"Every single provision in the text of the agreement (the AUS/USA FTA)as it applies to drugs is to favour the US companies, to increase the prices, to ultimately reduce access to cheap, affordable drugs in Australia. There's no question about it."

- David Henry, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of Newcastle and a former Chairman of the Government's Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee

Latham tried his best to do what little he could, to ensure we (Australian consumers) have access to some of the cheapest medicines in the world. I thank him for that.

The FTA is weighted in favour of the US. Australia will not see any benefit at all.

"The bottom line is that there is no US commitment to free trade. It is really a commitment to getting other countries to give access to American producers to their markets and the US reciprocates when it is convenient."

- Professor Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Laureate in Economic

David, You are absolutly right about the state of Australian journalists. Most seem to want to report only the opinions they are told and pretend it is news.
In some cases the reporters actualy seem to think THEY are the news.

This country could really use some top notch investigative reporters - the ground is fertile.
But, alas, it is hard. A good reporter would need to really understand his subject matter and do research prior to interviewing news makers. And worse, he may no longer be included in a desirous elite circle of acquaintences in high places.

The current political interview techniques seem to be no more than an infomercial for the candidate. This allows the polly to express outrageous exagerations and half truths with no fear of having to defend his ludicrous position.

David Flint you shouldn't attempt scholarly analysis while at the same time harbouring an obvious vidictive grudge against your subject. Your article is illogical and rambling and doesn't add anything to any debate.

Is this the same David Flint who championed the cash-for-comment king, Alan Jones while he (Flint) held a high public office designed to monitor media manipulation? And the same David Flint who used his office for partisan causes like the retention of the monarchy? Is this David Flint in receipt of superannuation attaching to his former public position?

Please spare us the hypocrisy.

An example of the "evergreening" that David Flint seems to dismiss.

Thalidomide, you know that nasty drug that was given for morning sickness. Developed in Germany after the second world war. Cheap as chips for a 50 year old drug.

Celgene, a US biotech company obtains the rights to this drug and repackages it as Thalomid (same drug) This drug is of use in Multiple Myoloma. It now sells this 50 year old drug for US$60 per pill, US$30,000 per treatment.

This is why we need to stop evergreening.

Oh! David: How can a bloke who claims to be educated and intelligent come up with the tripe you do, not just once either, is beyond me.

I will write on the photographer and Latham only.
We all know that the paper? in question is one of rupert's rags. We also know that ALL rupert's so-called news papers are rabidly pro-howard, pro-liberal.
Could this paper, knowing the likely reaction from Latham have set the bloke up on orders from on high?
Again if you read the liberal journal err I mean the australian you would have noticed yet another attack on the ABC.
Those attackers appear to be liberal/howard backers. Now whether they attack on orders from the party or maybe they are trying to ingrate themselves with the 'power' for a seat on the board, and easy money - who knows.
But along with the attack on Latham it does seem to be orchestrated. And I may add a typical low liberal attack. Like the piggery, the queer judge, Hanson and Kernot. The last was done by a fair?, fearless?, impartial?? investigative? journalist? from the rupert stables.

Amoung this waffle Flint actually comes up with a point, it may even surprise the author, yes I know I usually don't agree with this man on anything, however when I think back.....

I can remember then PM Hawke being grilled by investigative journalists the like of Michael Schulberger Ch9, Richard Carlton, then ABC, Mike willissie Ch7, Jana Wendt CH9 I think from memory, and the like used to give old Bob a good going over, on a regular basis.

However I can't recall PM Howard ever recieving the same treatment, so I agree with Flint on one thing, investigative journalists are well hidden, and have been for the previous 10 years, odd that.

As for the other waffle, old news, old writer, insignificant in the current political climate, but feel free to empty your bowel Dave, if it makes you feel better, and well may we say, 'GOD save the Queen,...because nothing will save the Governer-General"

How can you all be so callous? Surely Davo is entitled to national treasure status.

He's gone to all this trouble to provide us with a scintillating example of thoroughly-researched, unbiased writing on a roolly, roolly important issue (Mark Latham). Where's the gratitude?

As something of a paparazzi magnet himself, Dave has unfailingly allowed all segments of the press into his personal life because he has nothing, absolutely and utterly nothing to hide. In fact he sees it as his duty to queen and Country to be open, honest and consistent. Don't you Dave?

I'm just glad the aliens returned me in time to catch his wonderful piece of impartial and disinterested wisdom

Remember this pearler from Lawsy,

JOHN LAWS: "I attended a dinner party on Tuesday the 28th of November, in the year 2000, with friends. The subject of the ABA, not surprisingly, came up and I made some mildly critical comment of the effete pretentious posturing professor, that being Mr Flint.

Alan Jones happened to be at the same party and he turned on me very quickly and said I should be very careful. If it weren't for David Flint, God knows where we would be. But Alan Jones then went on to say: "in fact I was so determined to have David Flint re-elected that I personally went to Kirribilli House and instructed John Howard to reappoint David Flint or he would not have the support of Alan Jones in the forthcoming election".
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1096848.htm

Oh dear.

I am somewhat disappointed that OLO still publishes the professor's sour musings. Not for his views - we all know what they are - but for the ever-lower quality of the ramblings themselves.

There's always at least one classic piece of hypocrisy to keep and to treasure though, and this one has several. I particularly like the reference to Latham's "generous, taxpayer-funded, very early retirement on the grounds of ill health", which has absolutely nothing to do with the press, or the FTA.

It was just a gratuitous cheap shot, using the flimsy excuse of Latham's recent tantrum with the photographer.

But coming from someone who adulates the memory of one K Packer - and who no doubt intends to attend that man's taxpayer-funded memorial service - it is just the teensiest bit precious, n'est-ce pas, professor?

Oh, you're all just being mean now, attacking one of Australia's finest legal minds for his grasp of fact, argument and logic. And unfair, too. He used at least one fact – the price of PBS drugs is set by the government. Or at least he used half a fact. The government indeed sets the price to the consumer. Flint just happened to ignore the other half of the fact – that the price at which the PBS buys drugs is lowered by the existence of cheap generics.

So yah sucks boo to all you nasty people: his grasp of argument and logic is fine too. He has used sophistry and misdirection – standard rhetorical techniques. That he used them incompetently and transparently is neither here nor there. The amazing thing about a dancing bear is not how it dances, but that it dances at all. And boy, does David dance.

This little para sez it all:

"Apart from the editorial writers in The Australian and The Australian Financial Review, most journalists seemed unable or unwilling to examine the issues, some openly offering the excuse that it was all too complicated".

(Code for 'not you my fellow Tory mates in the Packer/Murdoch hack stables, I am forever yours)

So which journo's/writers are you accusing David? Come on, be daring and name names and publications. Is it the people who write your local Independent rag or school newspaper,neighboorhood watch alert, trading post, your latest edition of Royal Family or Corgy Breeders International? Being an ex ABA man you should know that you need to be accurate in reporting.

chainsmoker, rainier, pericles, anomie: You are all absolutely brilliant. The other posts are excellent but yours superlative - thankyou.
Yet I bet david will be at it again before long in spite of his vast number of folowers on this forum. numbat

Acknowledging that it is a sin to forget a source, somewhere or other I read a Davo response to something that had been said about him. His reply said he never pays attention to his critics.

Now there's an impartial public commentator.

I was going to have a go at defending Prof David Flint's article for a challenge and just to be different but then the thought struck me...

Na Too Hard and not worth my time .... A bit like the article really!

I too especially enjoyed the posts of chainsmoker, rainier, pericles & anomie.

Can anyone forget the John Laws interview on the Andrew Denton show..

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1100812.ht

OOps sorry, I left the m off htm.... this link works better

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1100812.htm

What my critics fail to understand is that Mark Latham is fair game to be stalked by Daily Telegraph reporters, because we vaguely knew who he was some time ago. A counter example is that Michael Jeffery is not fair game, for two reasons. Firstly, he's in a very important position and must be respected, and secondly, no-one knows who he is or what he looks like anyway.

Until next time, non-Elites,

Professor Flint

Dear David Flint

Do you mean to imply that people in important positions (elites) are to be respected and the rest of us are not? Are Mark Latham's childen 'fair game' for stalking photographers because they are just children and therefore not important? Or because you and the Telegarph see Latham (and by some perverted extension his children) as your natural enemy?

Would you like to give us your personal address and daily itinerary for tomorrow please. I have a spare day and my camera hasn't been used for a week or two? On second thoughts, who would publish a photo of a second-rate, near-forgotten would-be?

Yeh if you get into politics, get all cut up, write a stupid book, break a camera whatever, you are fair game
... on saying that life is never "fair"...
Mark knew this when he draged his himself and his family into the game.

Meredith, i think you missed the main point of Mr Flint's article.
The main point of the article, was that it had no point.
It was a dishonest rave by a conservative toady, with an axe to grind.

To the fellow with the unused camera, whilst following Flint around, see if you can catch a few shots of Mr David Pembarthy, he seems to make himself a public figure these days.
Great to see you all out there, ready with some great postings to jump on the likes of Flint whenever his poison appears.
Keep it up. Be alert and alarmed at all times.

Imagine a Venn Diagram with its circles like the Audi or Olympic emblems. Imagine two circles. One for the domain of media. Another, the domain of life. Lastly, the area of overlap, the domain of public life. In this case, the overlap is justifably greater for a public person, such as Mark Latham.

In the above frame, if Latham felt his space invaded by the Reporter: It would have been reasonable to speak with the Reporter and say he was having a meal with his family and to hang around for ten minutes... Just wait. But what happens? The clown comes out swinging!

Latham is very lucky. Most people, who have acted like he has acted in the past, would have by now explained their behaviour in front of a magistrate.

Mark Latham is a loose cannon. Herein, I forgive Professor Flint if some bias shows through in his contribution to this Forum.

To me, its a puzzlement why the ALP put as THE front runner

Oliver, everybody accepts that Mr Latham is ill. That still doesnt make The Prof's diatribe of any importance.It doesnt justify the misleading nonsense contained in it. It doesnt alter the fact that the
Prof is shamelessly biased. I am sure if the Journalist made a complaint to the police the incident would have been investigated with charges possibly laid. Perhaps the Journo (if thats what he was), didnt want the matter looked at to closely. Lastly but not least, isnt the FTA with te USA going swimmingly?