JANUARY 24, 2010.  This is another in a series of articles on the nutritional detective work of Laura Thompson.

My wife, Laura, owns The Southern California Institute of Clinical Nutrition.  She works with many patients by telephone.

Implicit in everything Laura does for patients is ENERGY—increasing it, awakening it, expanding it, making it more available on many levels.  After all, this is what people want—more positive and sustained energy they can rely on as they work toward the objectives that excite them.  They want to feel they have a large and buoyant reservoir of forward-looking energy that will sustain them through thick and thin.    

In order to achieve that, several areas need to be addressed.

Here is a Q&A with Laura on the subject:

Q:  When do nutritional programs fail in providing more energy?

 A:  There are two basic reasons for that.  The energy might be delivered in a form that produces an upsurge and then a let-down.  That would be useless.

 Q:  Give me an example of that.

 A:  A person takes an herb because he’s heard or read that it gives energy.  And it does.  But only for a short time.  The other reason is more interesting. 

 Q:  What’s that?

A:  Underlying situations in the body won’t permit the energy to “take hold.”  It drains away.  It fades.  As quickly as you replenish energy, it dissipates.

 Q:  And these underlying situations are?

 A:  This is where the detective work comes in.  Suppose the person has immune-system weakness.  That would, in a sense, capture energy and try to use it to fight battles it isn’t suited for.  The person would experience this “capture” as fatigue or exhaustion.

 Q:  So you would need to shore up the immune system.

 A:  Yes.  Correct nutrients delivered together can help greatly.  Then there are hormone imbalances.

 Q:  We discussed that in a previous interview.

 A:  Right. You see, if the hormones are not in balance and the levels are insufficient, you are going to run out of energy.  Because hormones are intimately involved with energy production.  The adrenal glands are an obvious example.  You can feed all the fuel you want to, to an engine, but if the engine is firing on two cylinders rather than eight, it’s not going to work.

 Q:  What about brain function?

 A:  We do neurotransmitter tests on patients.  The tests tell us about the levels of these chemicals in the body, and we can then achieve a good neurotransmitter balance with proper nutrients.  Cognitive processes are a key to energy.  If your thoughts are slowed down and become fuzzy, you can’t utilize energy.  With good neurotransmitter levels, your thought processes become sharper.

 Q:  And, of course, there is digestive function.

 A:  This is greatly overlooked.  Everything that happens in the digestive tract has to do with the eventual production of energy.  When necessary, I devote a lot of attention to bringing digestive function into a good range.  It’s absolutely vital.  The body processes food so it can deliver energy.  That has to happen smoothly and effectively.

 Q:  From all of this, I can see why the society runs on stimulants.

 A:  Of course.  You can try to substitute one kind of stimulant after another for the energy you should naturally have, but it won’t work.  You need to deal with and correct the situations that are weakening the foundations.  Good nutrition can do that.  But good nutrition isn’t just walking into a health-food store and grabbing a product off the shelf.  It’s much more sophisticated.  You need to go much deeper.  That’s what I’ve learned in the last 14 years.  You have to explore situations with each patient, and each patient is different and unique in important ways.  I recognize that.

(If you’re interested in becoming a client, contact Laura’s clinic at 800-608-5602.)


A reporter responds: Suzanne Somers’ June 4th blog

A reporter responds: Suzanne Somers’ June 4th blog

by Jon Rappoport

June 5, 2009





Ms. Somers begins her blog entry, “Two Scariest Women on the Planet–Oprah and Suzanne,” with this:

“Have you seen this week’s Newsweek magazine? Here we go again! They have a new article on how Oprah is giving ‘dangerous’ advice by having uninformed guests give false information to the public.” (more rebuttal on the Newsweek article here)

Ms. Somers is referring to information about bio-identical hormones–a subject that has raised considerable controversy.

For the last 30 years, I’ve seen that “dangerous information” tag thrown around. It’s usually employed against scientists or reporters who question mainstream consensus, who don’t line up with authorities on a scientific or medical topic—such as bio-identical hormones. In this case, the label is being applied to Oprah and Somers.

People who control large amounts of official power hurl the “dangerous” tag, to try to maintain their positions as the top experts in a given field.

My interest is in heading off a rising threat to free speech. You see, “dangerous,” used as a label, is close to an accusation that a crime is being committed. It’s an attempt to derail the First Amendment.

In this age of science, there are surprising numbers of people who believe that, once a proof of something has been offered, there should be no more conversation. The deal is closed.

These terminally confused people don’t understand what free speech is.

Then, we have the obvious factor of false proofs. There are scientists who want to declare “case closed,” when they submit their papers to journals. They want immediate and universal acceptance. They want to stifle debate about their findings.

There are many examples where proofs are incomplete, false, or fraudulent. Stifling free speech about the proof makes the matter worse.

Finally, there is a rising tide of opinion in this country that “ordinary people” need to be protected from any information that could possibly lead them to make harmful choices. This is a slippery slope, to say the least. And there is no perfect solution. People who are gullible must disabuse themselves of the tendency.

Of course, I understand there are reasonable laws against malicious fraud. But if officials aren’t willing to pursue a legal case, then those who could be bamboozled need to wake up.

I happen to believe bio-identical hormones are useful. But that’s beside the point here. To accuse Somers or Oprah of being dangerous is an obvious clue: the detractors don’t want to engage in a fair and complete debate of the relevant issues. They want to defame and discredit, and make the public afraid. They want to do this and only this. They want to protect their own turf.

Somers and Oprah, like everyone else, have the right of free speech. They also, in this case, have information. That information, if it’s going to be challenged, should be examined through reasonable debate. That’s not about to happen. Somers and Oprah are willing to bring scientists forward on their own behalf, but the experts aren’t ready. There’s too much to lose. So they just say “it’s dangerous,” and they assume a guise of wanting to protect everyone—from freedom.

This country doesn’t work that way.

There are arrogant high-IQ idiots who think it does, but they’re wrong.

The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.