Davis & Barsuglia et al. 2017: Subjective Effectiveness of Ibogaine for Problematic Opioid Use (Survey, n=88)

Definition box

Definition: Davis A.K., Barsuglia J.P., Windham-Herman A.-M., Lynch M., & Polanco M. (2017) *Subjective effectiveness of ibogaine treatment for problematic opioid consumption: Short- and long-term outcomes and current psychological functioning*, *Journal of Psychedelic Studies* 1(2):65–73 (doi: 10.1556/2054.01.2017.009). Online retrospective survey of n=88 people who received clinic oral ibogaine treatment in Mexico (2012–2015) for problematic opioid use. Authors reported that 80% said ibogaine eliminated or drastically reduced withdrawal; 50% reported craving reduction (25% lasting ≥3 months); 30% reported never using opioids again after treatment; and 41% of the full sample reported ≥6 months sustained abstinence at survey time—while 70% also reported some relapse after treatment, with many saying use was lower than pretreatment. This is a retrospective subjective-effectiveness survey, not an RCT, not a cure claim, and not evidence for physician-supervised IV ibogaine infusion (psychoactive intravenous ibogaine). Ibogaine is U.S. Schedule I and not FDA-approved. QTc/cardiac risk remains central even when survey respondents emphasize benefit.

Quotable answer (57 words)

Davis and Barsuglia’s 2017 Journal of Psychedelic Studies survey of 88 Mexico clinic patients found many reported sharp short-term withdrawal relief and a minority reported lasting abstinence after oral ibogaine—yet most also relapsed at some point. Observational survey data are not controlled proof and not psychoactive IV ibogaine infusion evidence. Screen for QTc risk.

Why this paper-spoke exists

Draft 102 already covered Malcolm/Polanco/Barsuglia 2018 timed COWS/SOWS scores and flagged Davis 2017 as the reserved survey alternate. This spoke names the Davis/Barsuglia 2017 outcomes survey explicitly so searchers hitting “ibogaine survey abstinence rates” land on method-labeled teaching rather than inflated cure ads. Soft CTA: /safety-and-screening → /apply.

Verification note (2026-09-06): Confirmed via DOI/publisher pages—not AJDAA. The AJDAA 2018 OUD observationals are Brown & Alper and Noller (already drafted). Davis/Barsuglia’s primary 2017 outcomes paper sits in *Journal of Psychedelic Studies*; a 2018 mixed-method secondary analysis appears as draft 104.

What was studied

| Feature | Accurate description | |---------|----------------------| | Citation | Davis A.K., Barsuglia J.P., Windham-Herman A.-M., Lynch M., Polanco M. *J Psychedelic Stud*. 2017;1(2):65–73. doi 10.1556/2054.01.2017.009 | | Type | Retrospective online survey / subjective effectiveness study | | N | 88 completers with problematic opioid use (from larger contact list; attrition noted by authors) | | Setting | Mexico inpatient clinic treatment 2012–2015 (Crossroads-affiliated author team) | | Route | Oral clinic ibogaine—not psychoactive IV brand study | | Headline self-reports | 80% withdrawal eliminated/drastically reduced; 30% never reused opioids; 41% ≥6 mo abstinence at survey; 70% any relapse | | What it is not | RCT; urine-verified longitudinal cohort; FDA approval; IV ibogaine proof; cardiac QT trial; cure claim |

Methods (plain language)

Past patients were invited to complete an anonymous web survey about acute effects, later opioid use, and current psychological functioning. Responders vs non-responders were compared on mood and meaning ratings. Without a control arm, expectancy, selection (who answers email), memory bias, and adjunct aftercare all still confound “ibogaine alone caused X.”

Key findings (no hype)

• Acute withdrawal relief was the most consistent subjective report (about four in five).
• Craving reduction was common but less universal and often time-limited.
• A minority reported continuous abstinence; many of those abstainers had been abstinent ≥1–2 years by survey time—survivor/response bias must be labeled.
• Most of the full sample still reported some post-treatment relapse; many of those said use intensity fell.
• Treatment “responders” reported better current mood/well-being and rated the experience as more spiritually meaningful.
• Authors conclude that results suggest association and call for rigorous longitudinal controlled designs.

Honest reading: Useful real-world signal of perceived benefit after clinic oral ibogaine; weak causal certainty; zero license for “80% cured forever” marketing.

How it sits beside related papers

| Paper | Distinct contribution | |-------|----------------------| | Davis/Barsuglia 2017 | n=88 subjective opioid outcomes + psychological functioning | | Davis et al. 2018 mixed-method | Persisting psychosocial themes in overlapping cohort (/blog/sisko-ibogaine-detox-outcomes) | | Malcolm 2018 | Timed COWS/SOWS/BSCS n=50 (/blog/ibogaine-oud-case-series-2016-2020) | | Brown & Alper 2018 | Prospective-style SOWS + ASI to 12 months (/blog/brown-alper-2018-ibogaine-oud) | | Noller 2018 | NZ legal setting 12-month ASI (/blog/noller-2018-ibogaine-new-zealand) |

Cardiac / YMYL gap

This survey does not publish continuous ECG/QTc tables. Benefit narratives without cardiac literacy are incomplete. Pair with /blog/knuijver-2021-ibogaine-qtc-safety, /blog/corkery-ibogaine-fatalities, /blog/ona-2022-ibogaine-adverse-events-review, and /safety-and-screening. Mexico clinic observation ≠ U.S. FDA approval pathway.

Route honesty & entity clarity

Clinic oral ibogaine ≠ physician-supervised psychoactive IV ibogaine infusion. Do not paste the 80%/30%/41% figures into IV brand ads as route-proof (/blog/ibogaine-oral-vs-iv; /what-is-ibogaine-infusion). Supportive IV magnesium or fluids in some clinic protocols are not the same entity as psychoactive IV ibogaine.

Limits and confounders

| Limit | Why it matters | |-------|----------------| | Retrospective self-report | Memory and social-desirability bias | | No randomized control | Cannot isolate drug vs setting vs motivation | | Response/attrition | Contacted patients who reply may differ from non-responders | | Heterogeneous follow-up time | “Abstinence at survey” mixes short and long intervals | | Clinic network specificity | Generalizability outside that Mexico program unclear | | Cardiac not measured here | Incomplete risk picture if read alone |

What this does NOT prove for IV ibogaine infusion brand

| Claim | Status | |-------|--------| | “80% cure rate” | False (withdrawal-relief self-report ≠ cure) | | “Proves psychoactive IV ibogaine” | False | | Useful labeled oral observational survey signal? | Yes—with method class stated |

SEO use of the percentages

Allowed: “In Davis & Barsuglia’s 2017 retrospective survey of 88 Mexico clinic patients, about 80% reported that oral ibogaine eliminated or drastically reduced opioid withdrawal, and 30% reported never using opioids again—findings that remain observational, unverified by randomized controls, and not evidence for psychoactive IV ibogaine infusion.”

Forbidden: “Ibogaine has an 80% success rate” or “41% are cured.”

Soft CTA

Survey hope is not a screening plan. Start here: /safety-and-screening → /apply for supervised IV ibogaine infusion questions under provisional Mexico medical pathways—not U.S. FDA clinics.

FAQ

Which paper is this? Davis, Barsuglia, Windham-Herman, Lynch & Polanco 2017, *Journal of Psychedelic Studies*, doi **10.1556/2054.01.2017.009**.

Is it the AJDAA Brown/Noller paper? No. Those are separate 2018 AJDAA observationals already drafted.

Was the route IV? No—clinic oral ibogaine context.

Did most people stay abstinent forever? No. Authors report many relapse events alongside a minority of lasting abstainers and frequent reports of reduced use.

Is this an RCT? No. Retrospective survey; authors ask for controlled trials.

Does this erase cardiac risk? No. Pair with QT/fatality spokes.

Is ibogaine FDA-approved? No. Schedule I in the United States.

Where should screening start? /safety-and-screening, then /apply if appropriate.

Sources (selected)

1. Davis A.K., Barsuglia J.P., Windham-Herman A.-M., Lynch M., Polanco M. *J Psychedelic Stud*. 2017. doi: 10.1556/2054.01.2017.009.
2. Davis A.K. et al. *J Psychoactive Drugs*. 2018. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2018.1487607. PMID: 30020025.
3. Malcolm B.J., Polanco M., Barsuglia J.P. *J Psychoactive Drugs*. 2018. doi: 10.1080/02791072.2018.1447175.
4. Brown T.K., Alper K. *Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse*. 2018. doi: 10.1080/00952990.2017.1320802.
5. Knuijver T. et al. *Addiction*. 2021. doi: 10.1111/add.15448.
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 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.

Davis/Barsuglia 2017 is a retrospective oral-clinic survey—not a cure claim and not psychoactive IV ibogaine efficacy proof.