Archive for March, 2013

Why do the banks own most of our money?

"I warn you, Sir! The discourtesy of this bank is beyond all limits. One word more and I—I withdraw my overdraft."  Cartoon from Punch Magazine Vol. 152, June 27, 1917

“I warn you, Sir! The discourtesy of this bank is beyond all limits. One word more and I—I withdraw my overdraft.” Cartoon from Punch Magazine Vol. 152, June 27, 1917

The following is a letter submitted to The Guardian, in response to an editorial. It’s probably the strongest argument I’ve seen for the nationalisation of banks. Most people I’ve met don’t like banks or bankers, but I think most of us have come to accept them as almost a ‘necessary evil’. I think we really need to ask ourselves and our leaders some hard questions.

Why are private banks and financial institutions allowed to have so much control over our money supply?
Banks lend out money at interest to us, but why couldn’t the government exercise this function without charging interest and cut out these ‘middle-men’?

I know that a number of economists have been arguing for some time, that governments which have control of their own currency (such as the U.K., The U.S., Australia, NZ and Canada) should be able to create/lend money into the system to create jobs, build infrastructure and deal with much of our poverty – that in fact all this talk of austerity is just another con-job on the population. Australian economist, Bill Mitchell, has a site which discusses and promotes the idea that sovereign governments should use their power to create money, to ensure full employment in the economy. I’ve put down links to a number of his posts at the bottom of this post.
At any rate, have a read of this letter, and if you feel as I did when I read it, pass it on. Let’s get a much needed discussion on this going.

 

Read the rest of this entry

Normal_and_cancer_cells_(labeled)_illustration

I’m often amazed when members of the medical establishment come out asking where the evidence for alternative medicine’s efficacy or value is.
Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, has defined alternative medicine as a “set of practices that cannot be tested, refuse to be tested, or consistently fail tests.” [1] He has also stated that “there is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn’t work.” [2]  He has argued that if a technique is demonstrated effective in properly performed trials, it ceases to be alternative and simply becomes medicine. [3]
Ok perhaps Richard, would like to explain why on the basis of the following studies, the compound Limonene, found in many citrus essential oils, has not been incorporated into the fight against cancer (either as a preventative or treatment). Hmm? No great return on investment for something that grows on a tree perhaps?
The following are studies I came across when doing research for my article on citrus oils. They are from the site Young Living Link, which has a store of fabulous information on essential oils. You will note that they have only updated the studies carried out up to 2002. That doesn’t mean that research on Limonene stopped then. I’ve added below the links to abstracts on 7 other studies carried out since then. So check them out too.

Till next time

Cheers

Anthony

Limonene Studies (1971 – 2002)

Research on Limonene since 2002

Disclaimer: Please remember that anything discussed here does not
constitute medical advice and cannot substitute for appropriate medical care. Where essential oils are mentioned, it’s recommended you use only pure, unadulterated therapeutic grade essential oils and follow the safety directions of the manufacturer.

[1]  Dawkins, Richard (2003). A Devil’s Chaplain. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
[2]  Dawkins, Richard (2003). A Devil’s Chaplain. United States: Houghton Mifflin. p. 58
[3]  “Review: A Devil’s Chaplain by Richard Dawkins”The Guardian (London). 2003-02-15