Policy idea regarding Ibogaine treatment

[Harley Greenbrook]

I would like to suggest that PPNZ consider including a positive stance towards the current medicaltrials and the treatment options available, as well as positive future developments, in regards to Ibogaine drug detox therapy.

For more information from a recent TV1 CloseUp article check the video at the link below:

http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/ibogaine-trial-worth-risk-video-4926416

Also check out the site of Tanea Paterson, the tattooe'd chick: ibogaine.org.nz

Thoughts?

[Andrew McPherson]

I concur with the request.
I believe that this medicine should be trialled in nz, even though the big pharmaceutical companies can't patent it.
This would be a logical consequence of our existing policy on pharmaceuticals and no pharmaceutical patents.
I formally move that the request be accepted and added to existing policy by the policy committee.

Kiwipeso. (Andrew McPherson)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send an email to
ppnz+uns...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit us at:
http://groups.google.com/group/ppnz?hl=en

[Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)]

And would you say this is more or less important than, you know, an electronic surveillance policy, anti-censorship policy, and an open government policy?

Because if you haven't noticed, we don't have them yet. Think that's a problem? get on the forum.

http://pirateparty.org.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1072

Pervach

[Hubat McJuhes]

I agree: fringe policies are less important than core policies.

I also agree: If we have not all slots filled in our core policies, we indeed have quite a number of problems (as many as we are missing policies)

BUT: If we conclude, we should not move forward on fringe aspects, as long as we are not finished with the core subjects (we never will), we will have many more problems even (as many as positions that we don't take, even though we might have a consense but don't really know).

I do hope that with Liquid Feedback in place those areas of consens can be much easier be made  transparent to ourselves as to the public.


Regarding the motion itself:
As long as we as a party are on the fringe for ourselves, our policies should not be going into to much detail, as if we could actually change something in politics right now; our policies should instead be indicative of the way we think.
The more core a policy is, the more detail can be allowed - the more fringe, the more generic the motion should be.

For this motion I would suggest to go forward with a pretty generic stance like: supporting scientific efforts, explicitly with public money spending towards public scientific institutions, with a bias towards those areas where private funding is not to be expected but results can be expected to be of public interest.
Examples could be given, e.g. Ibogaine; also the role of the intestinal flora for - and antibiotics as cause of - autism.

This would NEED to be combined with our stance of OPEN DATA, the open sourcing of scientific results founded by public money spending.


@ Pervach: Is that going int the right direction?


Cheers,
Daniel

[Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)]

I agree with everything Hubat just said there.

 

I would still like to point out that our deficiency in our core policy areas is not just about filling in specific details. It it was just some specific details missing, then we have a Policy Committee who has the authority to fill in the gaps. The deficiency in our core pollicy is still that we haven't even covered it in broad strokes, except for a few in copyright and patent policy.

 

Personally, I would expect at least 4 broad policies in each of our 5 core policy areas, before we ask the people running the policy development process to spend time on optional extras. Once we get to this point, we can afford to consider some non-core policies.

I have for a while also suggested that the Policy Committee takes an accelerated approach until we get to this stage - We should vote on adopting whole policies verbatim from other Pirate Parties, with only brief discussion. Even if only 1/2 or 3/4 of them get accepted, it will save years. Now these would just be starting points (but good enough to run an election campaign on), and would be reviewed in due course by the normal process, where we will add our personal tweaks and fine tune them towards the NZ system.

 

Either way, just because the Policy Committee is in charge of the policy development process doesn't mean we should leave all the work up to them, they are only 3 people. The more people helping with this, the faster we can call ourselves a real party, instead of just a setting-up committee. This includes not just stating your opinion on whatever you happen to be thinking about, but following the topics currently being considered and writing policy proposals for them.

 

Pervach

[Andrew McPherson]

This is where the first policy committee had its problems with rehashing everything for nz. I would like to move that by default we adopt policy that works for other pirate parties and fill in the blanks.

However, I agree with pervach if we have a few fringe people contributing to policy, we get the chance of non scientific nonsense such as autism caused by antibiotics or mercury (which has been disproved).
We do not under any circumstance want to become as hopeless with science and technology as the greens.

By this I mean that there should never be a pirate party which has luddites shaping our policy into ideological smegma, we should always be the party of reason and openminds.

--

[Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)]

However, I agree with pervach if we have a few fringe people contributing to policy, we get the chance of non scientific nonsense such as autism caused by antibiotics or mercury (which has been disproved).
We do not under any circumstance want to become as hopeless with science and technology as the greens.

I feel misrepresented by that.

 

It's not about *who* is writing the policy, or anyone in particular being 'fringe'. It's about making sure that there *are* people writing policy. It doesn't write itself, and the Policy Committee has other roles besides just running the policy development process.

 

The quality of it is taken care of by voting on it.

This is where the first policy committee had its problems with rehashing everything for nz. I would like to move that by default we adopt policy that works for other pirate parties and fill in the blanks.

And... we already have a core policy vs non-core policy distinction enshrined in the Policy Committee rules of procedure, which basically does exactly that.

Priority should be given to core policy (i.e. policy already adopted by several overseas Pirate Parties), and core policy only needs a simple majority to be adopted while non-core policy, straying away from the position of the Pirate movement internationally, needs a larger majority.

 

Pervach

[mathmo]

I agree with the gist of that (although maybe not the specific language of it) and the original poster (Harley Greenbrook).

> "This would be a logical consequence of our existing policy on pharmaceuticals and no pharmaceutical patents." + Open Data + etc
Thus it would fit naturally within PPNZ, although I also agree with the point that we've got more pressing issues to add to our policy list first! (and yup, I'm partly guilty too of not getting that done. If anybody wants to write up complete policy proposals for us they're welcome! :-P)

Cheers,

Mathmo/David.

On Monday, June 18, 2012 1:17:49 PM UTC+12, Andrew McPherson wrote:

This is where the first policy committee had its problems with rehashing everything for nz. I would like to move that by default we adopt policy that works for other pirate parties and fill in the blanks.

However, I agree with pervach if we have a few fringe people contributing to policy, we get the chance of non scientific nonsense such as autism caused by antibiotics or mercury (which has been disproved).
We do not under any circumstance want to become as hopeless with science and technology as the greens.

By this I mean that there should never be a pirate party which has luddites shaping our policy into ideological smegma, we should always be the party of reason and openminds.

On Jun 18, 2012 10:22 AM, "Pervach (aka Tommy Fergusson)" <per...@pirateparty.org.nz> wrote:

I agree with everything Hubat just said there.

 

I would still like to point out that our deficiency in our core policy areas is not just about filling in specific details. It it was just some specific details missing, then we have a Policy Committee who has the authority to fill in the gaps. The deficiency in our core pollicy is still that we haven't even covered it in broad strokes, except for a few in copyright and patent policy.

 

Personally, I would expect at least 4 broad policies in each of our 5 core policy areas, before we ask the people running the policy development process to spend time on optional extras. Once we get to this point, we can afford to consider some non-core policies.

I have for a while also suggested that the Policy Committee takes an accelerated approach until we get to this stage - We should vote on adopting whole policies verbatim from other Pirate Parties, with only brief discussion. Even if only 1/2 or 3/4 of them get accepted, it will save years. Now these would just be starting points (but good enough to run an election campaign on), and would be reviewed in due course by the normal process, where we will add our personal tweaks and fine tune them towards the NZ system.

 

Either way, just because the Policy Committee is in charge of the policy development process doesn't mean we should leave all the work up to them, they are only 3 people. The more people helping with this, the faster we can call ourselves a real party, instead of just a setting-up committee. This includes not just stating your opinion on whatever you happen to be thinking about, but following the topics currently being considered and writing policy proposals for them.

 

Pervach

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Hubat McJuhes wrote:

I agree: fringe policies are less important than core policies.

I also agree: If we have not all slots filled in our core policies, we indeed have quite a number of problems (as many as we are missing policies)

BUT: If we conclude, we should not move forward on fringe aspects, as long as we are not finished with the core subjects (we never will), we will have many more problems even (as many as positions that we don't take, even though we might have a consense but don't really know).

I do hope that with Liquid Feedback in place those areas of consens can be much easier be made  transparent to ourselves as to the public.


Regarding the motion itself:
As long as we as a party are on the fringe for ourselves, our policies should not be going into to much detail, as if we could actually change something in politics right now; our policies should instead be indicative of the way we think.
The more core a policy is, the more detail can be allowed - the more fringe, the more generic the motion should be.

For this motion I would suggest to go forward with a pretty generic stance like: supporting scientific efforts, explicitly with public money spending towards public scientific institutions, with a bias towards those areas where private funding is not to be expected but results can be expected to be of public interest.
Examples could be given, e.g. Ibogaine; also the role of the intestinal flora for - and antibiotics as cause of - autism.

This would NEED to be combined with our stance of OPEN DATA, the open sourcing of scientific results founded by public money spending.


@ Pervach: Is that going int the right direction?


Cheers,
Daniel

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send an email to

ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

[Hubat McJuhes]

Andrew,

your contribution to this discussion is a bit hard to grasp as it has
quite some fundamental (also logical) flaws.


1)
I would like to move that by default prirates communicate in a
respectful manner with each another.

Bad example:
You talk about fringe people (that's me). While I have been using the
term 'fringe' for subjects from the perspective of PPNZ core policies,
you use the term on whole persons, stigmatising them as being on thre
fringe of human society due to not being accessible by rational arguments.
In doing so, you destroy our ability to talk sanely with each another
and exchange arguments and knowledge aiming at better understanding and
motions. this sounds a bit paradox to me as you (and I) wish our party
to be one 'of reason and openminds'.

Better example:
You could have called me being misinformed, becasue you think that I am
refereing to outdated scientific discussions, for example. In this case
it would be quite naural for me to ask you for your sources. This way we
would just make a good example of academic disputation, learn a lot and
make the mailing list a better place to be.
Unfortunately we have to waiste our time now to do some meta discussion
first, to re-establish that. Please write better mails in the future.
You are the President of the Wellington Chapter. Behave.

Reason for the above motion:
We are lacking > 400 people joining. We are marketing our party by
pointing out how open minded and ratinal, pragmatic and creative, we
are, how much we embrace open culture, et al. Our communication is the
first and only proof that we adhere to those principals. Our
communication style is not important; it is the most importatnt thing.


2)
Funny that you discribe me like that, in response to my proposal to not
simply fire a motion in reaction of a 5 minute sensational TV feature,
but instead to embed the message in a package that explicitly aims at
supporting proper science and making the results public.


3)
> However, I agree with pervach ...
No, you don't. You are actually opposing him (and so do I).
Pervach has never dismissed a person as being fringe. He has been
suggesting that we should suspend working on non-core issues as long as
our core positions are not 'stable' if I way say so.

YOU have announced a naive move to support scientific studies working on
Ibogaine, which is obviously a non-core (fringe) subject.

I have then made a proposal to bind this issue back to our core
policies. It is my believe that our core aspects can build out roots
into nearly every aspect of public concerns. And I think it would be
smart to show that with everything we touch. This is one aspect why I
oppose Pervach here, because I think we can plant the pirate's core
nearly everywhere and it will blossom.


4)
I agree with you that luddities should not the parties face.
Pervach has already pointed ut that due to the need of voting for
motions, this will not happen. I have already mentioned liquid feedback
earlier, which will help us to ease the process of finding out what the
party is actually willing to support.
I would like to add: Mana plays a role as well.


@Andrew: I am looking forward to hear your opinion regarding the above.

Cheers

[Hubat McJuhes]

In that other response I have been addressing communicational aspects.

Now I would really seriously like to ask you what you know about the
causes of and treatments of autism.

Can you please direct me to your sources that show that autism is not
realted to a breakdown of the intestinal flora?

This subject means a lot to me as friends are fighting the autism of
their child (and are doing a hell of a good job.) Their treatment is
based on a three differet therapies, of which a pretty radical diet
appears to be the most effective aspect.

You assistence in understanding is very much appreciated.

Cheers



On 18/06/12 1:17 PM, Andrew McPherson wrote:
>

[Andrew McPherson]

I have gone through several studies of the genetics of mental illness, mostly concerned with those to do with schizophrenia and bipolar to a lesser extent.
I found two or three related studies which traced these illnesses and some related illness to Neanderthal dna. A suggested cause is due to interspecies mixing, a suggested indicator might be dandruff according to one study.

From my understanding of dietary problems, which is not as good as my cousin's studies, it seems that the a1 protein in normal milk is a problem, so try alternative a2 milk or substitute milk with soy milk, rice milk or almond milk.

I also remember that red food colouring such as used in burger rings is a trigger for hyperactivity, ADHD, etc and is also liable to cause havoc with children. I strongly suggest to eliminate that too.

What it is essentially is a genetic diversion from average people, which manifests in the behavior of the individual. This is usually described as a selfish person who lives in their own world, other aspects are a lack of socially accepted behavior.

I have had close experience with an ex who had lactose intolerance through antibiotic wiping out some intestine flora, she definitely did not have autism as her mental illness.

I would also check to see if the parents of the child with autism have some of the autistic traits the child has, as autism has only become more well known amongst doctors in the last 20 years.
I also advise that the parents should get checked before the dsm5 comes out and removes either autism or aspbergers from standard diagnosis.

Hopefully this should help.
Andrew.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the New Zealand Pirate Party mailing list.
To post to the list, send an email to pp...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe, send an email to

ppnz+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com