ENCOD defends the freedom of persons to take an informed decision concerning the use of psychoactive substances and also supports ibogaine treatments but we emphasize that they have to be done in a secure context. We support the self-determination and empowerment of the people using all substances.
Therefore, we condemn the prosecution of Sara Glatt, who since many years practices ibogaine treatment to help the persons who want to stop using substances like heroin, methadone, cocaine, alcohol and amphetamines.
In the scientific literature, the withdrawal symptoms appear to be almost not existent after an ibogaine flood-dose although a complete medical check-up is needed since the treatment can be potentially fatal for persons with cardiovascular diseases or due to drug interactions during the session.
The treatment is not a magic silver bullet but allows the individuals to recover easier with proper after-care and sufficient personal motivation. The possible dangers are accounting for approximately 1 casualty every 300 patients. Being in the grey area does not mean to be responsible for the post-treatment patients or of treatments that were not activated.
500 years after the last witch trials in the Netherlands, the Dutch media call Sara the witch of Kockengen, the small village where she lived before she was arrested. We call out for a fairer trial under the motto “In dubio pro strigae” [In doubt for the witches].
According to the renown Dutch scientist Peter Cohen, the injustice of Sara Glatts’ conviction to 8 years in prison is based on the interpretation of the death of a person from Sweden, inside Sara’s house. This person came voluntarily but was refused both Iboga and an Iboga treatment by Sara because of her bad physical condition and because she came all alone (against Sara’s rules). The death of this person was nevertheless attributed to Iboga that the person somehow acquired inside the house where besides Sara also other people lived. In short, attributing this death to Sara’s responsibility is based on 2 weak interpretations:
1) it is scientifically impossible to make Iboga the CERTAIN cause of this death against the background of the person’s weak physical condition
2) it remained unknown who supplied the Iboga that entered the system of the Swedish person.
The attribution of this death to Sara Glatt’s responsibility is a consequence of the dominant (negative) perspective and narratives around drugs in general and Iboga specifically. I see this as resulting in a witch hunt, of which Sara is now a victim. Her conviction is a sloppy result of this process and does not satisfy a test of objectivity or even fairness. Without the weak interpretations, and with a bit more respect for all the unknowns and uncertainties around this death, Sara would have been free now. ENCOD requests that the doubts and uncertainties in this case will not be massively interpreted in Sara Glatt’s disadvantage. Where such serious doubts and uncertainties exist, objectivity and fairness should prevail.
Free Sara Glatt!