from the world's big
To get clean, addicts are turning to a dangerous hallucinogen
Some opioid addicts are flying outside of the U.S. for addiction treatment using the psychedelic drug ibogaine. It has yet to be studied comprehensively, and it comes with its own set of risks.
- The opioid crisis in the U.S. isn't showing any signs of slowing down, and tens of thousands of addicts die every year from opioid abuse.
- Some centers outside of the U.S. are treating opioid addiction with ibogaine, a powerful hallucinatory drug.
- The drug is understudied and known to be toxic to humans, but some addicts are willing to take the risk.
Across the U.S., opioid addicts are boarding planes to fly to Mexico, Canada, Costa Rica, and other countries in pursuit of a high-risk, high-reward treatment for their addiction. This treatment is illegal in the U.S. — it's caused deaths before, and the research on its efficacy is still in its infancy. It's called ibogaine, a hallucinatory, toxic drug extracted from the root bark of the iboga tree in Western Africa.
It's no surprise, that opioid addicts are going to these extreme lengths to get clean. The rehabilitation community claims that it only has an overall 30% success rate for treating opioid addiction, and there's evidence that even that modest number is inflated. Meanwhile, deaths from heroin use have increased seven-fold between 2002 and 2017. Even if the treatment is dangerous and untested, for some, the risk is worth it.
Ibogaine produces powerful hallucinations for four to six hours. As a psychedelic, its most distinguishing characteristic is its oneirogenic quality, meaning that it produces a dream-like sensation. Users have reported it feels like "a waking dream." During an interview with the New York Times, one user said that after taking the drug, "My face opened up like a zipper […] It's like somebody pulled my face apart and looked into me. Then a white light came on, and suddenly I saw all these faces, like on a movie screen." Although it might not sound like it, the user said, "It was pleasurable, relaxing."
In the Bwiti religion in Western Africa, the drug is believed to enable communication with the dead. In light doses, Gabonese hunters use the drug as a stimulant to assist in chasing their prey, and it was sold as a stimulant in France between 1930 and 1960 before it was banned.
While its stimulating and psychedelic effects are interesting, opioid addicts aren't traveling to far flung locations just for a hallucinatory experience. They're traveling for what is perhaps the drug's least-understood property: its apparent ability to kill addiction in its tracks. Users report that taking ibogaine both reduces cravings and relieves the pain of withdrawal from a number of drugs. However, most of the evidence for this effect is anecdotal, beginning with an account by a man called Howard Lotsof.
Lotsof was a researcher who, at the age of 19, was addicted to heroin. In pursuit of a recreational hallucinogenic trip, Lotsof took the then-obscure ibogaine along with five other friends, also heroin addicts. After the experience, they all noted a significant decrease in their cravings for heroin and in the severity of their withdrawals. After this experience, Lotsof became something of an ibogaine evangelist, authoring several research papers and developing a number of patents related to the drug's use for addiction treatment. His story is one of many anecdotal reports of ibogaine's efficacy.
However, there has also been some empirical evidence to support these reports. Human studies have been rare, but studies on animals hooked on cocaine and opioids consistently show that ibogaine administration reduces the animals' cravings for their drug of choice.
The limited number of human trials have shown some promise too; in most of these studies, participants reported they abstained from opioids for at least a few weeks, and many others reported abstaining for more than a year. Unfortunately, there isn't more data out there on ibogaine's effect on humans, and there's good reason why.
Ibogaine is produced from the root powder of the iboga tree (pictured above).
Aside from its psychedelic and addiction-quashing properties, ibogaine comes with a major downside. Sometimes, it will produce a potent cardiac condition called long QT syndrome, in which a portion of the heartbeat is elongated, which can cause fainting, palpitations, seizures, or sudden death.
In 1999, researchers conducted a human study on the effects of ibogaine on opioid withdrawal. Out of the 33 participants, one 24-year-old woman complained of muscle aches and nausea 17 hours after receiving ibogaine. An hour later, she suffered from respiratory failure, and died soon after. Participants have died in other studies as well, generally due to cardiac complications. In fact, ibogaine is estimated to have a mortality rate of 1 in 300.
Considering this relatively high mortality rate, ibogaine has been approached with caution both from the scientific community and from the more reputable ibogaine treatment clinics. Unfortunately, reputable ibogaine treatment clinics are few and far between, and, considering the risks involved, trained medical staff and proximity to a hospital are a must.
Although the empirical evidence is unclear and the risks are high, opioid addicts are still boarding planes to fly to countries where they can receive this treatment. It's difficult to see whether the risk of dying from ibogaine outweighs the risk of dying from opioid addiction. Then again, there were 63,600 deaths from drug overdoses in the U.S. in 2016. What's more, it's impossible to quantify how valuable a sober life might be to an addict. Ultimately, all we can say about ibogaine is that more research is needed to definitively confirm or deny its efficacy. Until then, it'll be hard to stop desperate people from doing desperate things.
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.
- Two wedding guests discover they're trapped in an infinite time loop, waking up in Palm Springs over and over and over.
- As the reality of their situation sets in, Nyles and Sarah decide to enjoy the repetitive awakenings.
- The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
Physicists, being themselves, immediately wanted to try and break pasta into two pieces using this info<p><a href="https://roheiss.wordpress.com/fun/" target="_blank">Ronald Heisser</a> and <a href="https://math.mit.edu/directory/profile.php?pid=1787" target="_blank">Vishal Patil</a>, two graduate students currently at Cornell and MIT respectively, read about Feynman's night of noodle snapping in class and were inspired to try and find what could be done to make sure the pasta always broke in two.</p><p><a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-mathematicians-solve-age-old-spaghetti-mystery-0813" target="_blank">By placing the noodles in a special machine</a> built for the task and recording the bending with a high-powered camera, the young scientists were able to observe in extreme detail exactly what each change in their snapping method did to the pasta. After breaking more than 500 noodles, they found the solution.</p>
The apparatus the MIT researchers built specifically for the task of snapping hundreds of spaghetti sticks.
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
What happens if we consider welfare programs as investments?
- A recently published study suggests that some welfare programs more than pay for themselves.
- It is one of the first major reviews of welfare programs to measure so many by a single metric.
- The findings will likely inform future welfare reform and encourage debate on how to grade success.
Welfare as an investment<p>The <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/welfare_vnber.pdf" target="_blank">study</a>, carried out by Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser of Harvard University, reviews 133 welfare programs through a single lens. The authors measured these programs' "Marginal Value of Public Funds" (MVPF), which is defined as the ratio of the recipients' willingness to pay for a program over its cost.</p><p>A program with an MVPF of one provides precisely as much in net benefits as it costs to deliver those benefits. For an illustration, imagine a program that hands someone a dollar. If getting that dollar doesn't alter their behavior, then the MVPF of that program is one. If it discourages them from working, then the program's cost goes up, as the program causes government tax revenues to fall in addition to costing money upfront. The MVPF goes below one in this case. <br> <br> Lastly, it is possible that getting the dollar causes the recipient to further their education and get a job that pays more taxes in the future, lowering the cost of the program in the long run and raising the MVPF. The value ratio can even hit infinity when a program fully "pays for itself."</p><p> While these are only a few examples, many others exist, and they do work to show you that a high MVPF means that a program "pays for itself," a value of one indicates a program "breaks even," and a value below one shows a program costs more money than the direct cost of the benefits would suggest.</p> After determining the programs' costs using existing literature and the willingness to pay through statistical analysis, 133 programs focusing on social insurance, education and job training, tax and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers were analyzed. The results show that some programs turn a "profit" for the government, mainly when they are focused on children:
This figure shows the MVPF for a variety of polices alongside the typical age of the beneficiaries. Clearly, programs targeted at children have a higher payoff.
Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser<p>Programs like child health services and K-12 education spending have infinite MVPF values. The authors argue this is because the programs allow children to live healthier, more productive lives and earn more money, which enables them to pay more taxes later. Programs like the preschool initiatives examined don't manage to do this as well and have a lower "profit" rate despite having decent MVPF ratios.</p><p>On the other hand, things like tuition deductions for older adults don't make back the money they cost. This is likely for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is less time for the benefactor to pay the government back in taxes. Disability insurance was likewise "unprofitable," as those collecting it have a reduced need to work and pay less back in taxes. </p>
What are the implications of all this?<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="ceXv4XLv" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="3b407f5aa043eeb84f2b7ff82f97dc35"> <div id="botr_ceXv4XLv_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/ceXv4XLv-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>Firstly, it shows that direct investments in children in a variety of areas generate very high MVPFs. Likewise, the above chart shows that a large number of the programs considered pay for themselves, particularly ones that "invest in human capital" by promoting education, health, or similar things. While programs that focus on adults tend to have lower MVPF values, this isn't a hard and fast rule.</p><p>It also shows us that very many programs don't "pay for themselves" or even go below an MVPF of one. However, this study and its authors do not suggest that we abolish programs like disability payments just because they don't turn a profit.</p><p>Different motivations exist behind various programs, and just because something doesn't pay for itself isn't a definitive reason to abolish it. The returns on investment for a welfare program are diverse and often challenging to reckon in terms of money gained or lost. The point of this study was merely to provide a comprehensive review of a wide range of programs from a single perspective, one of dollars and cents. </p><p>The authors suggest that this study can be used as a starting point for further analysis of other programs not necessarily related to welfare. </p><p>It can be difficult to measure the success or failure of a government program with how many metrics you have to choose from and how many different stakeholders there are fighting for their metric to be used. This study provides us a comprehensive look through one possible lens at how some of our largest welfare programs are doing. </p><p>As America debates whether we should expand or contract our welfare state, the findings of this study offer an essential insight into how much we spend and how much we gain from these programs. </p>
Finding a balance between job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle is not easy.
- When most of your life is spent doing one thing, it matters if that thing is unfulfilling or if it makes you unhappy. According to research, most people are not thrilled with their jobs. However, there are ways to find purpose in your work and to reduce the negative impact that the daily grind has on your mental health.
- "The evidence is that about 70 percent of people are not engaged in what they do all day long, and about 18 percent of people are repulsed," London Business School professor Dan Cable says, calling the current state of work unhappiness an epidemic. In this video, he and other big thinkers consider what it means to find meaning in your work, discuss the parts of the brain that fuel creativity, and share strategies for reassessing your relationship to your job.
- Author James Citrin offers a career triangle model that sees work as a balance of three forces: job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle. While it is possible to have all three, Citrin says that they are not always possible at the same time, especially not early on in your career.