Click above to Bookmark this page for yourself and/or share it with your friends
Click on the links below for "The Best" in: The TBYIL Complete Supplement & Health Catalog ![]() Texas Huajillo & Wildflower Honey
Available Now! The plant you need to make your own home remedy for cancer, hepatitis-C & more may be growing in your back yard! Read all about this proven remedy plus much more on how to naturally beat illness and live a long and healthy life.
GET A FREE PHYTO-METER
Call for your free copy: 800-843-8114 DC area: 202-328-7744 Click on the image for more information
The 8 Invisible Stains "Collected Home & Herbal Remedies" by Tony Isaacs Southerlandia OPC cancer beater and immune booster from South Africa ![]()
The Best Colloidal Silver "Collected Home & Herbal Remedies" by Tony Isaacs
Vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin that is essential for maintaining normal calcium metabolism and for maintaining a healthy immune system. Although Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) can be synthesized by humans in the skin upon exposure to ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation from sunlight and can be obtained from the diet, a deficiency often exists, especially during seasons of less sunlight or in northern climates.
Bromelain - The Super Supplement
We provide
science-based natural formulas developed by The True Foods GMO Foodguide - Just Say No to GMO! - Click Here Click on the image for more information
Toni Natural
Click here to visit our CureZone Health Forum: Ask Tony Isaacs: Featuring Luella May – Natural Health, Cancer, Longevity and Home Remedies.
Pepper the Found Dog - Official Mascot of The Best Years in Life |
The Best Years in Life Health News & Information It's never too late or too early to begin living longer, healthier and happier lives! |
||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Brought to you by:
Green tea's Alzheimer protection gets more support By Stephen Daniells Green tea catechins may inhibit the loss of reference and working memory linked to plaque formation in the brain, say research from Japan, adding to claims that the beverage may help ward off Alzheimer's. The study
focused on the role of
antioxidant potential of
green tea and its
constituents to counter the
oxidative stress induced by a
build up of beta-amyloid
protein. The animals
receiving the green tea extract
should significantly decreased
beta-amyloid-induced changes to
the reference and working
memory, while levels of reactive
oxygen species (ROS) were 42 per
cent less than the controls
animals infused with the
protein.
by Tony Isaacs Latest Industry Backed "Study" Seriously Flawed and Biased A "new" study condemning the use of vitamins and ineffective and potentially dangerous is generating headlines throughout the mainstream media in the United States and Europe. Apparently generating headlines was the sole intention, as the study is neither new, scientific nor objective. The "study" was led by Serbian scientist and "visiting researcher" at Copenhagen University Hospital, Goran Bjelakovic, whose name is now synonymous with vitamin meta-analyses (studies of other studies) which appear to show that vitamin supplements either don´t work or end up increasing your risk of death. Two similar Bjelakovic "studies" on vitamin supplements, in October 2004 and February 2007, resulted in similar outbursts of negative international headlines. Upon closer examination, the flaws in the so-called study are apparent. First of all, in evaluating studies for inclusion, the authors omitted a massive 405 potentially eligible studies because there were no deaths in the studies and another 69 studies were excluded because they weren´t randomized controlled trials. In other words, instead of conducting an honest review of all the studies, the authors arbitrarily eliminated all studies in which vitamins prevented mortality and kept people alive - leaving only the studies in which people died from various causes. Most of the trials used pertain to already sick people being given very high dose, synthetic, isolated nutrients for relatively short periods – they therefore have no relevance to the vast majority of vitamin consumers. When you select or reject studies on criteria that only mean something to statisticians, and ignore important things like duration, how long the study ran for — which ranged from 28 days to 14 years — your findings are immediately meaningless. Even the huge difference in dose of supplements between different studies was not deemed important - for example, Vitamin E ranging from 10 to 5000 units daily. The studies in the latest meta-analysis not only relied on synthetic forms of vitamins, in most instances they relied on very high dosages of pharmaceutical-grade, synthetic forms of supplements manufactured by the pharmaceutical industry. The dosages used are typically much greater than those recommended on the labels of food or dietary supplement products. In most countries, the dosages used in the trials would be considered ´medicinal´ by regulatory authorities and therefore would not legally be allowed for food or dietary supplements. As a result, these studies actually apply only to synthetic forms of vitamins produced by the pharmaceutical industry in amounts much larger than most consumers would ever take. The authors of this latest Cochrane review state: "The present review does not assess antioxidant supplements for treatment of specific diseases (tertiary prevention), antioxidant supplements for patients with demonstrated specific needs of antioxidants, or the effects of antioxidants contained in fruits or vegetables." This shows that the study has no relevance to natural sources of vitamins and minerals or antioxidants sourced from plants (e.g. flavonoids, anthocyanins, sulforaphanes, salvestrols/resveratrol, etc.), which are included in many of the leading-edge natural health supplements claiming potent antioxidant activity. Make no mistake, this isn´t research. This is a re-analysis of studies that have been conducted and reported on previously, by a group of men with a known axe to grind, who have never produced a study favorable to supplements, which is itself statistically unlikely unless you have a bias. There is extensive scientific evidence that higher intakes of vitamins in the forms and combinations consumed in the diet substantially reduce risk of killer diseases such as cancer and heart disease. In fact, it is this research (some of which is referenced in the introduction to both the JAMA and Cochrane papers) that has stimulated pharmaceutical companies to undertake research on pharmaceutical-grade, synthetic forms of supplements, which they manufacture. As is often the case when pharmaceutical companies try to synthesize or unnaturally isolate compounds found in nature so they can patent and profit from them, their synthetic version have been largely disappointing. A good source to see why their results have largely failed can be seen in this paper by the Alliance for Natural Health: http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/_docs/ANHwebsiteDoc_231.pdf As a final note on the study: although presented as a "new", the study is really no more than a rehash of a paper by the very same authors, published last year (February 2007) in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Extensive international media followed the 2007 JAMA paper, including a front page articles in major newspapers telling consumers that vitamin pills could cause early death. The "new" study review relies on 67 of the 68 studies used in the JAMA paper. The world pharmaceutical empire is a trillion dollar juggernaut whose continued profits depends on continued illness as well as a continued monopoly on approved medications and suppression of any alternatives which might provide prevention and treatment more effectively, more safely and less expensively – such as those found in nature. And so there are a trillion reasons why we see the repeated headlines about misleading and flawed studies like this one on vitamins, minerals and other natural supplements that represent billions of dollars in potential lost profits due to improved health and competition with patented drugs. The best possible model for profits would be a monopoly on side-effect laden drugs which lead to complications requiring yet more side effect laden drugs in a never ending cycle so that by the time a person reaches the age of 65 they take an average of 15 prescribed and over the counter medications daily when it all started with one or two conditions that could have been treated naturally. A great model for profits and a horrible one for health and humanity. The bottom line for all those who reject such a model: don´t stop taking your vitamins, minerals and other supplements - especially those derived from natural sources which insure adequate amounts of daily nutrition vital to your optimum health. Sources: Alliance for Natural Health Natural News JAMA Lancet
Who’s Trashing Our American Skies,
And Why? This attracted the
attention of Los Angeles network
affiliate, "KNBC" which aired a
report entitled, "Toxic Sky?", see
video here (http://www.knbc.com/video/9265818/detail.html)
.
The above photo was
somehow obtained by Tim and is most
likely the genuine article. This is
the inside of a retro fitted
domestic "Chemtrail" Sprayer. ![]() Natural Remedies for Treating ArthritisFriday, April 18, 2008 by: Tony Isaacs (see all articles by this author)
(NaturalNews)
Arthritis is a disease that causes
pain and loss of movement of the
joints. The word arthritis literally
means joint inflammation (arth=joint,
ritis=inflammation), and refers to
more than 100 different diseases.
by Jon Barron So now it's water. If you are to believe what the media has been saying over the last couple of weeks, there are no health benefits to drinking water. Drinking water or cola are pretty much the same thing. And dehydration is a myth. Really? No, not really. As usual, the media got the story all wrong -- and, as it turns out, even the accurate story is much less than it seems. In this issue of the newsletter, we'll see how the media once again lost the truth by attempting to reduce science to a sound bite and how the research the sound bite is based on is pretty much meaningless. Then we'll wrap things up with a discussion of what you really need to know about water. The media…again
Read the headlines and there can be no mistake. A scientific study conducted by Drs. Negoianu and Goldfarb has proven that there are no health benefits to drinking 8 glasses of water a day! But there is little truth to the headlines. The media's reporting on the "study" is wrong on a number of counts.
In summary, we can throw out the headlines and stories as found in the media. Now to be fair, as advertising revenues have dropped, newspapers and television networks all over the world have dramatically cut their reporting staffs to save money -- and for the most part now have to function as reporters and transcribers of news, rather than as investigative journalists. In other words, not one of the media reports actually looked beyond the press release associated with the review. That said, we're still left with the question when it comes to drinking water, "What then did Drs. Negoianu and Goldfarb actually say in their review?" The 8 glasses of water reviewThey begin their review by examining a handful of studies that support the drinking of more water and dismiss them all in a single brushstroke. To quote:
It seems that Negoianu and Goldfarb are starting with a fundamental premise that any existing study that supports the use of water is fundamentally flawed and should not be considered in drawing any conclusions. But they also seem to be starting with the equally questionable premise that almost any study that negates the value of drinking 8 glasses of water is correct ipso facto and should be highly valued. These are interesting assumptions since they pretty much guarantee your conclusion before you even started. With that in mind, let's take a look at one of the studies they believe worthy of inclusion. At
the top of their list is the
2002 Valtin study
that they describe as an
"exceedingly thorough review of this
subject." High praise, indeed! So
what exactly is this benchmark
study? Well, first surprise, it's
not a study at all. Like the
Negoianu and Goldfarb review, it too
is a review of previous studies. And
like the Negoianu and Goldfarb
For example, Dr. Valtin announces that just counting water intake in his review is not good enough. "The concept I have in mind is daily intake of drinking fluid (as distinct from fluid in solid food) meaning all drinking fluids, including tap water and bottled water, coffee, tea, soft drinks, milk, juices, and possibly even beer in moderation." Excuse me! As a study of the health benefits of drinking 8 glasses of water a day, you can pretty much toss this review out from the get-go. Not all fluids are the same. If you think so, try washing your clothes in beer and soda. But then again, perhaps it was the happy inclusion of beer and soda that led Drs. Negoianu and Goldfarb to think so highly of Valtin's "exceedingly thorough review." Yes, I understand. Dr. Valtin would disagree with me. He cites the Grandjean study, which concluded that there is no significant difference between water, soda, coffee, beer, etc. when it comes to hydration. And yes, that's possibly true if you limit your discussion to the volume of fluids entering and leaving the body; but that doesn't mean that there's no difference. What those liquids contain when they enter the body -- and when they leave the body -- are not necessarily the same for all liquids, regardless of volume. The Grandjean study, for example, didn't consider the effects in his other "drinking fluids" of sugar (promotes diabetes) , artificial sweeteners (they make you fat and give you cancer), phosphoric acid (causes osteoporosis), or caffeine (increases the risk of spontaneous abortion) on the body. Drinking water and soda are not the same thing. There really are differences in terms of health. So much for the Grandjean study. Is there any evidence that drinking more than the minimum amount of water is beneficial?As it turns out, there's quite a bit. Here is just a sampling.
That said, Drs. Negoianu and Goldfarb were correct when they stated that there is simply a lack of evidence in general. As they and Dr. Valtin all found, there are quite simply no actual studies that focus on the overall benefits of drinking 8 glasses of water a day. All conclusions, at the moment, are based on inference from studies that were focused on other agendas -- and the people doing the inferring have no understanding or affinity for the value of complementary health. But what about the anecdotal evidence on drinking water?However, let's not ignore anecdotal evidence. Just because researchers haven't proven the benefits of a particular alternative health treatment yet, doesn't mean it's not valid. Consider all of the fruits and plants whose benefits were touted for centuries without proof -- only to be found to contain amazingly beneficial phytochemicals in the last few years. Also, consider all of the herbs used by healers since the dawn of man that ultimately became the basis for some of the worlds most powerful drugs. We're talking about plants which became drugs such as Chinese star anise, which was the basis for Tamiflu, saw palmetto for Proscar, Pacific yew for Tamoxifen, and foxglove for Digitalis -- just to name a few. And finally, let's not discount the anecdotal evidence of millions of people around the world who testify to better health and greater vitality when they increase their consumption of water. Even if it is a placebo effect, it's still a positive effect, and water is a whole lot cheaper than the placebo effect achieved by "approved" medical procedures such as angioplasty or mainstream drugs such as Zetia and Vytorin. But enough! I could go on ripping through these studies pointing out their deficiencies ad infinitum. But there's no need; the point has been made. Time to move on and talk briefly about the quality and quantity of water you need -- at least as we understand it at this time. Not all water is the same.To put it simply, you want the purest water you can get that also contains essential trace minerals and that is pH optimized and in a form that your body can most readily utilize. In that regard, not all water is the same.
How much water do we need?In advanced societies, thinking that tea, coffee, alcohol, soda pop, or other forms of manufactured beverages are desirable substitutes for the purely natural water needs of the daily "stressed" body is a common, but potentially deadly, mistake. Water is the solvent in our bodies, and as such, it regulates all the functions of our bodies, including the action of all the solids dissolved in the water. In fact, every function of the body is monitored and pegged to the efficient flow of water. Think for a moment of just a few of the functions that water regulates:
Understand, we can function quite well and for quite a long time without sufficient water. The body quickly adapts and starts extracting more water from your stools for example. The kidneys flush less water to retain the limited supply you have. In fact, there are some health experts who claim that your body does quite well on 2 glasses of any kind of fluid a day -- plus the water found in the food you eat. But these experts confuse adaptation with health. Adaptation leads to compromise, which leads to diminished health over time. Look, ultimately it may be proven that drinking more than 2 glasses of water a day has no health benefits, but that day has not arrived yet -- and the Negoianu, Goldfarb review does not bring it any closer. It's bad science, bad reporting by the press, and shoddy peer review by the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. Therefore, until it is actually proven otherwise, keep targeting between 64 and 96 ounces of pure water a day. Pure, fresh (not bottled or canned) fruit and vegetable juices may be substituted for some of this quantity -- as may limited quantities of non-diuretic herbal teas (without sugar). In general, however, pure water is the key. Or to paraphrase Aragorn before the gates of Mordor in the movie version of The Lord of the Rings:
Source: JonBarron.org Hepatitis:
Grapefruit can fight it as well
as drugs
Published on Saturday, April 05,
2008
by Healthy News Service A grapefruit may be all it takes to fight chronic hepatitis C. Currently sufferers have to take a powerful drug such as pegylated interferon, which comes with a range of side effects from nausea, anaemia, depression and skin rash. But researchers reckon that a grapefruit or another citrus fruit could be just as effective, if not more so. The fruit contains the flavonoid, naringenin, which is responsible for the fruit’s bitter taste. Naringenin has the ability to block a pathway in the life cycle of the hepatitis C virus, researchers from Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston have discovered. (Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, 2008; 299: 1532). Blueberries
Reverse Age-Related Memory Problems
If you are getting forgetful as you get older, then a research team from the University of Reading and the Peninsula Medical School in the South West of England may have good news for you. They have found that phytochemical-rich foods, such as blueberries, are effective at reversing age-related deficits in memory, according to a study soon to be published in the science journal Free Radical Biology and Medicine. The researchers working at the Schools of Food Biosciences and Psychology in Reading and the Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences at the Peninsula Medical School in Exeter supplemented a regular diet with blueberries over a 12-week period. They found that improvements in spatial working memory tasks emerged within three weeks and continued throughout the period of the study. Blueberries are a major source of flavonoids, in particular anthocyanins and flavanols. Although the precise mechanisms by which these plant-derived molecules affect the brain are unknown, they have been shown to cross the blood brain barrier after dietary intake. It is believed that they exert their effects on learning and memory by enhancing existing neuronal (brain cell) connections, improving cellular communications and stimulating neuronal regeneration. The enhancement of both short-term and long-term memory is controlled at the molecular level in neurons. The research team was able to show that the ability of flavonoids to induce memory improvements are mediated by the activation of signalling proteins via a specific pathway in the hippocampus, the part of the brain that controls learning and memory. This innovative research was conducted by a multidisciplinary research team led by Dr. Jeremy Spencer, a lecturer in Molecular Nutrition at the University of Reading and included Dr. Claire Williams, a Psychologist also from Reading and Dr. Matt Whiteman, a Principal Investigator at the Institute of Biomedical and Clinical Science, Peninsula Medical School. Dr Spencer commented: “Impaired or failing memory as we get older is one of life’s major inconveniences. Scientists have known of the potential health benefits of diets rich in fresh fruits for a long time. Our previous work had suggested that flavonoid compounds had some kind of effect on memory, but until now we had not known the potential mechanisms to account for this”. Dr. Whiteman added "This study not only adds science to the claim that eating blueberries are good for you, it also provides support to a diet-based approach that could potentially be used to increase memory capacity and performance in the future. Indeed, Dr. Spencer’s research team plan on extending these findings further by investigating the effects of diets rich in flavonoids on individuals suffering from cognitive impairment and Alzheimer’s disease.”
Substances isolated from bitter melon, a plant eaten and used medicinally in much of Asia, could provide the basis of new drugs for treating diabetes and obesity, an international team of researchers reports. Also known as balsam pear, the vegetable has been shown to reduce blood sugar in animal and human studies, Dr. Mon-Jia Tan of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shanghai and colleagues note in the journal Chemistry & Biology. Alternatives are needed to existing drugs for diabetes, they add, due to their side effects and limited action. In the current study, Tan and colleagues isolated and described several compounds from bitter melon known as cucurbitane triterpenoids, and tested their effects on glucose (sugar) and fat metabolism in cells and in mice. When tested in muscle and fat cells, the researchers found, the compounds stimulated the glucose receptor GLUT4 to move from the cell interior to the cell surface, thus promoting more effective glucose metabolism. Several of the tested compounds had effects comparable to those of insulin. Tests in mice of two of the compounds found that they promoted both glucose tolerance and fat burning, and one was particularly effective in promoting glucose tolerance in animals consuming high fat diets. The researchers note that there may be as many as 70 active compounds in bitter melon. "The present study provides an important basis for further analysis of structure-activity relationship to develop optimized leads from (bitter melon) for the treatment of insulin resistance and obesity," they conclude. © 2008 Reuters. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. The X-Factor - Could Vitamin E be the Key to a Long and Healthy Life? Vitamin E could be the ‘X factor’ in determining how long and well we live. People with low levels of the nutrient decline more rapidly, researchers have found. In a study of 698 men and women aged over 65, those with low serum levels of vitamin E showed a decline in physical abilities over a three-year period compared with those with higher levels. It was the only vitamin that seemed to make a difference to physical decline. Lower levels of folate, vitamin D, iron or the B vitamins didn’t affect physical ability. Researchers believe that the vitamin, an antioxidant, prevents damage to our DNA, muscles and neurones. Vitamin E is found in nuts, seeds, and corn and olive oil. (Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, 2008; 299: 308-15). |
|||||||||||||||||||
additional stories
| |||||||||||||||||||