Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Post Reply
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

RJG wrote: February 7th, 2021, 7:45 am In other words, how do the 60 immune people (that don't spread the virus) create a "protective effect" for the other 40 vulnerable people in that community? It can't be that they just "don't spread the virus", for again, we could then just replace these people with statues or rocks and accomplish the same thing. So then what is it?

Perhaps a different perspective will help? It is about people mixing with other members of their community, not mixing with rocks and statues. If 60% of the people I mix with are infected, that results in a certain risk of my being infected. If only 40% are infected, and I mix with them, as before, my chance of becoming infected is lower. If 90% of them are immune, and non-infectious, then my chances of infection are reduced even more.

At some percentage value of infection/immunity, the rate of infection (and therefore transmission) falls to the point where the virus outbreak starts to collapse, because the viruses I breathe out (if I am infected) can't 'find' a new and vulnerable host to infect before they die. This is herd immunity, I think.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:We don't need "science" to tell us this, simple "logic" will do.
Pattern-chaser wrote:We don't need science? [...followed by insults]
Seriously? ...parsing of my words to give a different meaning that you can then attack (a flagrant strawman attack). ...come on man, you're better than that!

******************
Greta wrote: When you have a "leader" who discourages mask wearing, who holds social distancing in such contempt that he kept organising super-spreader events, and populace that believes in ghosts and demons more than they accept evolution, then you will have problems.
Greta, if we look the 'actual' empirical evidence, we can then logically derive the best course of action (to save the most amount of people). Logically we should:

1. Allow healthy immune people to take off their masks and socialize ASAP
2. Demand vulnerable people do a better job of protecting themselves (e.g. the flimsy masks they wear in busy grocery stores are not sufficient!).

If after reading all of what I've written, you believe I've erred somewhere in my logic, then point out the error in my logic. I don't mind being proven wrong, but we gotta use logic to do so (much like in math - to detect a math error, requires math to point out the error). Many people (not you) like to argue with insults instead of logic. So again, it takes logic to refute logic.

Greta wrote: Oh, what experts are those being "silenced"?
Scott Atlas (a brilliant rationalist from Stanford) was demonized for suggesting that

"If herd immunity is an inevitable destination, we should perhaps put our foot on the accelerator.".

...an extremely wise and rational statement! But because his view did not align with those dictating our policy, he was demonized by the cancel culture mob.

Also there are many thousands of medical experts and scientists that have signed onto the Great Barrington Declaration in opposition to our current destructive policies. But, all we see are irrational "hit pieces" by the left wing mainstream media against this declaration and the signors of it.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by RJG »

Pattern-chaser wrote:It is about people mixing with other members of their community, not mixing with rocks and statues.
Correct! It is about immune people mixing in with vulnerable people to give a protective effect to the vulnerable people. And if we un-mix (remove) immune people from a group of vulnerable people, then there will be less (or no) protective effect to these vulnerable.

So now the million dollar question is - WHAT specifically causes this "protective effect"?

Pattern-chaser wrote:If 60% of the people I mix with are infected, that results in a certain risk of my being infected. If only 40% are infected, and I mix with them, as before, my chance of becoming infected is lower. If 90% of them are immune, and non-infectious, then my chances of infection are reduced even more.
Not quite. According to science, once the herd immunity threshold value is reached within a given population, then this theoretically provides protection to everyone (including all the vulnerable).

It has more to do with the Rt value (rate of transmission). Once the net average Rt value within a given environment drops below 1 (i.e. <1) then more of the virus is being removed (or dying) than created (or shed) within that environment, effectively stopping the transmission of the virus.

Pattern-chaser wrote:At some percentage value of infection/immunity, the rate of infection (and therefore transmission) falls to the point where the virus outbreak starts to collapse, because the viruses I breathe out (if I am infected) can't 'find' a new and vulnerable host to infect before they die. This is herd immunity, I think.
I am not sure I follow exactly.

1. If we REMOVE immune people (whose Rt value is <1) from a viral contaminated room leaving only vulnerable people (whose Rt value is >1), then we will increase the density of the virus per person in the room, and increase the overall room Rt value (the average transmission rate in the room), and thereby DECREASE the "protective effect" to the vulnerable, (...meaning MORE DEATHS).

2. If we ADD immune people (Rt <1) into a viral contaminated room of vulnerable people (Rt >1), then we will decrease the density of the virus per person in the room, and decrease the overall room Rt value, and thereby INCREASE the "protective effect" to the vulnerable, (...meaning LESS DEATHS).

3. Once the room's net Rt value is 1 (or less than 1), then this effectively stops the virus transmission, effectively making it safe for everyone.

*****************
AND, so this is why it is SO IMPORTANT to un-mask (and not-socially distance) our healthy immune population. Keeping our healthy population (including those recently vaccinated, and those previously infected) masked and socially distanced only creates MORE DEATHS of our vulnerable people.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:AND, so this is why it is SO IMPORTANT to un-mask (and not-socially distance) our healthy immune population. Keeping our healthy population (including those recently vaccinated, and those previously infected) masked and socially distanced only creates MORE DEATHS of our vulnerable people.
It is therefore highly IRRATIONAL to continue masking and social distancing our healthy population. Our irrational covid policies are KILLING more people than it saves! This irrationality also increases our populations overall covid Rt value, which allows the virus to grow and mutate into potentially more deadly strains. Very dangerous! It is time for Dr. Fauci to go. It is time for a 'rational' second opinion to dictate our covid policies.

We can't keep waiting to implement herd immunity. Soon we won't have enough healthy herd members to save ourselves. Dr Scott Atlas was right -
  • "If herd immunity is an inevitable destination, we should perhaps put our foot on the accelerator.".
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

RJG wrote:We don't need "science" to tell us this, simple "logic" will do.
Pattern-chaser wrote:We don't need science? [...followed by insults]
RJG wrote: February 7th, 2021, 8:49 am Seriously? ...parsing of my words to give a different meaning that you can then attack (a flagrant strawman attack). ...come on man, you're better than that!

Yes, I think so too. Insults? Really? Come on man, you're better than that! Look again:
Pattern-chaser wrote: February 7th, 2021, 7:35 am We don't need science? I think you mean that your opinions are not shared by scientists, or anyone who has genuine knowledge of such things. You can't cite supporting material for your position, because there is none. Your opinions are your own, guaranteed to you by your constitution, but there is no guarantee of being right. For that, you must compare your opinions of the real world with ... the real world. And in the real world, your opinions just don't stand up.

Thomyum2 is trying to explain to you, if you will listen, that the virus-removal function that immune (and non-infected) people can achieve is such a small fraction of the viral load carried by the air that is has no practical impact.

Your use of Sweden as an example of a country that has responded well to Covid19 is simply not reflected by the facts. Their performance is almost as bad as the US and the UK. New Zealand and South Korea (for example) are nations that have performed exceptionally well; turn your gaze on them, why don't you?

In the end, it is difficult to see this topic as anything other than your attempt to spread misinformation about Covid19, and our reactions to it. Your alt-truths are unhelpful and unfounded, and maybe it's time to admit that, and turn our minds to something more useful?
There are no insults there. There are plenty of criticisms of the views you have expressed, but they are all courteous, and they are all directed at your message, not at you, the person who expounds the message. Why would you characterise these criticisms as insults? The only reason I can think of is that we don't need to give insults serious consideration. So passing my arguments off as insults is your way of dismissing my arguments without examination or discussion. So why don't you demonstrate the validity and stature of your arguments by responding to all the criticisms you are receiving, and explaining why and how we are wrong? But please cite your sources when you offer factual information about Covid, its spread, and what various countries have done to combat it. And finally, if there are no sources, and you are expressing your own sincere but unfounded opinions, could you let us know this? Thanks.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by Thomyum2 »

RJG wrote: February 7th, 2021, 9:46 am It has more to do with the Rt value (rate of transmission). Once the net average Rt value within a given environment drops below 1 (i.e. <1) then more of the virus is being removed (or dying) than created (or shed) within that environment, effectively stopping the transmission of the virus.

1. If we REMOVE immune people (whose Rt value is <1) from a viral contaminated room leaving only vulnerable people (whose Rt value is >1), then we will increase the density of the virus per person in the room, and increase the overall room Rt value (the average transmission rate in the room), and thereby DECREASE the "protective effect" to the vulnerable, (...meaning MORE DEATHS).

2. If we ADD immune people (Rt <1) into a viral contaminated room of vulnerable people (Rt >1), then we will decrease the density of the virus per person in the room, and decrease the overall room Rt value, and thereby INCREASE the "protective effect" to the vulnerable, (...meaning LESS DEATHS).

3. Once the room's net Rt value is 1 (or less than 1), then this effectively stops the virus transmission, effectively making it safe for everyone.
You are making the same error again here that I pointed out earlier. The R values are an observed measure of how the disease progresses in a given population - it is an average rate across a population, not a probably of an individual's chance of contraction in a given exposure situation. Of course the Rt changes between your examples because you are changing the size and composition of your population, not because of any change in the fundamentals of how the disease is transmitted. You are manipulating the numbers by changing the denominator - comparing apples and oranges - different populations.

Here's a good article about the R value that I'd recommend reading if you're really interested and willing to give it the time:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02009-w
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by RJG »

Thomyum2 wrote: Of course the Rt changes between your examples because you are changing the size and composition of your population, not because of any change in the fundamentals of how the disease is transmitted.
Thom, you are missing the point altogether! You are so fixated on the irrelevant "adding" or "removing" of people to/from the population (a given environment) that you miss the point being made. The point is that the greater "percentage of immune people" (within a given environment/community) creates a greater "protective effect" to the vulnerable people within this environment.

It is ultimately irrelevant to how we achieve this "greater percentage". In other words, we could achieve this greater percentage by bringing immune people into this community, or we could just convert (e.g. vaccinate) some of the existing people that are already within the community.

If it makes you feel better, then I'll change the word "ADD" to "VACCINATE", ...and the point is STILL THE SAME!

If we VACCINATE some of the people (Rt <1) within a viral contaminated room of vulnerable people (Rt >1), then we will decrease the overall room Rt value, and thereby INCREASE the "protective effect" to the vulnerable, (...meaning LESS DEATHS).

Again, the point is that - a greater percentage of immune people (within a given environment) creates a greater protective effect to the vulnerable people (within that environment). ...agreed?
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

RJG wrote: February 7th, 2021, 11:22 am The point is that the greater "percentage of immune people" (within a given environment/community) creates a greater "protective effect" to the vulnerable people within this environment. ... It is ultimately irrelevant to how we achieve this "greater percentage".
And yet it is your description and understanding of how we achieve this "greater percentage" that seems to be the cause of our disagreements. 🤔 No-one denies the existence of herd immunity, nor of its possible consequences, but there is considerable disagreement with your understanding of how it works. 🤔
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Thomyum2
Posts: 366
Joined: June 10th, 2019, 4:21 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Robert Pirsig + William James

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by Thomyum2 »

RJG wrote: February 7th, 2021, 11:22 am
Thomyum2 wrote: Of course the Rt changes between your examples because you are changing the size and composition of your population, not because of any change in the fundamentals of how the disease is transmitted.
Thom, you are missing the point altogether! You are so fixated on the irrelevant "adding" or "removing" of people to/from the population (a given environment) that you miss the point being made. The point is that the greater "percentage of immune people" (within a given environment/community) creates a greater "protective effect" to the vulnerable people within this environment.

It is ultimately irrelevant to how we achieve this "greater percentage". In other words, we could achieve this greater percentage by bringing immune people into this community, or we could just convert (e.g. vaccinate) some of the existing people that are already within the community.

If it makes you feel better, then I'll change the word "ADD" to "VACCINATE", ...and the point is STILL THE SAME!

If we VACCINATE some of the people (Rt <1) within a viral contaminated room of vulnerable people (Rt >1), then we will decrease the overall room Rt value, and thereby INCREASE the "protective effect" to the vulnerable, (...meaning LESS DEATHS).

Again, the point is that - a greater percentage of immune people (within a given environment) creates a greater protective effect to the vulnerable people (within that environment). ...agreed?
No, I would say you are missing my point. I'll try one last time.

Yes, I agree that a greater percentage of immune people in a population is needed in order to slow the progress of the disease and eventually eliminate it. I'm all in favor of vaccinating people to accomplish this, though I think it's early to know with certainty how well this will work. And I even think there's an argument to be made for allowing the disease to run its course within younger people as a means to increasing the rate of immunity (although I ultimately disagree with this because of what I believe the potential human costs of this approach could end up being vs. waiting until vaccination succeeds, but this is a separate argument entirely).

If I'm fixated on 'adding', it's because you keep using it to support your arguments that immune people somehow confer immunity on vulnerable people, eliminate virus from the environment, or that we can accelerate herd immunity by somehow 'adding' immune people into a particular local environment - that's just not the case. Herd immunity works because it reduces the percentage of individuals in a community who could be potential carriers, thereby reducing the chance that one of the people I make contact with in a given day might be a carrier. But if I get unlucky and make contact with that one carrier, it doesn't matter how many healthy people I've seen - the 'herd immunity' isn't going to help me at all.

So in your viral contaminated room example above, if each person initially had a 100% chance of getting sick from the contamination, and you reduce the first person's chances to 0% by vaccinating them, then you have a 50% rate now, because your immune person is 0% and your vulnerable person is still 100% and these average to 50%. You haven't reduced your vulnerable person's immunity at all, you've just reduced your population's average immunity. You seem to mistaking this change in statistical probability of disease in the population for an actual transfer of immunity between individuals.

As I apparently unsuccessfully tried to explain earlier, the protective effect, if you want to call it that, is that it eliminates routes for the disease to propagate through the population. The larger proportion of people who are not potential carriers, then the fewer potentially contagious individuals anyone might be exposed to through their contacts on a regular basis. But being immune does not pass immunity to others - a vulnerable person is equally likely to become infected if they make contact with a contagious person regardless of how many immune people are in the vicinity. It's just that the likelihood of that contact happening has decreased. Does that begin to make sense?

At this point I've kind of said my piece on this so I'm going to leave it at this. There are plenty of good sources out there for anyone who wants to understand all this better so I don't see that we're contributing much by engaging in what one of the US Supreme Court justices aptly referred to 'armchair epidemiology'. :)
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.”
— Epictetus
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by RJG »

There seems to be 2 basic understandings of how the protective effect of herd immunity happens.

One is logically sound (i.e. it logically connects an increase in the percentage of immune people within a community to an increase in the protective effect of herd immunity).

And the other is logically invalid (i.e. it does not logically connect an increase in the percentage of immune people to an increase in the protective effect).
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by RJG »

Thomyum2 wrote:As I apparently unsuccessfully tried to explain earlier, the protective effect, if you want to call it that, is that it eliminates routes...
Logically, "eliminating routes" or "breaking vectors" doesn't work. You can't show the coherence from "increasing the percentage of immune people" to "eliminating routes" to "increasing protection".

Again, if "eliminating routes" (minimizing he overall virus spread from immune people) was the cause of increasing protection, then we could just as easily ship all the immune people to a remote island (that would guarantee that these immune people don't spread the virus back into the community), and voila, then all the vulnerable people left behind would somehow magically be protected. Amazing! (Not).

I challenge you to show the logic (in a syllogism) that shows how "eliminating routes" logically creates an increase in the protective effect.

Your inability to produce this logic, will hopefully open your eyes to see what I've been saying.

...I'll wait.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by RJG »

If, as most of you seem to believe, the only role of the immune person in achieving herd immunity is to break vectors of possible virus transmission (i.e. not get infected and transmit the virus back into the environment) then we can easily protect every vulnerable person in our country.

So here's the plan:

1. We can do this state by state (or maybe city by city, or community by community). For example, let's take all the immune people in Oklahoma and ship them Arizona, that way we now have 100% certainty that these immune Oklahoman's, that now are in Arizona, will not shed any virus whatsoever back into Oklahoma. Now that we have eliminated all these previously potential viral vectors (routes), then, according to most of you, we should now have achieved herd immunity in Oklahoma. All the vulnerable people in Oklahoma are now miraculously protected!

2. The immune Oklahoman's in Arizona can now return back to Oklahoma, and now everyone in Oklahoma is immune.

3. Repeat the above process for each of the other states until our entire country is covid free.

Problem solved!

*********************
If you can't tell, I'm just being facetious. You can't get herd immunity by "breaking vectors"! -- Herd immunity relies on "making vectors", not breaking them. Without immune people being in close proximity to the rest of the herd, there can be no protection to the herd. The further apart immune people get away from the herd, the less the protection.

When one talks of "breaking vectors" they are talking about "social distancing", which is just the opposite of herd immunity. There can be no herd immunity if the immune separate and isolate from the herd.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by Sy Borg »

RJG wrote:We don't need "science" to tell us this, simple "logic" will do.
Greta wrote:When you have a "leader" who discourages mask wearing, who holds social distancing in such contempt that he kept organising super-spreader events, and populace that believes in ghosts and demons more than they accept evolution, then you will have problems.
Greta, if we look the 'actual' empirical evidence, we can then logically derive the best course of action (to save the most amount of people). Logically we should:

1. Allow healthy immune people to take off their masks and socialize ASAP
2. Demand vulnerable people do a better job of protecting themselves (e.g. the flimsy masks they wear in busy grocery stores are not sufficient!).
1. With viruses, apparently "healthy people" can be infected. Nature does not always yield to politics.

2. As far as I can see, demanding anything from many Americans is a fruitless task. If thousands of people demanded to be able to at attend Trump rallies without any protection whatever, it's pretty well impossible to enforce without a Tiananmen Square approach.
RJG wrote:
Greta wrote:Oh, what experts are those being "silenced"?
Scott Atlas (a brilliant rationalist from Stanford) was demonized for suggesting that
  • "If herd immunity is an inevitable destination, we should perhaps put our foot on the accelerator.".
...an extremely wise and rational statement! But because his view did not align with those dictating our policy, he was demonized by the cancel culture mob.

Also there are many thousands of medical experts and scientists that have signed onto the Great Barrington Declaration in opposition to our current destructive policies. But, all we see are irrational "hit pieces" by the left wing mainstream media against this declaration and the signors of it.
As far as I can tell, millions have followed the allegedly "silenced" Scott Atlas, resulting in thousands of deaths and ICUs stretched almost to breaking point. I would love to be as "silenced" as Scott Atlas and others who people complain are being silenced!

Atlas was "demonised" because he helped create this troubled situation in the US, a nation that should have been one of the examplars and instead has dealt with the virus worse than most other nations, including many developing countries.

You need a vaccine and high rates of vaccination for any disease with a reproduction number of greater than 1 (Sars-Cov-2 is about 3). Further, herd immunity doesn't work well with such virulent viruses in large populations because it will keep mutating. The idea is to squash the virus as much as economically possible to reduce its opportunities to mutate.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by RJG »

Greta wrote:You need a vaccine and high rates of vaccination for any disease with a reproduction number of greater than 1 (Sars-Cov-2 is about 3). Further, herd immunity doesn't work well with such virulent viruses in large populations because it will keep mutating. The idea is to squash the virus as much as economically possible to reduce its opportunities to mutate.
Greta, so if you are against herd immunity, then what is going to stop this virus's continued growth and mutation?

And keeping our vaccinated people masked and social distanced prevents them from participating in achieving herd immunity.

So, what's going to stop this virus?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Part 2 - Will Continued Social Distancing Ultimately Destroy All Human Life on this Planet?

Post by Sy Borg »

RJG wrote: February 7th, 2021, 9:19 pm
Greta wrote:You need a vaccine and high rates of vaccination for any disease with a reproduction number of greater than 1 (Sars-Cov-2 is about 3). Further, herd immunity doesn't work well with such virulent viruses in large populations because it will keep mutating. The idea is to squash the virus as much as economically possible to reduce its opportunities to mutate.
Greta, so if you are against herd immunity, then what is going to stop this virus's continued growth and mutation?

And keeping our vaccinated people masked and social distanced prevents them from participating in achieving herd immunity.

So, what's going to stop this virus?
Look at what the countries do that are doing well - they follow scientific advice. That is, they follow the advice of those best qualified to give advice in the area.

While "experts" and even expertise itself have been reviled and dismissed by co-called conservatives (actually right wing extremists) for some years, they are not perfect. They are not gurus or gods, whose word is treated as gospel. They are, however, generally better informed than many of the VERY LOUD VOICES (usually the ones who complain about being silenced) that treat experts as agents of the "deep state". And, with COVID, viral experts have been proved right over and again.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021