Xenical:

Dr Peter Mansfield writes: I welcome pharmacist Con Berbatis (Tuesday, comments) scepticism regarding my article about Xenical. Con denies that Xenical works by making you sick. In fact, the drug’s most frequent effect is to give people a disease called steatorrhoea if they eat fatty food. This month’s Cleo magazine* gives a severe example of a young woman who wanted to maintain her size 12 figure, got Xenical from a friend, and got “the runs really badly! I couldn’t even fart without pooing…” However as I mentioned some people do well on Xenical by sticking to a low fat diet so that they avoid such severe effects. I agree with Con that there is high quality evidence about the effectiveness of Xenical but that evidence shows that it often makes little difference to weight loss. Con believes he has benefited from taking Xenical but I think he deserves most of the credit himself for persevering with the diet. Because of that perseverance he probably would have done almost as well without Xenical. Con asks for references for the suspicion that Xenical could cause cancer. My article already linked to the Wikipedia entry for Xenical which cites a study that found more possibly precancerous cells in rats given Xenical. US consumer advocate Public Citizen is also concerned about a higher rate of breast cancer in women. Cancers may take decades to show up but there is no adequate data for Xenical beyond 4 years. People considering taking Xenical should be informed that there are some suspicions that it might cause cancer but we don’t know either way. This is not scaremongering. This is telling the truth. This enables people to make their own decision about whether the risks are worth taking. We health professionals can only adequately inform patients if we know enough ourselves. Many of us don’t, because we rely on drug companies who emphasise the benefits rather than the harms. Con asks for evidence that Roche lobbied for Xenical to be rescheduled to allow advertising to the public. The National Drugs and Poisons Schedule Committee received six submissions lobbying for rescheduling of Xenical during 2002 – 2006. I don’t know if Roche did additional lobbying behind the scenes in secret because, if they did, it is still a secret. However I do know that Roche hired public relations firm Burson-Marsteller to set up a front group to promote Xenical in 2002. Roche have motive, means and form. *Cleo Sept 2007, p78. Special thanks to my daughter Clare Mansfield who bought a copy of Cleo today and mentioned the article to me.

Noel Pearson:

Graham Ring from the National Indigenous Times writes: Re. “If Pearson had the guts he’d turn against the Intervention too” (yesterday, item 3). Noel Pearson has made himself fair game by his persistent demonising of the straw men he labels “left” or “progressive”. Guy Rundle reasonably calls on him to declare his hand over the NT intervention, given that Pearson’s Cape York model of quarantining welfare payments only when recipients are demonstrably irresponsible, and only after they have received financial counselling, is a world away from the federal government’s heavy-handedness in the NT. However, Rundle was unfair to Jack Ah Kit who is a considered thinker, and a great contributor in the battle for Indigenous justice. The medical aspects of the intervention are being skewed by Minister Brough’s fanatical desire to achieve convictions in an attempt to justify his reckless and ill-considered accusations about “paedophile gangs” operating in remote communities. My understanding is that the medical screenings are not invasive, and are therefore unlikely to produce evidence of sexual assault. This will not satisfy the “law and order” troglodytes who apparently regard achieving convictions as being more important than removing the preconditions which encourage these abominable crimes in the first place.

The RBA will lift or lower rates when it wants:

Brian Jowett writes: Re. “No rate rise from the RBA, leave that to the money market” (yesterday, item 2). Glenn Dyer’s assertion “No one seriously thought there would be another rise, the bank doesn’t lift rates two months in a row, never mind in an election year” is incorrect. The RBA lifted rates in November and December 2003, May and June 2002 and April and May 2000. The RBA also lowered rates in February, March and April 2001 and in September and October 2001. There was a federal election on 10 November 2001. The RBA also lowered rates in December 1998 and January 1999 (after the federal election on 3 October 1998) and in November and December 1996. All of which suggests that the RBA board does what it decides it needs to do when it decides it needs to do it. At least, I hope it does.

John Craig from the Centre for Policy and Development Systems writes: The credit “freeze” your article referred to seems like a major issue – as (unless it melts) it could seriously disrupt the flow of capital to Australia (see “Financial Market Instability: Two Sides of the Story“), One problem is the unpredictable way in which losses on US sub-prime mortgages reverberated around investment markets (as a result of securitisation and derivatives). This seemed to result in a general lack of investor enthusiasm for many other types of complex financial instruments (ie. a credit “freeze”). This is a problem because such instruments have become critical to the way in which business has been financed through bond markets. Neither deposit-taking banks nor the reserve banks that regulate them are now able to supply the all the global economy’s credit needs. This is a particular problem for countries (such as Australia) that depend on huge capital inflows to sustain economic demand. Unless the credit “freeze” melts, interest rates could go up a long way, no matter what Australia’s Reserve Bank does. The second (likely) problem is that global economic growth has come to depend on the stability of financial imbalances, ie. where a current account deficit in countries such as US (and others including Australia) are balanced by ongoing capital outflow from other countries (such as Japan and China and others in East Asia), whose economies are export dependent. Poor investor perceptions about credit quality may make it impossible to sustain these financial imbalances and thus disrupt the strong global growth which has translated into unprecedented demand for Australia’s resources. An economic crisis is an unfortunate possibility – though not a certainty. 

APEC et al:

Rod Macqueen writes: Re. Yesterday’s editorial. Ben Pearson puts it very nicely; protests and demonstrations are democracy in action. Demonising Australian citizens who wish to exercise their rights is, well, not un-Australian because it has become all too Australian recently, but it is stupid because we all benefit from a robust democracy. Condemning people for acts of violence and anarchy before any such things have happened is dangerous, because it reduces the likelihood that sensible peaceful people will exercise their right to protest, and thus lead to more polarisation in the community. We don’t need more of that.

Denise Marcos writes: Isn’t the President of the USA important!? He requires an entourage of hundreds of security personnel, bureaucrats, embassy officials, advisors, support staff et al just to spend a few days at a meeting in Sydney: a scenic & formerly vibrant city now transformed into a sinister and barricaded alien world which conjures fear amongst the locals. But, what’s that you say? – The overwhelming majority of Australians don’t want George Bush here? In the classic words of our Prime Minister “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.” Err… apparently not.

Robert Molyneux writes: In recent memory, rallies by Australian citizens in Sydney have made some important statements about critical issues, and have caused closure of areas of Sydney, including the CBD and the Harbour Bridge. One was for Aboriginal Reconciliation, in which we asked our Government to treat indigenous people with decency and respect – as distinct from stealing their land and businesses in the pretence of saving children from abuse. One was about the pending Iraqi War, in which we asked our Government not to join in an attack on Iraq based on CIA fairy tales about WMDs – knowing full well the damage and suffering that would be caused to a nation of about the same size as ours. By tomorrow, the Sydney Harbour Bridge will have been closed twice for “War Criminals On Parade” – the bizarre cavalcades of Bush and Cheney. Meanwhile, our “relaxed and comfortable” Prime Minister demonises all protesters (our children?) that might want to shout rude words and slogans, and decides they must be repelled with the full force of the police and military, and a massive fence. What a wonderful legacy!

Craig Cadby writes: Re. “Liberty! Democracy! My kind of APEC rally” (yesterday, item 13). Christian Kerr wrote: “I’m not sure how to tell one bunch of feral hippies from another. Do they pierce different parts of their bodies? Whatever. Advocates of ideologies that perpetuate poverty and turn a blind eye to mass murder aren’t worth bothering about.” I assume Kerr’s statement is contrasting these feral hippies with the USA… a tariff wielding, warmongering hyper power. But what does either of them have to do with the LDP? And how is the “lefties” tag for the LDP apt?

Hannah Robert writes: Re. “Your cut out and keep APEC protest guide” (yesterday, item 5). You’ve neglected to count an important contingent – Bees for Peace. We’re small but very determined to have our say. As far as I know, I’m the only one. I am a bit concerned, though, that the Federal police don’t mistake my heavily padded bee suit for a suicide bomber vest. And yes, I’m leaving my sting at home – we bees are all about Ghandhian peaceful protest methods.

Howard, Bush and the GG:

Tim Warner writes: Re. “Bush meets the model of a modern Governor General” (yesterday, item 9). Perhaps Christian Kerr should check his protocol books. The US President is both Head of Government and Head of State, he sometimes travels formally as Head of State, but in the case of APEC this is a Head of Government meeting. Prime Minister Abe is attending not Emperor Akihito. All this implies that when things like salutes occur the formalities will be observed (21 guns for Bush, 19 guns for Abe, Howard etc), at all other times Heads of Government will be treated as Heads of Government.

Lance Gyles writes: Christian Kerr should pay greater attention to the Vice Regal notices in the SMH each day. If he had read yesterday’s, he would know that the GG hosted a State dinner in honour of the President of China Hu Jintao on Tuesday night (the guest list is fascinating eg. Sidney Myer, Charles Goode, Murray Gleeson, Chip Goodyear, etc). An Honorary Aide-de-Camp, Colonel Bill Monfries, was the stand-in military type who met George Bush at Mascot in lieu of the GG.

JJ Goold writes: Please remind Christian Kerr that Mrs Elizabeth Windsor is the Australian head of state. Major General “Stanley” is only her stand-in for the 99% of the time she declines to reside here.

Christopher Blackie writes: Christian Kerr wrote: “And no doubt the PM’s people thought it would be better if he spent the evening in the company of r-pists and drug fiends rather than being pictured with the President.” What kind of a thing is that to print? You guys are going downhill really fast – I have less than a month to go on my subscription and doubt I’ll be taking out another one.

Howard needs a a miracle, well here it is:

Rhys Tate writes: Re. “Paul Kelly speaks and Murdoch turns. Game over PM” (yesterday, item 1). Richard Farmer wrote, “…it will take a miracle… for the Government to be returned”. Good news, John, and conservative voters everywhere! That miracle is for sale, and at the modest price of $10,000, it’s certainly a damn sight cheaper than ooh-scary terrorism ads and the world’s largest chicken coop. Pickup is in Broadmeadows, Victoria for the successful bidder, but the seller will ship it to Kirribilli for a measly buck. I’d probably get some postal insurance though, John – sometimes these things just don’t work out.

Fair crack of the whip!:

Peter Murray writes: Re. “The election date will be Nov 3” (yesterday, item 8). I think can fairly confidently refute the prediction that Nov 3 will be an election day. Fair crack of the whip! It’s right in the middle of the Melbourne Spring racing carnival. Melbourne Cup day is the following Tuesday. More to the point, it’s right in the middle of the cancelled Sydney Spring races, and would give many thousands of undecided (and unemployed) strappers, jockeys, farriers and punters a rather specific reason to decide to put Howard out to pasture. And if the equine lurgy gets into Victoria, leading to the cancellation of horse frolics here? Well, Bennelong and Higgins could prove to be the Quinella to back for the first PM and Deputy PM to be sent to the knackery together.

Is there any dignity remaining?:

Lynn Good writes: Re. “Victorian courts wig out, but what about Tasmania?” (Monday, item 17). In his push to strip Tasmanian judges of their judicial regalia, Greg Barns fails to consider if there is dignity remaining. In a Supreme Court case this year the Chief Justice ruled that his personal ownership of more than $60,000 of Gunns Ltd shares was no obstacle to his hearing a case involving that company, even though the judgment could have had seriously affected Gunns’ freedom to convert farms and forests to plantation. The opponents to Gunns were doubly alarmed by a 2000 judgment by the same Judge, likewise affecting Gunns, in which the good judge invalidated an existing planning law which happened to inconvenience Gunns in that case. The Tasmanian Parliament promptly passed an amendment act to validate his judgment, along with an amendment to the Act itself which restored the invalidated Act, leaving the status quo, except for an ad hoc judgment for the hapless Gunns adversaries. Who would be game to take off a robe if there is nothing beneath?

The pulp mill:

Keith Thomas writes: There are two main aspects to the pulp mill (yesterday, comments). First the damage done to the environment by feeding it. Secondly, the damage done by its discharges. Both these are huge and unsustainable. But let’s focus on the discharges. Best practice dioxin management stresses the need for the benchmark to change from that set by Gunns, Turnbull or Garrett to the simple reality that the polluter – in this case Gunns – be 100% responsible for all liabilities (uncapped) arising from their operations. When politicians set standards, they transfer liabilities to the public (health care, monitoring, clean-up etc.), and away from the polluter. They also create grey areas of whether things were above or below those standards, for how long etc. Instead, absolutely all cost liabilities should be borne by the polluter. As the polluter also cannot be trusted (limited liability corporations can be dissolved in a day – unlike dioxin) we must insist that they have uncapped independent insurance cover for all liabilities, cross-insured internationally. Nothing less is meaningful. Anything else – like politicians’ declared commitments to standards – is just smoke and mirrors delusion of the non-core kind. Full insurance cover will also expose the extent of some of the unstated subsidies polluters presently receive.

WIN TV:

An ex-employee of Channel Nine Perth writes: Re. “WIN TV chooses Seven over Nine in SA. Ouch” (yesterday, item 18). I am far from a disgruntled former employee of Nine, but I am following closely on the progress of WIN’s decisions. Every time I read an article such as WIN in SA taking Seven content I shake my head in disbelief. I am biting my nails to the quick awaiting Nine’s fate in Perth. It ain’t gonna be pretty so I feel for my ex-workmates. Is it Sampson v Goliath? Or will WIN end up having some clout over the Nine Network in the future? I hope you do more digging on that subject. I’m not talking about digging up the buried swimming pool either which the local media had a lot of fun with.

Alaric Maude writes: In your item on WIN TV you state that the Swedes went from right hand lanes to left hand lanes. It was the other way around, as they were adopting the continental Europe standard of driving on the right.

Our athletes aren’t so bad:

Winsor Dobbin writes: Re. “Our athletes suck. Good thing they don’t sing” (yesterday, item 19). Nicholas Pickard is clearly an arts writer who knows nothing about sport. He boldly states: “The Australian athletics team delivered what is probably one of the worst performances at an international meet in recent memory and we are now only eight months out from the Beijing Olympics”. Actually we are 12 months out from the Beijing Olympics and the performances by gold medal winners Jana Rawlinson and Nathan Deakes ensured this was, in fact, Australia’s best performance at a major athletics meet (Olympics or world championships) since Mexico City in 1968. Still, let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good story. Today Tonight would be proud of such outrageous spin.

Retail spending and elections:

Gavin Findlay writes: Re. “Why do election campaigns tighten the purse strings?” (Yesterday, item 26). As an amateur economist, the first thing that springs to mind regarding retail spending and elections is that government advertising is crowding out retail advertising. And at least part of one major shopping day is taken up with getting to the polling booth!

Jeff Bye writes: Rob Lake yesterday said he couldn’t work out why the retail sector has a down-turn during every election. I would have thought the answer was obvious – the danger of meeting a politician on the hustings would keep me well clear of the local Fountain Gate any day.

Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and c*ck-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. Preference will be given to comments that are short and succinct: maximum length is 200 words (we reserve the right to edit comments for length). Please include your full name – we won’t publish comments anonymously unless there is a very good reason.