W. Bryan Hubbard was forced to resign as Chairman and Executive Director of the Kentucky Opioid Abatement Advisory Commission on December 15th, 2023. Supported by Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, incoming Attorney General Russell Coleman immediately started the planned collapse of a first-of-its-kind clinical trial into ibogaine. These clinical trials could have helped those suffering from opioid addiction and Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI), but it was killed in the 11th hour—why?
It couldn’t have been because Bryan was leading the charge. Bryan’s track record fighting for the people of Kentucky is without blemish. In addition to his leadership position with the Opioid Abatement Advisory Commission, Bryan has served as:
So why was the majority-supported ibogaine proposal and its author tossed out? That was our question and why we began our pro-bono research into this affair.
Photo Credit: Tim Webb Photography, Lexington, KY
Over the following pages, you will find summaries of our open-source investigation into the opposition to the Kentucky ibogaine initiative, including:
Due to the scope of this investigation, a significant amount of information needs to be shared. However, we’ve tried to make it scannable for those looking for the highlights and allow in-depth analysis for others. Please take advantage of the Table of Contents.
Additionally, investigative journalist Rachel Nuwer’s contribution to Reason Magazine documented our initial research and relationship with Bryan. It’s an excellent feature that goes into Bryan’s journey in more detail. The research shared was current during our June 2024 interview but has since expanded in scope. We wanted to explain the differences below between the figures and totals that were previously seen.
DISCLAIMER: All following information was collected open-source and links back to sources frequently. This report represents our collection efforts and observations. It does not imply guilt or intent. We encourage every reader to perform their research.
Political & Legal Influence Across Kentucky Since the 1970s
Photo Credits: Charity Hedges, CC BY-SA 4.0, and Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Steve’s Early Conflicts of Interest:
Purdue Pharma Lawsuit:
Bribery and Coercion:
Committee Appointments and Donors:
For those interested parties, complete records and history can be seen at Steve & Andy Beshear’s Political History | Reveille Advisors. This will link you to a Google Doc that is publicly accessible and more in-depth than what’s shared here.
You can also see a historical timeline of Stites & Harbison’s relationship with Purdue Pharma at HISTORICAL TIMELINE | Purdue Pharma + Beshear & Co. This will link you to a Google Sheet document that shares similar content in another manner.
If you want to learn more about the Sacklers and Purdue Pharma, we encourage you to explore the ongoing series by investigative journalist Matt Bivens, MD. In this series, Dr. Bivens shares in-depth research into what he deems the “sociopathy of the Opioid Crisis.” We’ve come to the same conclusion.
Mixing Public and Private Sector Roles
Photo Credit: AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley
Revolving Door Dynamics:
Pharmaceutical Contributions:
FBT and DisposeRX:
Russell Coleman raised $1.37 million during his campaign, with significant portions coming from pharmaceutical and healthcare interests:
Over $196,000 (14% of total contributions) came directly from opioid use disorder (OUD) prescription manufacturers, pharmacies, and recovery centers.
Influence and Conflicts in OUD Treatment Research
Photo Credit: University of Kentucky c/o The Internet Archive
Undisclosed Income:
Institutional Oversight:
Pharmaceutical Influence:
One element of R01 Grants is that once awarded, the principal investigator manages everything, including the allotment of funding for salaries and personnel expenses. HEALing’s $87 million was awarded in 2019, the same year both doctors saw pay boosts.
Unfortunately, records for 2018, the year immediately before the R01 Grant, are unavailable. We used the next most recent option, 2017, to get as close as possible.
Walsh and Lofwall also have lucrative consulting ventures out of academia, which we’ll dive into next.
Walsh was on Kentucky’s Opioid Abatement Advisory Commission but stepped down after funding for non-FDA-approved treatment like ibogaine was proposed. What’s interesting is how her arguments against ibogaine show her true intentions. Please examine a couple of quotes from Dr. Walsh:
“If the focus is on opioid withdrawal, we have medications that are already approved for opioid withdrawal. It’s not something that is difficult to manage clinically. And there are protocols that have been in place for 30-some years. … Those are very effective drugs. I’m not sure why we need other drugs to target opiate withdrawal.”
Interestingly, she says new drugs were unnecessary, as she, Lofwall, and a third frequent collaborator, Dr. Sandra Comer from Columbia University, ran the clinical trial that led to BRIXADI (a new OUD product) being approved by the FDA after she said that in 2023.
Additionally, JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association), a peer-reviewed medical journal published by the American Medical Association, directly contracts her claim that they’re “very effective” from their May 2021 issue:
"However, preventing overdoses requires that patients be retained on medications for opioid use disorder, which has been challenging. Retention rates are quite low; overall, 40% to 50% of patients treated with methadone or buprenorphine relapse within a 6-month period of treatment initiation."
Up to a 50% failure rate is not “very effective,” as Dr. Walsh claims. Let’s see what else she has to say.
"She’s the CEO of a company that’s trying to develop it. So she’s going to come and talk to us about the development of this with it, you know, with the hope of getting money. There’s a clear conflict of interest from a person who has ownership of a company whose sole purpose is to get the drug to market."
Dr. Walsh’s extensive experience as a principal investigator for FDA trials—often funded by or directly benefiting private, for-profit businesses—demonstrates her understanding that collaboration with the private sector is standard practice. In emerging industries like ibogaine, few organizations may be equipped to handle FDA clinical trials safely and effectively. Given her familiarity with this process, her grievances seem disingenuous or, at best, gatekeeping.
It’s Time For The Paradigm Shift to Occur. Maintain Momentum.
While intent and depth of involvement can be difficult to determine through Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT), observable patterns offer insights into behavior. For decades, the law firm activities tied to Beshear and Coleman have presented troubling conflicts of interest with their leadership roles. Notable examples include the cases of:
That doesn’t even address their donors, who, as we’ve shown, can be cause for concern alone. We haven’t shared something yet: we suspect more conflicts of interest that we haven’t been able to identify. Why? Many donors listed their employer as “N/A” or “Retired.” While most of these donors are harmless retirees, some likely did that to conceal their professional or financial associations. How much? That’s to be determined.
And Coleman has:
Speaking of donations, it’s important to clarify something: the mere act of a company’s employees or principals donating to a campaign doesn’t automatically indicate wrongdoing or a conflict of interest. Our research offers countless examples of such benign contributions.
However, red flags arise when beneficial responses or favorable outcomes follow specific donations or donors. We’ve sought to highlight these patterns, and now they’re available for your review.
Hijacked might sound harsh when describing a storied American university, its principal investigators, and the OUD treatment community, but no other word fits. Why? A genuinely open-minded research institution would prioritize unbiased studies to explore all potential outcomes—especially those that are cost-effective for patients and free from market exclusivity, unlike the profit-driven approach of Big Pharma and its enablers.
Similarly, advocates like Bryan and the ibogaine community weren’t calling for discontinuing existing treatments. On the contrary, everyone agrees those treatments are invaluable for many in their recovery journey. But what about those for whom they fail—or patients too fearful to endure agonizing withdrawals? As healthcare providers and drug manufacturers, there should be support for alternative solutions that meet these needs. Unfortunately, that’s not what happened, despite widespread support for change.
Big Pharma has hoodwinked America into being the most prescribed nation in the world. That doesn’t happen by accident, and people know it! Time and again, these corporations erode patient trust, prioritizing profits over public health while operating behind closed doors.
Fortunately, Bryan has forged a coalition of like-minded individuals and organizations dedicated to advancing his vision. This effort has culminated in Bryan’s appointment as the Executive Director of the American Ibogaine Initiative at the REID Foundation. With strong partnerships and unwavering support, Bryan and his allies are determined to make FDA trials for these natural medicines a reality.
Stay current on Bryan’s progress by visiting wbryanhubbard.com and following him on Twitter @w_bryan_hubbard.
We offer 30-minute consultations for you to share your challenges and we’ll determine what solutions are available. As always, discretion is provided and secure communication options are available. We’ll speak with you soon!