The world tax regime is very kind to international companies by allowing them to arrange tax matters to avoid paying tax. One of those dodges is intellectual property. The right to reward for ownership of intellectual property is slippery and that person often seems to have residence in a country with supportive tax laws.
Another favourite dodge is manipulation of the price charged when intellectual goods pass between countries. If they are going into a country with a high tax regime the stated price can be artificially low to mask the tax payable. Echelons of high priced lawyers and accountants keep at the cutting edge of tax laws to ensure that international companies get the best of both worlds when it comes to tax payable.
Australia had proposed a fair tax on internet behemoths like Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon in 2018. We later changed course when US President Donald Trump threatened to impose retaliatory measures that would result in a trade war. Instead, Australia promised to support a move by Paris based OECD countries and G20 countries to design an international tax accord which had a stronger chance of surviving and might even have been accepted by the internationals themselves.
That is now on the backburner because US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnunchin has writteen to treasurers in the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy advising them that he believes that the talks are at an impasse. America would not entertain discussions until later this year at the earliest. That reason is crystal clear. This is an election year in the United States.
The collapse of an international deal will force dozens of countries - including Australia - into difficult decisions. They may decide to continue to strive for a global deal without the US, or try to introduce their own digital tax. Both options risk a retaliatory tariff from Trump who is highly protective of US tech business. The UK plan for a digital tax could also be a hurdle in its upcoming negotiations for a free trade agreement with the US.
It is quite clear that nothing will eventuate until this US election is over in November and we see who sits in the oval office for the next four years. Even if it produces a change in the presidency there is no guarantee that the incoming president will be sympathetic to a change in the tax regime that will see the world companies based in the US pay more tax.
Many countries have been hoping that an increase in tax revenue from the tech giants could have helped repair budgets damaged by the Coronavirus pandemic and the recession that followed.
It is encouraging that last year Google reached a $481.5 million settlement with the Australian tax office after a protracted dispute flowing from an audit of its tax practices.
Tax justice still seems a long way from happening, but there are terntative signs that it is slowly moving in the right direction !
Sunday, 21 June 2020
Saturday, 20 June 2020
A New Border War !
The worlds two most populous countries share a common border, but that border was not settled when India gained independencwe from Britain and Mao won a civil war to proclaim China a Communist state. It has constantly been a point of friction ever since and the two countries have engaged in limited armed hostilities on several occasions.
Once again fighting has broken out on the India/Chinese border and the world holds its breath. These are now nuclear armed nations and both are headed by leaders of an intemperate nature. Another unssettled dispute involves the Indian provinces of of Jammu and Kashmir in which its 8,500,000 residents follow the Muslim religion.
This is claimed by both India and Pakistan and both countries have troops facing one another and regularly clash over this unsettled holdover from the days of Indian independence. The matter was supposed to be settled by a referendum, but that never happened.
Fortunately, a degree of restraint has been in place in this latest eruption of violence between India and China. The two sides have fought over control of an access road to an airfield, but so far this has not involved firearms. The clash has been between bodies of men armed with steel bars and baseball bats and an undetermined number on both sides have been killed. New reports suggest that these deaths involve about thirty people on both sides
What happens next depends greatly on the leaders of these two nations. Modi is fast taking India into becoming a predominantly Hindu state and Xi Jinping has aspirations for China to become a world military power. The danger is that nationalistic ambitions may fuel this border tension to the point where neither is prepared to back down. That was exactly the cause of Europeas countless border wars of an earlier century.
Exactly the same problem exists between India and Pakistan. They also face each other armed with nuclear weapons and elements within Pakistan uphold a holy war against India that has taken the form of armed incursions across their common border. A Pakistan terror group recently conducted a raid on Mumbai's hotels, killing foreigners and setting fire to buildings until they were individually eliminated.
The United Nations was supposed to be the world body to arbitrate these sort of disputes. It has dissolved into power blocks to little effect. The days of the United Nations taking concerted action to right a wrong seems to be over. We can only hope that both Modi and Xi Jinping have the good sense to not let this border tension get out of hand. A nuclear clash betwwen these two Asian behemoths is all it would take to permanently damage a world economy crippled by this spreading virus pandemic !
Once again fighting has broken out on the India/Chinese border and the world holds its breath. These are now nuclear armed nations and both are headed by leaders of an intemperate nature. Another unssettled dispute involves the Indian provinces of of Jammu and Kashmir in which its 8,500,000 residents follow the Muslim religion.
This is claimed by both India and Pakistan and both countries have troops facing one another and regularly clash over this unsettled holdover from the days of Indian independence. The matter was supposed to be settled by a referendum, but that never happened.
Fortunately, a degree of restraint has been in place in this latest eruption of violence between India and China. The two sides have fought over control of an access road to an airfield, but so far this has not involved firearms. The clash has been between bodies of men armed with steel bars and baseball bats and an undetermined number on both sides have been killed. New reports suggest that these deaths involve about thirty people on both sides
What happens next depends greatly on the leaders of these two nations. Modi is fast taking India into becoming a predominantly Hindu state and Xi Jinping has aspirations for China to become a world military power. The danger is that nationalistic ambitions may fuel this border tension to the point where neither is prepared to back down. That was exactly the cause of Europeas countless border wars of an earlier century.
Exactly the same problem exists between India and Pakistan. They also face each other armed with nuclear weapons and elements within Pakistan uphold a holy war against India that has taken the form of armed incursions across their common border. A Pakistan terror group recently conducted a raid on Mumbai's hotels, killing foreigners and setting fire to buildings until they were individually eliminated.
The United Nations was supposed to be the world body to arbitrate these sort of disputes. It has dissolved into power blocks to little effect. The days of the United Nations taking concerted action to right a wrong seems to be over. We can only hope that both Modi and Xi Jinping have the good sense to not let this border tension get out of hand. A nuclear clash betwwen these two Asian behemoths is all it would take to permanently damage a world economy crippled by this spreading virus pandemic !
Friday, 19 June 2020
A Responsibility Change !
Following the Opel Tower and Mascot Tower disasters, we now have another major faulty building for the owner occupiers to contend with on the Sydney skyline. Once again the apartments were bought off the plan and when construction was complete the necessary " occupation cerificate " was signed off by a private certfier.
That "Occupation certificate "is a critical document because it allows the developer to force the buyers to settle on their purchase and move into the tower. The new state Building Commissioner now declares this new building riddled with fire hazards and defects. Much of the work is incomplete and there are glaring faults such as one of the lifts being permanently unusable because the lift shaft is too small for the lift fittings to be installed.
Theoretically, the developer and the builder can be called upon to fix these faults, but should they find it impossible to fund the work and declare bankruptcy the onus falls back on the individual apartment owners. This is the financial nightmare that awaits prospective unit buyers and which an update of building regulations was proposed to eliminate.
The Building Commissioner has been given new powers, but the weak link in the building code is the ability of the builder and the developer to choose a certifier of their own choice to sign off on that important occupation certificate. At worst, the certifier could have his or her right to issue such certificates cancelled and that leaves building rectification on the shoulders of the unfortunate apartment owners.
Before the permit for private certifiers, the responsibility rested with the council involved. It was the job of the council to supervise the building construction and when they signed off on that occupation certificate the rescources of the entire council was guaranteeing the structural integrity of the building. There was no doubt who had the responsibility to fix any faults that developed.
The building industry whinged that councils were too slow to sign off on work and so private certifiers were permitted. Unfortunately, they were not backed by any financial liabilities and all too often a close relationship developed between the certifier and the people paying for their services. That has become too apparent in the spate of faulty buildings awaiting rectification.
The answer is abundantly clear. We need to dispense with private certifiers and again rest responsibility for buildings with the councils. It is council inspectors who should check the building work at each stage of construction and have the ability to issue stop work orders where faults are found. When a council issues an occupation certificate they are taking responsibility for the safety of the buiilding and the cost of any necessary repairs.
It is quite clear that authorising private certifiers has been a failure. What is required is for the government to take the necessary steps to put responsibility where it belongs and ensure that apartment buyers are getting what they pay for. A building free of defects that will serve for the purpose for which it was constructed !
That "Occupation certificate "is a critical document because it allows the developer to force the buyers to settle on their purchase and move into the tower. The new state Building Commissioner now declares this new building riddled with fire hazards and defects. Much of the work is incomplete and there are glaring faults such as one of the lifts being permanently unusable because the lift shaft is too small for the lift fittings to be installed.
Theoretically, the developer and the builder can be called upon to fix these faults, but should they find it impossible to fund the work and declare bankruptcy the onus falls back on the individual apartment owners. This is the financial nightmare that awaits prospective unit buyers and which an update of building regulations was proposed to eliminate.
The Building Commissioner has been given new powers, but the weak link in the building code is the ability of the builder and the developer to choose a certifier of their own choice to sign off on that important occupation certificate. At worst, the certifier could have his or her right to issue such certificates cancelled and that leaves building rectification on the shoulders of the unfortunate apartment owners.
Before the permit for private certifiers, the responsibility rested with the council involved. It was the job of the council to supervise the building construction and when they signed off on that occupation certificate the rescources of the entire council was guaranteeing the structural integrity of the building. There was no doubt who had the responsibility to fix any faults that developed.
The building industry whinged that councils were too slow to sign off on work and so private certifiers were permitted. Unfortunately, they were not backed by any financial liabilities and all too often a close relationship developed between the certifier and the people paying for their services. That has become too apparent in the spate of faulty buildings awaiting rectification.
The answer is abundantly clear. We need to dispense with private certifiers and again rest responsibility for buildings with the councils. It is council inspectors who should check the building work at each stage of construction and have the ability to issue stop work orders where faults are found. When a council issues an occupation certificate they are taking responsibility for the safety of the buiilding and the cost of any necessary repairs.
It is quite clear that authorising private certifiers has been a failure. What is required is for the government to take the necessary steps to put responsibility where it belongs and ensure that apartment buyers are getting what they pay for. A building free of defects that will serve for the purpose for which it was constructed !
Thursday, 18 June 2020
A Play on Words !
Sydney Water has just lost another round of its court battle with Kleenex over whether it engaged in deceptive advertising when it claimed that its " wet wipes " were flushable. Kleenex is a subsidiary of the giant American Kimberley Clark company and many years ago its product designers came up with an innovative new product.
They thought there was demand for a moistened wash cloth for cleaning baby bottoms after a nappy change. A damp cloth would be kinder to a baby's delicater skin that wiping clean with toilet paper and changing baby often occurred in a location where water was not available. The sales volume of this new product proved the designers were correct and the product was labelled " flushable ".
Then a strange thing happened. Adults took a liking to these wet wipes and started using them as personable toilet paper and the mass making its way through the sewerage system began to exhibit a new problem for the water authorities. These wet wipes did not dissolve as readily as toilet paper and we quickly began to encounter sewerage blockages.
What were termed " fatbergs " formed and the only way to clear them away was to dig up the sewer and mechanically remove the conglomerate of paper, fats, grease, hair and other waste and truck it away to a landfill. This was a huge expense and Sydney Water began advertising to stop people putting wet wipes down the toilet.
Its initial court case over that " flushable " instruction failed. Last June the Federral court found that the consumer watchdog had failed to prove that the Cottonelle product - rather than wipes generally - caused actual harm to sewerage systems. This product has been discontinued, but is replaced with new products which still bear that flushable label.
Now a full bench of the Federal Court has upheld a decision that Kleenex had not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by claiming four types of Cottonelle " flushabl;e "cloths were fit for flushing. The court said the watchdog had argued in the original case that the products caused " actual harm " in sewerage systems, rather than posing a risk, and it could not change course during the appeal.
So we have massive blockages still occurring in the sewer system and the public show no signs of discontinuing their habit of replacing toilet paper with wet wipes. Either Sydney Water needs to redesign the sewerage flow to accomodate wet wipes or Kleenex needs to discover a formulae that allows this product to disintegrate without harm to the sewer system.
And next time around the legal minds that word court challenges need to take more care in how they describe the occurrence they wish to discontinue. That interpretation of the lexicon is something the court system takes very seriousl;y !
They thought there was demand for a moistened wash cloth for cleaning baby bottoms after a nappy change. A damp cloth would be kinder to a baby's delicater skin that wiping clean with toilet paper and changing baby often occurred in a location where water was not available. The sales volume of this new product proved the designers were correct and the product was labelled " flushable ".
Then a strange thing happened. Adults took a liking to these wet wipes and started using them as personable toilet paper and the mass making its way through the sewerage system began to exhibit a new problem for the water authorities. These wet wipes did not dissolve as readily as toilet paper and we quickly began to encounter sewerage blockages.
What were termed " fatbergs " formed and the only way to clear them away was to dig up the sewer and mechanically remove the conglomerate of paper, fats, grease, hair and other waste and truck it away to a landfill. This was a huge expense and Sydney Water began advertising to stop people putting wet wipes down the toilet.
Its initial court case over that " flushable " instruction failed. Last June the Federral court found that the consumer watchdog had failed to prove that the Cottonelle product - rather than wipes generally - caused actual harm to sewerage systems. This product has been discontinued, but is replaced with new products which still bear that flushable label.
Now a full bench of the Federal Court has upheld a decision that Kleenex had not engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by claiming four types of Cottonelle " flushabl;e "cloths were fit for flushing. The court said the watchdog had argued in the original case that the products caused " actual harm " in sewerage systems, rather than posing a risk, and it could not change course during the appeal.
So we have massive blockages still occurring in the sewer system and the public show no signs of discontinuing their habit of replacing toilet paper with wet wipes. Either Sydney Water needs to redesign the sewerage flow to accomodate wet wipes or Kleenex needs to discover a formulae that allows this product to disintegrate without harm to the sewer system.
And next time around the legal minds that word court challenges need to take more care in how they describe the occurrence they wish to discontinue. That interpretation of the lexicon is something the court system takes very seriousl;y !
Wednesday, 17 June 2020
Our Biggest Threat !
We have just had an example of how an unexpected world event can disrupt the Australian economy and this has turned the spotlight on our vulnerability to any interruption to the world oil supply. The Coronavirus threw millions of people out of work and while parts of the world are making a slow recovery we are yet to see the worst of this pandemic in some countries.
The majority of our oil is refined overseas and imported into Australia. We have an obligation by way of our membership of the International Energy Agency to hold a reserve in this country to insulate us against any interruption to the world supply. That reserve has been allowed to recede beyond its critical point because we have an understanding to dip into the American strategic reserve in a world emergency.
The stability of America is now under question since this " Black lives matterv " issue has brought raging mobs onto American city streets. The Australian government is urgently seeking to improve our holding of oil products. We need local storage for between another seven million and fifteen million barrels of oil stored locally to meet that quota.
That has started a frantic search for any unused liquid storage sites ariound the country and probably means we need to build some new facilities. Our commercial transport system relies heavily on oil and the supplies that reach Australia travel through congested sea areas which are claimed by many nations. Any commencement of hostilites could see these sea routes blocked.
There is an expectation that we are about to be less dependent on oil once the electric car replaces the internal combustion engine, but commercial transport within Australia will continue to need oil. Much of the railway system runs on disel electric trains and heavy road transport is mostly oil based. Without transport our food supply distribution would quickly come to a halt and oil is of critical importance to maintain our defence needs.
Our entire economy is critically based on a reliable supply of oil products and that is going to continue until well into the fuiture. Our safety relies on a peaceful world and that is determined by events that are far outside Australian control. We need an onshore strategic reserve to tide us over should world events lead to some sort of economic blockade.
That comes at a bad time with governmenrt expenditure pushed to the limit to get the economy moving again after the virus lockdown, but an interruption to the oil supply isprobably the biggest danger we face in an increasingly hostile world. This oil threat is something we ignore at our peril. It has the capacity to bring Australia to a standstill.
The majority of our oil is refined overseas and imported into Australia. We have an obligation by way of our membership of the International Energy Agency to hold a reserve in this country to insulate us against any interruption to the world supply. That reserve has been allowed to recede beyond its critical point because we have an understanding to dip into the American strategic reserve in a world emergency.
The stability of America is now under question since this " Black lives matterv " issue has brought raging mobs onto American city streets. The Australian government is urgently seeking to improve our holding of oil products. We need local storage for between another seven million and fifteen million barrels of oil stored locally to meet that quota.
That has started a frantic search for any unused liquid storage sites ariound the country and probably means we need to build some new facilities. Our commercial transport system relies heavily on oil and the supplies that reach Australia travel through congested sea areas which are claimed by many nations. Any commencement of hostilites could see these sea routes blocked.
There is an expectation that we are about to be less dependent on oil once the electric car replaces the internal combustion engine, but commercial transport within Australia will continue to need oil. Much of the railway system runs on disel electric trains and heavy road transport is mostly oil based. Without transport our food supply distribution would quickly come to a halt and oil is of critical importance to maintain our defence needs.
Our entire economy is critically based on a reliable supply of oil products and that is going to continue until well into the fuiture. Our safety relies on a peaceful world and that is determined by events that are far outside Australian control. We need an onshore strategic reserve to tide us over should world events lead to some sort of economic blockade.
That comes at a bad time with governmenrt expenditure pushed to the limit to get the economy moving again after the virus lockdown, but an interruption to the oil supply isprobably the biggest danger we face in an increasingly hostile world. This oil threat is something we ignore at our peril. It has the capacity to bring Australia to a standstill.
Tuesday, 16 June 2020
Replacing Kings Cross !
The Sydney night life scene simply died when the government put up the shutters in Kings Cross. It was a bawdy concentration of drinking holes that made much use of the female anatomy to draw in thousands of revellers until the wee small hours of the morning. It became a dangerous place to visit but the surging crowds loved it and when it closed our reduced drinking hours put us out of favour with the rest ofthe world.
The lid was kept firmly shut on any alternative emerging to replace Kings Cross when the required liquor license needed to be obtained from an existing venue. The price of such a license soared and they changed hands at exorbitant prces. Sad to say, Sydney now lacks the charm and conviviality that made Kings Cross famous around the world.
The government has taken a step into the unknown by ending the eleven year freeze on issuing new liquor licenses. As a consequence, the price of existing liquor licenses has collapsed, much to the chagrin of those holding such a valuable entity. It frees up the opportunity of the entrepreneur to get into the entertainment business and Sydney will undoubtedly gain a new entertaiment Mecca - but it will not be in Kings Cross.
That suburb has changed forever. " Gentrification " set in once those bawdy bars closed and this venue close to the centre of the city has been reclaimed by the commercial world. That Kings Cross phenomenon was derived from Sydney becoming the R and R centre for the Vietnam war and thousands of free spending servicement on leave provided the stimulus for the type of entertainment that flourished there.
This is happening at a very interesting time. We are emerging from a pandemic and new entertainment venues will have to abide by rules that limit crowds. It is hoped that what replaces Kings Cross will be widely dispersed, but that depends on what finds favour and there will be a tendency for an entertainmernt cluster to emerge. The lure of the old Kings Cross was the proliferation of " girly " shows packed into that famous " golden mile ".
The government has accepted that Sydney needs an off colour, raffish draw card to match the rest of the world. It waits to see what emerges, knowing that it will not be popular with the existing people that live there. As happened in Kings Cross, property values will soar as the surroundings draw in more entertainment venues. Entertainment venues bring their own rewards of increased job opportunities and work for live bands. The Sydney music scene will expand rapidly once this new era gets under way.
We are on the cusp of a new era. Just what - and where - remains to be seen. It will be an exciting time as something new finds its place in Australia's biggest city. There is the inevitability that Kings Cross would be replaced and now the roadblock has been removed it is about to happen. The only question is what form it will take !
The lid was kept firmly shut on any alternative emerging to replace Kings Cross when the required liquor license needed to be obtained from an existing venue. The price of such a license soared and they changed hands at exorbitant prces. Sad to say, Sydney now lacks the charm and conviviality that made Kings Cross famous around the world.
The government has taken a step into the unknown by ending the eleven year freeze on issuing new liquor licenses. As a consequence, the price of existing liquor licenses has collapsed, much to the chagrin of those holding such a valuable entity. It frees up the opportunity of the entrepreneur to get into the entertainment business and Sydney will undoubtedly gain a new entertaiment Mecca - but it will not be in Kings Cross.
That suburb has changed forever. " Gentrification " set in once those bawdy bars closed and this venue close to the centre of the city has been reclaimed by the commercial world. That Kings Cross phenomenon was derived from Sydney becoming the R and R centre for the Vietnam war and thousands of free spending servicement on leave provided the stimulus for the type of entertainment that flourished there.
This is happening at a very interesting time. We are emerging from a pandemic and new entertainment venues will have to abide by rules that limit crowds. It is hoped that what replaces Kings Cross will be widely dispersed, but that depends on what finds favour and there will be a tendency for an entertainmernt cluster to emerge. The lure of the old Kings Cross was the proliferation of " girly " shows packed into that famous " golden mile ".
The government has accepted that Sydney needs an off colour, raffish draw card to match the rest of the world. It waits to see what emerges, knowing that it will not be popular with the existing people that live there. As happened in Kings Cross, property values will soar as the surroundings draw in more entertainment venues. Entertainment venues bring their own rewards of increased job opportunities and work for live bands. The Sydney music scene will expand rapidly once this new era gets under way.
We are on the cusp of a new era. Just what - and where - remains to be seen. It will be an exciting time as something new finds its place in Australia's biggest city. There is the inevitability that Kings Cross would be replaced and now the roadblock has been removed it is about to happen. The only question is what form it will take !
Monday, 15 June 2020
Protective Power of Aspirin !
Aspirin is probably the oldest pain reducer known to humankind. It was used to treat battle wounds in the days when the Parthenon was being built in Greece and today it has been replaced on pharmacy shelves by a vast assortment of modern drugs.
It has a reputation in modern society for properties that shield us from bowel cancer and all through the last century many people popped an aspirin a day as a precaution. It was both encouraged and forbidden by some sections of the medical profession because it was also known to irrtitate the stomach and cause internal bleeding, but the rumour of bowel cancer protection was strong and it found a place in numerous family medicine cabinets.
At long last that medical equation has been solved. An article by a Melbourne hospital published in the Lancet gave the results of research they conducted into aspirin. Their finding was that people aged from fifty to seventy should take an aspirin tablet daily to reduce the rate of bowel cancer by fifty percent.
This good news got even better. The survey also found that taking aspirin for just a few years delivered a long term protective effect against this disease for years after the patient stopped taking it. It was a clear vindication for those who persisted with aspirin during the time its benficial effects were treated as rumour.
This finding arose from a randomised controlled trial which monitored 427 opeople given aspirin and 434 given a placebo. All of them had Lynch syndrome which is an inherited disorder which puts them at higher risk of getting a range of cancers, including bowel cancer.
The trial was conducted between ten and twenty years and there were 40 cases of colorectal cancer or bowel cancer in those taking 600 mg of aspirin daily, compared to 58 cases in those who were not. It delivers a clear indication that aspirin as a protection from bowel cancer helps built a form of immunity to the disease.
One of the other benefits is that aspirin is probably down at the cheapest end of the pricing of pain killers. It is available, over the counter without the need for a prescription for mere pennies where the advanced drugs on pharmact shelves attract ever rising prices.
The outcome of this trial reccomends that people would be wise to take two aspirtin tablets a day for an average of two and half years to gain the cumulative effects of the drug in shielding them from bowel cancer.
For many, this is vindication for their long held belief and for others it is a prasctical way to avoid one of nature's most diabolical life ending diseases.
It has a reputation in modern society for properties that shield us from bowel cancer and all through the last century many people popped an aspirin a day as a precaution. It was both encouraged and forbidden by some sections of the medical profession because it was also known to irrtitate the stomach and cause internal bleeding, but the rumour of bowel cancer protection was strong and it found a place in numerous family medicine cabinets.
At long last that medical equation has been solved. An article by a Melbourne hospital published in the Lancet gave the results of research they conducted into aspirin. Their finding was that people aged from fifty to seventy should take an aspirin tablet daily to reduce the rate of bowel cancer by fifty percent.
This good news got even better. The survey also found that taking aspirin for just a few years delivered a long term protective effect against this disease for years after the patient stopped taking it. It was a clear vindication for those who persisted with aspirin during the time its benficial effects were treated as rumour.
This finding arose from a randomised controlled trial which monitored 427 opeople given aspirin and 434 given a placebo. All of them had Lynch syndrome which is an inherited disorder which puts them at higher risk of getting a range of cancers, including bowel cancer.
The trial was conducted between ten and twenty years and there were 40 cases of colorectal cancer or bowel cancer in those taking 600 mg of aspirin daily, compared to 58 cases in those who were not. It delivers a clear indication that aspirin as a protection from bowel cancer helps built a form of immunity to the disease.
One of the other benefits is that aspirin is probably down at the cheapest end of the pricing of pain killers. It is available, over the counter without the need for a prescription for mere pennies where the advanced drugs on pharmact shelves attract ever rising prices.
The outcome of this trial reccomends that people would be wise to take two aspirtin tablets a day for an average of two and half years to gain the cumulative effects of the drug in shielding them from bowel cancer.
For many, this is vindication for their long held belief and for others it is a prasctical way to avoid one of nature's most diabolical life ending diseases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)