Ibogaine for Opioids: 88-Person Survey Explained (2017)

Quick answer

In Davis and Barsuglia's 2017 survey of 88 people treated with oral ibogaine for opioid use, about 80% said it eliminated or drastically reduced withdrawal, 30% said they never used opioids again, and 70% reported some relapse. It is a retrospective self-report survey, not a controlled trial, not a cure rate and not evidence for IV ibogaine. Ibogaine is Schedule I and not approved.

Definition

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 a clinic setting named in the paper (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 approved for any indication. QTc/cardiac risk remains central even when survey respondents emphasize benefit.

Short answer

Davis and Barsuglia’s 2017 Journal of Psychedelic Studies survey of 88 abroad 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 matters

Malcolm/Polanco/Barsuglia 2018 (/blog/ibogaine-oud-case-series-2016-2020) reports timed COWS/SOWS scores from the same clinic program. This article 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. Next steps: /safety-and-screening → /apply.

Journal note: This paper appeared in *Journal of Psychedelic Studies*, not *AJDAA*. The 2018 *AJDAA* OUD observationals are Brown & Alper (/blog/brown-alper-2018-ibogaine-oud) and Noller (/blog/noller-2018-ibogaine-new-zealand). A 2018 mixed-method secondary analysis of this cohort is covered at /blog/sisko-ibogaine-detox-outcomes.

What was studied

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

Cardiac safety 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. Clinic observation abroad ≠ U.S. regulatory 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 infusion 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

What this does NOT prove for IV ibogaine infusion

How to read the percentages

Allowed: “In Davis & Barsuglia’s 2017 retrospective survey of 88 abroad 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.”

Next steps

Survey hope is not a screening plan. Start here: /safety-and-screening → /apply for supervised IV ibogaine infusion questions at our Mexico and Gabon clinic locations—not approved U.S. 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 observational studies, covered in their own articles.

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 articles.

Is ibogaine approved for medical use? 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 approved for any indication. Our IV ibogaine programs in Mexico and Gabon are not approved U.S. clinics. Next steps: /safety-and-screening, then /apply.

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

Does ibogaine work for opioid withdrawal, according to this survey?

Most respondents said yes for the short term. Withdrawal relief was the most consistent report, at about four in five people. Craving reduction was reported by about half, and only 25% said it lasted three months or more. That pattern, strong short-term relief with less durable craving change, is the most honest way to summarize the paper.

How many people stayed off opioids after ibogaine?

• 30% reported never using opioids again after treatment.
• 41% reported at least six months of abstinence at the time of the survey.
• 70% reported some relapse after treatment, and many said their use was lower than before.

These numbers come from people who chose to answer an online survey, sometimes years later. People who did well may have been more likely to respond. That is called response or survivor bias, and it means the figures cannot be read as a success rate. Read why ibogaine success-rate claims mislead before comparing clinics on percentages.

Is this an 80% success rate?

No. The 80% figure refers to people's own reports of withdrawal relief, not recovery. Writing "80% success" or "41% cured" misstates the paper.

What were the main limitations?

• Retrospective self-report, open to memory and social-desirability bias.
• No control group, so the drug cannot be separated from the setting, motivation or aftercare.
• Follow-up time differed between people.
• One clinic network, so results may not generalize.
• No cardiac data, so it says nothing about QTc safety.

The authors themselves describe the results as suggesting an association and call for controlled longitudinal studies.

How does it compare with other ibogaine opioid studies?

It sits alongside other observational work: timed withdrawal scores in the 2016–2020 OUD case series, 12-month outcomes in Brown and Alper 2018 and the New Zealand cohort in Noller 2018. None is a randomized controlled trial.

Was the treatment oral or IV?

Oral. Treatment took place at an inpatient clinic abroad between 2012 and 2015. These figures are not evidence for physician-supervised IV ibogaine infusion. Today, programs serving U.S. patients operate abroad with intake locations including Mexico and Gabon, and every one should screen for cardiac risk.

What about heart risk?

The survey did not measure it. Ibogaine can prolong the QTc interval, as the Knuijver 2021 QTc study showed. Benefit stories need to be read alongside the cardiac risk.

Next step: Read safety and screening (/safety-and-screening), then apply (/apply).