I have been feeling quite unwell for several weeks now. Nothing fancy, just the usual symptoms of fever, congestion, coughing, sneezing, fatigue, exhaustion etc.

The phrase ‘under the weather’ comes to mind. Since I dont think I’ve seen the sun, moon or blue sky for about a month. Every day just blanket grey.

People laugh and say ‘stop complaining, the UK weather has always been crappy’, which is true, but it used to be naturally crappy! Now it’s artifically manipulated, engineered to inflict the maximum amount of misery on the populous. Like everything the goverment does.

Temperature ranges from 1-7 degrees C most days, so the moisture in the air is near freezing, and this makes it ‘feels like -5’.

But it almost never actually goes below zero anymore. Below zero would be preferable since the air becomes dry, and there is snowfall. Below zero is where the fun starts, but just above zero is totally miserable. Especially when the sun is being blocked and the cost of energy is being artificially inflated every year.

It has occured to me also, that every old house was built with a chimney and a fireplace. The hearth of the home. Whereas newer houses are built with radiators connected to the grid.

Hot water radiators only emits low infrared frequencies, whereas a real fire emits all the same frequencies as the sun. All the visible spectrum colours and UV as well.

So having a real fire is like having the light of sun inside your house, which is needed in the northern winters, and during times of extreme tyranny where the sun is being blocked.

A radiator will not have the same healing effect, in terms of curing the symptoms of excessive cold/wet exposure.

I’m making it a priority to get a fireplace in my house this year. Tbh, I am starting to think the removal of fireplaces from homes is something akin to the removal of bells from church towers.

Join us tonight at 7pm U.S. Eastern for the YouTube premiere of episode 150: Parenting, Relating, Life-Balancing & More: AUA (Ask Us Anything) with Kylee & Alec Zeck.

In this episode, Alec and Kylee Zeck continue their conversation from Episode 69 on parenting, relationships, and life balance. They discuss their journey through multiple moves, overcoming codependency, and setting foundations for parenting. They share parenting insights on managing screen time, emotions, and their spiritual beliefs as a couple.

Visit https://youtu.be/bwxWVqymHZQ to catch the YouTube premiere.

For more details, links, and resources mentioned in this episode, visit our website: https://thewayfwrd.com

Join us tonight at 7pm U.S. Eastern for the YouTube premiere of episode 151: The Heart is Not a Pump: Vortexes, Blood Flow & The Seat of the Soul with Dr. Stephen Hussey.

In this episode, Dr. Stephen Hussey challenges the mainstream view of heart health, explaining why the heart is not a pump and how blood actually moves through the body. He explores the real causes of heart disease, the impact of structured water on vascular health, and how the heart influences the human biofield and soul connection. Dr. Hussey also discusses the negative effects of common heart medications and why heart-related issues have been increasing in recent years.

Dr. Stephen Hussey, MS, DC, is a Chiropractor, Functional Medicine practitioner, and author specializing in heart health and environmental healing strategies. Through his books, he educates people on how to reclaim their health by looking beyond conventional medicine.

Visit https://youtu.be/KL68_0b-nrg to catch the YouTube premiere.

Many in the health and freedom movement are disappointed by recent actions, failed promises, and clear contradictions from Trump, RFK Jr., and the rest of this new administration. I’m not. I had no expectations — because I know that lasting, positive change cannot and will not come from the mechanisms of the federal government.

I think these next few years will be a necessary wake-up call for many in the health and freedom movement who’ve outsourced their power — placing their hope in lasting change through a “better” administration in the White House. I think they will come to realize that their beliefs, awareness, time, and energy were misplaced. No one is coming to save us.

The very idea that we need to be “saved” by or from any man, woman, or organization is, itself, part of the problem. We are not helpless. We are not hopeless. We are not powerless.

The power we possess as individuals, families, and communities to create lasting, positive change far exceeds anything government could ever provide.

Real change is not top-down; it is inside-out — individual, family, and community-driven. The real power to create lasting health, freedom, and coherence lies within us.

We are remembering who we are.
We are the way forward.

Just throwing this up so everyone is aware:

I may take much longer to respond than is usual. My wife Kylee is 36 weeks prego, we’re prepping to move houses in a couple months, I’m lead planner for confluenceevent.com happening in May, and we’re about about to launch our new platform at thewayfwrd.com.

Please be gracious with my delayed responses. If you have my number, please double text me if it’s urgent.

Important Epistemological, Scientific, Philosophical, and Legal Questions:

Before claiming that X causes Y, is it necessary to first establish that X exists?

If X is related to a scientific claim, by what standard is X confirmed to exist and to cause Y?

And after first proving that X even exists in the first place — which is the essential first step, is it not also essential to clearly demonstrate that X actually causes Y?

If a government enacts laws, codes, acts, or statutes around X and then coerces or threatens individuals into compliance based on what X allegedly does, must it first demonstrate that X exists?

If health experts recommend — or even mandate —treatments, medications, or injections based on the alleged effects of X, is it necessary to first prove that X exists?

If X has not been confirmed to exist or to cause Y according to that standard alluded to above, is it not imperative to question and challenge its legitimacy?

Does it matter that “the overwhelming majority of experts believe that X exists and causes Y” if X has not been confirmed to exist or to cause Y according to that standard?

If no one has formulated a 100% perfect explanation for what does cause Y, does that have any bearing on the fact that X has not been proven to exist or to cause Y?

Does it make sense to accept the foundational assumption that X exists and causes Y, despite failing to validate that claim according to the established standard, and then focus only on scrutinizing the additional claims built upon that unproven assumption?

Does it matter that, because the overwhelming majority of people have been conditioned to believe that X exists and causes Y, anyone who highlights the lack of evidence for X’s existence and causal link to Y may be perceived as “crazy” by the majority?

on with beth martens in 10!: https://kingheros.bethmartens.com/blog/104666-alec-zeck-truth-at-all-cost