. They are not; they work again and again.
A catalytic protein that lowers the activation energy of a specific reaction.
Receptor
A receptor is a part of a cell that a signal fits into.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A receptor is like a lock waiting for one key.
Where that stops being true. A lock either opens or does not. A receptor can be half-triggered, or worn out.
What people get wrong. Fitting a receptor is read as causing a benefit. It causes a step, and nothing more.
A protein that binds a specific ligand and converts that binding into a cellular response.
Pathway
A pathway is a chain of steps inside a cell, each one setting off the next.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A pathway is like a row of dominoes.
Where that stops being true. Dominoes fall one way. Pathways loop back and can switch themselves off.
What people get wrong. Changing one step is read as changing the outcome. Other steps often absorb it.
An ordered series of molecular interactions producing a defined cellular change.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
SOWS change from pretreatment to 76.5 hours, with ASI composite scores to 12 months
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Brown & Alper 2018 Mexico observational series (opioid use disorder)
How many people
30
Study design
Prospective observational, uncontrolled
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
SOWS 31.0 ± 11.6 to 14.0 ± 9.8, t = 7.07, df = 26, p < 0.001
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No control arm, no blinding, no randomisation. Self-reported abstinence was not corroborated by toxicology. Opioid withdrawal resolves spontaneously over a similar interval, and the design cannot subtract that.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Single oral dose in a supervised session lasting 24 to 72 hours
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
ASI-Lite drug use p = 0.002 and BDI-II p < 0.001 among 8 completers; SOWS p = 0.015 acutely across all 14
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. One of the 14 enrolled patients died during treatment. Six of 14 did not complete all interviews, and the primary analysis is on the 8 who did.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Single oral dose in a supervised session lasting 24 to 72 hours
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Change in WHODAS 2.0 disability score immediately after treatment
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
NCT04313712 (MISTIC, magnesium-ibogaine in veterans with TBI)
How many people
30
Study design
Open-label prospective observational
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
WHODAS P corrected < 0.001, d = 0.74 immediately and d = 2.20 at 1 month; CAPS-5 d = 2.54, MADRS d = 2.80, HAM-A d = 2.13 at 1 month
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No unexpected or serious adverse events reported. No control group, no blinding, complementary treatments delivered alongside, and a self-selected cohort who had already chosen to travel for treatment. Author patent applications and shareholdings in the treatment provider are disclosed in the paper.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Single oral dose in a supervised session lasting 24 to 72 hours
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 3 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How close this is to real life
The top step is something a person would feel or care about. The bottom is a guess from software. Filled steps are where evidence exists for this substance.
□Living longer, or avoiding a major eventNo evidence recorded. Death, a heart attack, a stroke, a hospital stay.No registered study measures this.
□What a body can do day to dayNo evidence recorded. Walking, dressing, breathing, recovering.No registered study measures this.
□Measured performanceNo evidence recorded. How much was lifted, how far was run, how fast.No registered study measures this.
□Symptoms and quality of lifeNo evidence recorded. Pain, tiredness, mood, sleep, as the person rated it.No registered study measures this.
□A number that stands in for healthNo evidence recorded. Cholesterol, blood sugar, bone density. A stand-in, not the thing itself.No registered study measures this.
■A step measured inside a personEvidence recorded. Something measured in human tissue or human cells.A human record sits on the stored organism ladder.
■AnimalsEvidence recorded. Mice, rats, dogs. Useful for ideas, not proof about people.Stored records in Mouse. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
□Cells in a dishNo evidence recorded. Cells or chemistry on a bench, far from a whole body.No cell or bench record is stored.
□A guess from softwareNo evidence recorded. Nobody measured it. RNAWiki never publishes one as a finding.RNAWiki stores no prediction for this record. Software can suggest a link. RNAWiki does not publish one as a finding.
Higher on these steps means closer to something a person would feel. It does not mean better done.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Ibogaine
What a person takes: Single oral dose in a supervised session lasting 24 to 72 hours.
The measurement behind this step
Administration in the published series is a single oral dose of the hydrochloride, given at a clinic with the person monitored through an acute phase of roughly 24 hours and a subsequent day or two of insomnia and residual effects. Continuous cardiac monitoring, pre-treatment ECG and electrolyte correction are the stated precautions in protocols that report them; there is no regulatory standard because there is no regulated product.
Getting in
Swallowed as a single large dose
Doses in the published series are around a gram and a half, taken once, with the acute effects running most of a day and the after-effects days longer.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Oral ibogaine hydrochloride; the Brown and Alper series used a mean total dose of 1,540 ± 920 mg. Absorption and first-pass metabolism are variable, and the material itself varies: purified hydrochloride and total-alkaloid root-bark extract are not equivalent by mass.
Converted by a liver enzyme into a long-lived metabolite
The liver strips a methyl group off, producing noribogaine, which lingers for days. How fast this happens depends on a gene that varies between people.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
CYP2D6-mediated O-demethylation to noribogaine. Loss-of-function CYP2D6 variants raise and prolong parent-drug exposure, which matters because ibogaine is the more potent hERG blocker of the two. Noribogaine's long half-life is the pharmacokinetic basis for effects lasting beyond the acute session.
Blocks nicotinic, NMDA and opioid receptors at once
Rather than acting on one target, it acts weakly on several — a nicotinic receptor concentrated in a small relay between the emotional and reward circuits, the NMDA glutamate receptor, and opioid receptors.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Noncompetitive antagonism at α3β4 nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, densest in the medial habenula and interpeduncular nucleus; NMDA-receptor channel block; κ-opioid agonism with additional μ-opioid activity; serotonin-transporter inhibition. No single action has been shown to be necessary for the anti-withdrawal effect in humans.
Within a day, the physical withdrawal from opioids is largely gone. This is the most consistent observation across every published series, and it is also the one most likely to be exaggerated by the absence of a control group.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
SOWS fell from 31.0 to 14.0 at 76.5 hours in the 30-subject Mexico series and fell significantly across all 14 New Zealand participants. Both are within-subject comparisons in people who expected the effect; opioid withdrawal also resolves on its own over a similar interval, which an uncontrolled design cannot subtract.
At the same time and at the same concentrations, the drug is slowing the electrical reset of the heart. This is not a rare idiosyncratic reaction; it is the expected pharmacology of the dose.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
hERG (Kv11.1) block from the cytosolic side, state-dependent and localised to Y652 and F656 in the inner cavity. A human ventricular myocyte model incorporating the measured channel data predicts action-potential prolongation. Nineteen catalogued deaths occurred 1.5 to 76 hours after ingestion, most with cardiovascular comorbidity or co-ingested drugs.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
In the published series: adults with long opioid-use histories and an average of three previous failed treatment episodes, who paid to attend clinics outside the United States. No randomised trial in opioid use disorder has been completed.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
The NIDA-funded development programme of the 1990s did not carry ibogaine into a controlled human trial
Every published human study of ibogaine in addiction to date is observational; no randomised, controlled efficacy trial in opioid use disorder has been completed
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Not available
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Single oral dose in a supervised session lasting 24 to 72 hours
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
RNAWiki has not recorded a supervision or regulatory status for this substance.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
No register row and no identity class settled the question.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Administration in the published series is a single oral dose of the hydrochloride, given at a clinic with the person monitored through an acute phase of roughly 24 hours and a subsequent day or two of insomnia and residual effects.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold. The rest of the recorded wording: Continuous cardiac monitoring, pre-treatment ECG and electrolyte correction are the stated precautions in protocols that report them; there is no regulatory standard because there is no regulated product.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Ataxia, vomiting, tremor and profound bradycardia are usual during the acute phase. QT prolongation is expected pharmacology rather than an idiosyncratic reaction, and torsades de pointes is the mechanism implicated in the fatality series: 19 deaths 1.5 to 76 hours after ingestion, 12 of 14 evaluable cases with cardiovascular comorbidity or co-ingested drugs. Seizures on withdrawal from alcohol or benzodiazepines, hepatic injury, and the use of root-bark preparations of unknown ibogaine content are additional documented risk factors. CYP2D6 poor metabolisers hold higher parent-drug concentrations for longer. Co-administered QT-prolonging drugs, methadone in particular, compound the effect.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear∅Nothing found in the sources checked
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Single oral dose in a supervised session lasting 24 to 72 hours
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
Continuous cardiac monitoring, pre-treatment ECG and electrolyte correction are the stated precautions in protocols that report them; there is no regulatory standard because there is no regulated product.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
RNAWiki could not confidently classify this substance, so no self-experiment plan is offered.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Ibogaine studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That effect sizes of d = 2.2 to 2.8 from an uncontrolled, unblinded, self-selected veteran cohort receiving multiple concurrent interventions estimate the drug's effect
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That GDNF induction in the rat ventral tegmental area is the mechanism of durable human anti-addictive effects
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the 19 catalogued deaths represent a rate — the number of exposures worldwide is unknown, so no incidence can be calculated in either direction
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That co-administered magnesium makes the cardiac risk acceptable; the claim rests on a proposed mitigation and an uncontrolled series with no comparator, not on a measured reduction in arrhythmia
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
How much did people take in the studies?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. A result belongs to an amount. Without the amount the result floats free.
What would answer it
A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
How fast does the body clear it?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. Without this, nothing on this page can say how long anything lasts.
What would answer it
A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Ibogaine are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
Withdrawal scores more than halved in 30 people, with no control group
In plain words
Thirty people with opioid dependence took a single large dose at a Mexican clinic. Their withdrawal scores fell from 31 to 14 over about three days, and half of them reported no opioid use in the following month.
What was measured
SOWS change from pretreatment to 76.5 hours, and 30-day self-reported opioid abstinence, n=30
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Brown and Alper ran a prospective observational study of 30 subjects (25 male, 5 female) with DSM-IV opioid dependence who received a mean total dose of 1,540 ± 920 mg ibogaine hydrochloride. Subjects were using oxycodone (n=21, 250 ± 180 mg/day) and/or heroin (n=18, 1.3 ± 0.94 g/day) and averaged 3.1 ± 2.6 previous treatment episodes. Subjective Opioid Withdrawal Scale scores fell from 31.0 ± 11.6 pretreatment to 14.0 ± 9.8 at 76.5 ± 30 hours (t = 7.07, df = 26, p < 0.001). At one month, 15 of 30 (50%) reported no opioid use in the previous 30 days; Addiction Severity Index composite scores for drug use, legal and family/social status were improved at every timepoint out to 12 months (p < 0.001), with the drug-use effect maximal at one month and smaller thereafter. There was no control arm, no blinding and no randomisation: the comparison is against each subject's own baseline.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Nineteen deaths within 1.5 to 76 hours of ingestion
In plain words
A forensic review collected every known death outside West Central Africa linked in time to ibogaine between 1990 and 2008. There were nineteen. In most of them a pre-existing heart problem or another drug explained or contributed to the death.
What was measured
Consecutive fatality case series, n=19, with time from ingestion to death and postmortem findings
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Alper, Stajić and Gill systematically reviewed all available autopsy, toxicological and investigative reports for the consecutive series of known fatalities temporally related to ibogaine use from 1990 through 2008, excluding West Central Africa. Nineteen individuals died — 15 men and four women, aged 24 to 54 — within 1.5 to 76 hours of taking it. The clinical and postmortem findings did not suggest a characteristic neurotoxic syndrome. In 12 of the 14 cases with adequate postmortem data, advanced pre-existing comorbidity, mainly cardiovascular, and/or one or more commonly abused substances explained or contributed to the death. Additional identified risk factors were seizures on withdrawal from alcohol or benzodiazepines, and uninformed use of ethnopharmacological (root-bark) preparations. The denominator is unknown, so this series establishes a mechanism and a risk profile, not an incidence.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The cardiac channel is blocked at the same concentrations as the brain targets
In plain words
Ibogaine plugs the potassium channel that lets heart muscle reset between beats, at the same strength at which it acts on the brain receptors it is taken for. That is the mechanism of the QT prolongation seen in patients.
What was measured
hERG, Nav1.5 and Cav1.2 current inhibition by whole-cell patch clamp, with pore-mutant mapping of the binding site
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Koenig et al. showed that heterologously expressed hERG currents are reduced by ibogaine at low micromolar concentrations — the same range as its affinity for several known brain targets — and that at higher concentrations it also reduces human Nav1.5 sodium and Cav1.2 calcium currents. In guinea-pig cardiomyocytes the action potential was not prolonged at low micromolar concentrations, and was shortened above 10 µM, because calcium-channel block partly offsets the hERG effect; implementing the measured human channel data in a human ventricular myocyte model, by contrast, predicted action-potential prolongation. Thurner et al. then localised the block: ibogaine reaches the channel from the cytosolic side, binds preferentially to the open and inactivated states, and loses potency against the Y652A and F656A pore mutants. The congener 18-methoxycoronaridine blocked the same currents with lower potency.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Effect sizes above 2.0 from an open-label study of 30 self-selected veterans
In plain words
A Stanford team followed thirty special-operations veterans who had already decided to fly to Mexico for ibogaine. Their trauma, depression and anxiety scores improved enormously. There was no comparison group and no blinding, and the effect sizes are larger than almost any controlled psychiatric trial reports.
What was measured
That effect sizes of d = 2.2 to 2.8 in an uncontrolled, unblinded, self-selected cohort receiving several interventions at once estimate the effect of ibogaine
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Cherian et al. reported a prospective observational study of the Magnesium-Ibogaine Stanford Traumatic Injury to the CNS protocol in 30 male Special Operations Forces veterans with predominantly mild traumatic brain injury, delivered with complementary treatment modalities at a clinic in Mexico (NCT04313712). WHODAS disability improved immediately after treatment (P corrected < 0.001, d = 0.74) and at one month (d = 2.20); CAPS-5 PTSD improved at one month (d = 2.54), MADRS depression (d = 2.80) and HAM-A anxiety (d = 2.13). No unexpected or serious adverse events occurred. The authors state plainly that controlled trials are needed. The design cannot separate drug effect from the expectancy of a cohort who self-funded international travel for the treatment, from the complementary modalities delivered alongside it, or from regression to the mean in a group enrolled at a personal low point. Several authors hold patent applications on the protocol and three are shareholders in the company that provides the treatment, which the paper discloses.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A 12-month follow-up of 14 legal treatments, one of which was fatal
In plain words
New Zealand allows ibogaine treatment by a registered provider, so researchers could follow patients for a year. Fourteen took part, eight completed every interview, drug-use scores fell and stayed down — and one of the fourteen died during treatment.
What was measured
ASI-Lite drug-use composite and BDI-II at 12 months (n=8 completers of 14 enrolled), with one on-treatment death
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Noller, Frampton and Yazar-Klosinski measured Addiction Severity Index-Lite scores in 14 participants (50% female) over 12 months after a single legal ibogaine treatment by one of two New Zealand providers. Among the eight who completed all interviews, the ASI-Lite drug-use composite fell significantly from baseline to 12 months (Friedman test, p = 0.002) and BDI-II depression scores fell (p < 0.001). Subjective Opioid Withdrawal Scale scores fell acutely after treatment across all 14 (p = 0.015). One patient enrolled in the study died during treatment. That is one death in a prospective sample of 14, reported by the investigators in the same paper as the efficacy result, and it is the reason this record carries the fatality series alongside the outcome series rather than in a separate section.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A Schedule I drug that a US state has now legislated to put through FDA trials
In plain words
Ibogaine is in the strictest US drug schedule, defined as having no accepted medical use. In June 2025 Texas passed a law creating a consortium specifically to run FDA drug-development trials on it.
What was measured
Federal scheduling status versus enacted state legislation funding FDA trials on the same molecule
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Ibogaine is listed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the category defined by high abuse potential, no currently accepted medical use in the United States and a lack of accepted safety under medical supervision. Texas Senate Bill 2308 of the 89th Legislature, signed by the governor and effective 11 June 2025, establishes a consortium to conduct FDA drug-development clinical trials with ibogaine for opioid use disorder, co-occurring substance use disorder and other conditions for which it demonstrates efficacy. The companion House bill, HB 3717, was laid on the table on 12 May 2025 with SB 2308 considered in its place. This does not change the drug's schedule and does not make it prescribable: it funds the trials that a rescheduling petition would eventually need. The gap between the statutory finding of "no accepted medical use" and a state statute funding the trials is the record here.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The GDNF mechanism is a rat result being used to explain a human one
In plain words
The best-known explanation for why one dose has lasting effects is that ibogaine raises a nerve growth factor in a reward-circuit brain region. That was shown in rats drinking alcohol. It has not been demonstrated in a person.
What was measured
That VTA GDNF induction, demonstrated in a rat alcohol model, is the mechanism of the durable effects reported in human opioid case series
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
He et al. showed in rats that ibogaine reduces alcohol self-administration and that this depends on glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor in the ventral tegmental area: ibogaine increased GDNF expression there, intra-VTA GDNF reproduced the reduction in drinking, and blocking GDNF signalling prevented ibogaine's effect. That is a well-constructed causal chain in a rodent alcohol model. It is routinely quoted as the mechanism for durable human anti-addictive effects across opioids, stimulants and nicotine, which the experiment does not address. No human study has measured GDNF, and the α3β4 nicotinic antagonism, NMDA block and κ-opioid agonism are alternative candidate mechanisms that have not been separated in people.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
7 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How this medicine reached us — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
A single dose reduced Subjective Opioid Withdrawal Scale scores from 31 to 14 in an uncontrolled series of 30 people, and the same molecule blocks the hERG cardiac potassium channel at the same low-micromolar concentrations at which it hits its brain targets — 19 deaths within 1.5 to 76 hours of ingestion have been catalogued.
Recorded evidence blocks (4)
Q1
What did Ibogaine's largest trial (116 people) and its longest (3.5 years) measure?
116 people in Ibogaine's largest registered study, 3.5 years in its longest registered window, measuring Time without using alcohol. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
3 phase2, 1 phase1; NCT04003948; 2024-04-26; no ageing endpoint recorded. Last human test completed 2024, NCT03380728.
Interpretation These counts include studies where Ibogaine was a comparison treatment, a background treatment or an exposure in an observational study, and the longest window may be a planned end date. Trial roles have not yet been classified for this record.
Show the evidence
phase2
3
phase1
1
Last recorded human testNCT03380728
2024-10-30
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q2
From mouse to human: where has Ibogaine shown mechanism-only?
ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Europe PMC — metadata only, under the recorded legal gate · derived from this page's own recorded fields; no external licence
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 4 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.