JUST TRYING TO GET AHEAD by Cathy D. Slaght
This week I got a call from a member of the energy group who hadn't had a chance to volunteer for the "belly scan". She asked if it was too late, and of course it wasn't. A SRC4U scan takes only moments.
What we're looking for is information relating to levels of stress that could contribute to some extra weight, especially around the gut.
The SRC4U software measures frequency in the etheric field, a field of energy that surrounds the physical body and serves as our blueprint or template. Information comes in the form of numbers. "Numbers"? Yes, because we're in a mathematical universe- everything, including you and me, is just a bunch of numbers, or frequency.
This is why quantum software holds such promise - it can calculate these numbers quickly and easily. The information can be life changing, and yes, the SRC4U can help to manage stress. Below is her scan. We're looking for numbers under 1,000. As you see, her top areas of stress related to belly fat seem to be hormones, not enough fruits and vegetables, and stress.
37 year old female
Aging containing 1806 Options
Alcohol containing 2158 Options
Amino acid deficiency containing 2087 Options
Bad water containing 4533 Options
Depression containing 1062 Options
Diet sodas containing 2022 Options
EMF containing 1095 Options
Fast Food containing 4667 Options
Fats containing 3572 Options
Genetic containing 2580 Options
GMO containing 3229 Options
Hormones containing 640 Options
Illness containing 3579 Options
Lack of Minerals containing 6955 Options
Liver toxicity containing 2703 Options
Low survival instinct containing 1503 Options
Not enough exercise containing 5369 Options
Not enough fruits and veggies containing 434 Options
Not enough sleep containing 617 Options
Parasites containing 493 Options
Processed foods containing 1744 Options
Sexual Issues containing 7261 Options
Sugar containing 7236 Options
Stress containing 414 Options
Thing is, to make lasting changes it takes more than a little energy work- SRC4U or otherwise. Wish it were different, but it just isn't. This young woman now has a little information she might not have discovered in any other way. She's taken action. She knows nothing outside of herself can create lasting change. "I'm just trying to get ahead", she says.
This is a single mother, by the way, and right now she's working hard to make ends meet. She's not on government assistance. Obviously a major source of the "stress" is money, but also there are problems with her young son. He seems to be hyper. In spite of the protests of his teachers she's taken him OFF meds. Why? He was losing weight rapidly. At this point, parents do still have some rights. She's looking into nutritional solutions.
I anticipate great success for this young woman. Why? Because she recognizes the human potential and is working to help HERSELF.
All this made me think of a few posting topics. First, this med thing. Did you know that back in the 1970s a group of psychiatrists got together and made a goal to have every person in America on a psychotropic drug by the year 2000? They didn't quite make it, but it's close.
This got me to thinking about the upcoming 2016 elections. Seems both parties want MORE funding for mental illness- which is already heavily funded. What exactly is mental illness, and why is it out of control? What's happened to us? Why do we need the government to fund more and more MEDS? Could these meds actually be a major source of the turmoil we're seeing in the nation?
It's hard to think about this. It's even gotten to the point where we, as a people, seem to believe a person should not suffer in any way. We elect those who say they'll do the most to "take care" of us. Benefits come in many forms. Thing is, here's what seems to be happening to the majority who get "taken care" of too long - their situation doesn't get better. It deteriorates. We see:
Drug and alcohol addiction ("drug" includes "food") is epidemic
Destruction of the family unit.
So yes, while we want to help those who are less fortunate, something is wrong with our present approach. It's obvious.
If we're ever going to really "get ahead"-and this means everybody, not just a few- maybe it's time to go beneath the surface and figure out what's wrong.
Cathy D. Slaght