Blog · 2026-09-06 · 10 min
Schenberg et al. 2014: Ibogaine and Psychotherapy for Cocaine & Crack Use (Brazil Observational Series)
Schenberg et al. Brazil series: ibogaine plus psychotherapy and abstinence in mostly cocaine/crack users—oral≠IV; no cures; QTc; Schedule I.
Definition
Definition: 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: The quantitative paper was published in November 2014; the qualitative follow-on appeared in 2017. Route = oral—not psychoactive IV ibogaine infusion. Observational; not RCT; not a cure claim; not approved for any indication. Schedule I. Cardiac risk remains relevant despite zero fatalities in this particular supervised cohort.
Short answer
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 approved for any indication.
Why this paper matters
Mash 2018 (/blog/mash-2018-ibogaine-detox-frontiers) includes cocaine craving subscales but is a mixed OUD/cocaine detox study. Schenberg’s series is one of the few stimulant-forward observational reports. The Prior & Prior 2014 double-blind cocaine pilot (n=20, 1800 mg) is also cited in reviews but appeared in a lower-visibility journal; Schenberg offers clearer DOI/journal indexing plus psychotherapy context and a 2017 qualitative extension. Next steps: /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 infusion |
| 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; regulatory 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 article’s primary) |
| Belgers 2016 | Animal meta-analysis including stimulants (/blog/belgers-2016-ibogaine-animal-meta-analysis) |
Cardiac safety 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 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
| 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** |
Accurate vs misleading 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).
abroad vs Brazil setting note
Schenberg’s Brazilian supervised hospital+psychotherapy model differs from abroad 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.
Next steps
Stimulant hope is not a screen. Start: /safety-and-screening → /apply.
FAQ
Which paper is this article about? 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 2018 is a mixed OUD/cocaine detox study; Schenberg’s Brazil series focuses on stimulant and polysubstance use.
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 approved for cocaine use disorder? No. Schedule I; not approved for any indication.
When was it published? The quantitative study was published in 2014; the qualitative follow-on in 2017.
Where should screening start? /safety-and-screening → /apply.
Sources (selected)
- Schenberg E.E. et al. *J Psychopharmacol*. 2014. doi: 10.1177/0269881114552713.
- Schenberg E.E. et al. *J Psychedelic Stud*. 2017. doi: 10.1556/2054.01.2016.002.
- Mash D.C. et al. *Front Pharmacol*. 2018. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.00529.
- Köck P. et al. *J Subst Abuse Treat*. 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108717.
- Ona G. et al. *Psychopharmacology*. 2022. doi: 10.1007/s00213-021-05964-y.
- 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 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.
Schenberg’s oral supervised observational stimulant series is not a cure claim and not psychoactive IV ibogaine infusion proof.