Psychopathology - philosophy of psychiatry

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.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Psychopathology - philosophy of psychiatry

Post by psyreporter »

Gertie wrote: June 28th, 2021, 6:54 amIf we get down to the basics of what medicine is supposed to be about, it's helping people with medical problems, right?
It is the validity of the 'medical diagnosis' that is at question. Psychopathology simply requires a sound causal hypothesis BEFORE a disease is diagnosed and BEFORE a medical treatment is applied. How else can be known what is being done and whether someone is 'medically cured'?

Psychopathology is based on causality and requires determinism to be true for its validity.
If psychiatry is really (really?) a branch of medicine, we should see the specific causal hypotheses emerge about mechanisms that cause the symptoms of mental illness. Psychopathology is to be identified as the departure of a psychological system from its proper state.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/psychiatry/

Gertie wrote: June 28th, 2021, 6:54 amNow if there are medicines which can help people with psychological problems, that's a good thing.
Feeling helped is not a justification for medical treatment otherwise paranormal therapy would equally qualify. There are thousands of people who truly 'feel helped' with paranormal therapy to cure cancer. That doesn't make it a scientifically valid practice.

It may be important to question the validity of the theorethical fundament on the basis of which psychiatry is able to diagnose medical diseases.

There are indications that medical psychiatry is actively suppressing alternatives such as psychotherapies that may provide much better results.

Schizophrenia patients denied talking therapies
Thousands of people with mental health problems are being denied the best and most effective treatments, years after they were approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, according to experts. Proven talking therapies are not offered to people diagnosed with schizophrenia.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 21713.html

The argument that people 'feel helped' as justification for medical treatment is based on a promise that psychiatry will one day be able to prove that a valid causal hypothesis for psychological problems is possible. Until today, after 70+ years trying, their promise has remained empty.

When psychiatry would have a sound causal hypothesis, which is required to diagnose a medical disease, there could be no dispute about the applicability of medical treatment.

In studies with an active placebo (a pill with a side effect that provides the feeling that something 'happens' in the body), 100% of people with a severe clinical depression can recover just as well with a fake pill. Those people feel helped with a fake pill, but when it concerns the interest of humanity, it may be important that humans learn to make use of that potential in a proper way (with their mind).

Gertie wrote: June 28th, 2021, 6:54 amBut we do know that brain states seem to correlate with psychological states, change one and you change the other. Nobody knows why, but it does give us a way in to treat psychological problems by changing brain processes associated with the problem.
The brain may be compared with a music instrument. When a trumpet musician would play false notes, would it be sensical from the perspective of music to punch dents in the trumpet to change the sound of the notes? One could argue that the music player will need to learn to play pure notes, and that it should be demanded on behalf of music.

When the brain can 're-wire itself' to such an extent that a man with merely 10% brain tissue can live a healthy life with wife, children and a job, and when studies have shown that when people are made artificially blind, that the part that is correlated with eye-sight would be 're-wired' to do completely different things, then, at question would be: why can the brain re-wire itself?

Consciousness without a brain?
"Any theory of consciousness has to be able to explain why a person like that, who's missing 90 percent of his neurons, still exhibits normal behaviour," Axel Cleeremans, a professor philosophy of cognitive science from the Université Libre de Bruxelles in Belgium"
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=16742

Most likely, the re-wiring has nothing to do with the brain itself, as if pre-programmed to do so. (the 10% brain tissue case is an example that would make it highly unlikely that the brain contains a pre-programmed solution for such a situation).

Mind over matter is most likely the reality. There is evidence for that, also for example with regard genetics.

Learning one’s genetic risk changes physiology independent of actual genetic risk
In an interesting twist to the enduring nature vs. nurture debate, a new study from Stanford University finds that just thinking you’re prone to a given outcome may trump both nature and nurture. In fact, simply believing a physical reality about yourself can actually nudge the body in that direction—sometimes even more than actually being prone to the reality.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562- ... -behaviour

Gertie wrote: June 28th, 2021, 6:54 amWe can acknowledge all the problems without throwing the useful baby out with the crappy bathwater. And millions have found psychiatry helpful, some life saving. Look at areas where we don't have medical treatment like Alzheimers, it's tragic. If we had a pill which could help, we should give people that choice.
I do not agree that it is so easy to get away with the application of medical treatment without a valid causal hypothesis. Psychiatry has already been provided with a considerable chance to prove its ideas, for +70 years, without results.

Evidence is the cited study in the OP:

(2019) Psychiatric diagnosis 'scientifically meaningless'
Clinical psychology professor John Read, University of East London, said: "Perhaps it is time we stopped pretending that medical-sounding labels contribute anything to our understanding of the complex causes of human distress or of what kind of help we need when distressed."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131152.htm

'medical sounding' labels do not justify 'medical treatment'.

Psychiatry is practicing medicine based on a promise that its underlying theory will some day be proven valid.

Psychopathology - the idea that mental states correlate with brain states - requires determinism to be true for its validity. If you believe that mind is merely brain states, then you simply must adhere to a belief in determinism.

Based on current knowledge it can be said that a belief in determinism is questionable. Thus, psychiatry's ability to some day meet its promise may be considered unlikely from some perspectives.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Psychopathology - philosophy of psychiatry

Post by Gee »

LuckyR wrote: June 28th, 2021, 2:01 am
Gee wrote: June 27th, 2021, 7:39 pm
LuckyR wrote: June 25th, 2021, 3:09 am Over time the fields of psychiatry and psychology are getting closer and closer to neurology and neurobiology. When all four meet in the middle, then the issue being described in this thread will disappear. Ujtil then, various practitioners will try their best at helping with, admittedly few and imperfect tools and await better options. What else can be done?
A lot of people believe this, but it is simply not true. As long as neurology continues to believe that consciousness is produced by the brain, there will be no help from that quarter.

I did some studying on Freud a few years back and was surprised to discover that he was not a trained psychologist, or a trained psychiatrist -- he was a neurologist. A scientist, and it was his most fervent wish that psychiatry/psychology would be an accepted science one day. Back in his day, psychiatry/psychology was too much voodoo and "the devil made me do it" to be considered science.

So he gave us the divisions of mind, then he tried to explain the divisions by referencing different parts of the brain, but he was almost completely unsuccessful. I think there was one part that he got pretty close to right, but he did not have the equipment that we have now. Anyway, if you go to the science forums, they will tell you that Freud was a quack because he got everything wrong when assigning parts of the brain to aspects of the mind -- he established no valid association there. Now this thread tells me that psychopathology is valid and that it validates psychiatry -- because of a "promise". Has everybody lost their minds?

Gee
Not true? I was describing a future possibility. No one said it was true.
So you were not saying that it was truly possible? I seriously doubt that psychology is getting closer to neurology and suspect that it is moving in another direction. Actually psychology seems to have a great deal in common with some eastern religions/philosophies, which are also being used to try to resolve mental issues. Both psychology and religion/philosophies study mind -- not the brain -- mind.

Looking for solutions to mental problems by using neurology would be much like trying to find the source of oceans by climbing a mountain range. Yes, you can learn things and you might even run across Crater Lake in the mountains, but you are not going to find the ocean.
LuckyR wrote: June 25th, 2021, 3:09 am I see you did some studying on Freud a few years back. There has been a lot of progress since 1939.
Has there? I don't see it. Attitudes are a little better, but too many people remember the movie, Psycho, and actually buy into the idea that psychotics are dangerous. Mostly psychotic people are dangerous to themselves because they can't cope with reality. Normal people are dangerous.

Neurology has learned a great deal, but has still not discovered the source of consciousness nor has it discovered mind. Psychology is still trying to digest the ideas of the divisions of mind that Freud gave us, the collective unconscious that Jung gave us, and the five stratums of the unconscious that Blanco worked out -- using math. I have no idea of how he did that, but his work explains so much about the unconscious.

Schizophrenia runs in my family, as does brilliance, and often they run together. One of my earliest memories is of going to the County hospital to visit my aunt. She had received shock treatments, back when they were really shock treatments. My mother explained that my aunt might not know me because her memory would not be good for a while, but that did not really disturb me. I was only five years old and so when my aunt smiled at me, I was fine. What disturbed me was the statue people. They were in the halls standing, sitting in chairs, and generally imitating statues.

I thought it was horrible that a mental problem could turn people into statues for the rest of their lives, but about 20 years ago, I learned that it was not the mental problem, but the medication that turned these people into statues trapped in their bodies. Does this still happen 60 year later -- today? Yes.

Gee
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Psychopathology - philosophy of psychiatry

Post by LuckyR »

Gee wrote: June 28th, 2021, 6:24 pm
LuckyR wrote: June 28th, 2021, 2:01 am
Gee wrote: June 27th, 2021, 7:39 pm
LuckyR wrote: June 25th, 2021, 3:09 am Over time the fields of psychiatry and psychology are getting closer and closer to neurology and neurobiology. When all four meet in the middle, then the issue being described in this thread will disappear. Ujtil then, various practitioners will try their best at helping with, admittedly few and imperfect tools and await better options. What else can be done?
A lot of people believe this, but it is simply not true. As long as neurology continues to believe that consciousness is produced by the brain, there will be no help from that quarter.

I did some studying on Freud a few years back and was surprised to discover that he was not a trained psychologist, or a trained psychiatrist -- he was a neurologist. A scientist, and it was his most fervent wish that psychiatry/psychology would be an accepted science one day. Back in his day, psychiatry/psychology was too much voodoo and "the devil made me do it" to be considered science.

So he gave us the divisions of mind, then he tried to explain the divisions by referencing different parts of the brain, but he was almost completely unsuccessful. I think there was one part that he got pretty close to right, but he did not have the equipment that we have now. Anyway, if you go to the science forums, they will tell you that Freud was a quack because he got everything wrong when assigning parts of the brain to aspects of the mind -- he established no valid association there. Now this thread tells me that psychopathology is valid and that it validates psychiatry -- because of a "promise". Has everybody lost their minds?

Gee
Not true? I was describing a future possibility. No one said it was true.
So you were not saying that it was truly possible? I seriously doubt that psychology is getting closer to neurology and suspect that it is moving in another direction. Actually psychology seems to have a great deal in common with some eastern religions/philosophies, which are also being used to try to resolve mental issues. Both psychology and religion/philosophies study mind -- not the brain -- mind.

Looking for solutions to mental problems by using neurology would be much like trying to find the source of oceans by climbing a mountain range. Yes, you can learn things and you might even run across Crater Lake in the mountains, but you are not going to find the ocean.
LuckyR wrote: June 25th, 2021, 3:09 am I see you did some studying on Freud a few years back. There has been a lot of progress since 1939.
Has there? I don't see it. Attitudes are a little better, but too many people remember the movie, Psycho, and actually buy into the idea that psychotics are dangerous. Mostly psychotic people are dangerous to themselves because they can't cope with reality. Normal people are dangerous.

Neurology has learned a great deal, but has still not discovered the source of consciousness nor has it discovered mind. Psychology is still trying to digest the ideas of the divisions of mind that Freud gave us, the collective unconscious that Jung gave us, and the five stratums of the unconscious that Blanco worked out -- using math. I have no idea of how he did that, but his work explains so much about the unconscious.

Schizophrenia runs in my family, as does brilliance, and often they run together. One of my earliest memories is of going to the County hospital to visit my aunt. She had received shock treatments, back when they were really shock treatments. My mother explained that my aunt might not know me because her memory would not be good for a while, but that did not really disturb me. I was only five years old and so when my aunt smiled at me, I was fine. What disturbed me was the statue people. They were in the halls standing, sitting in chairs, and generally imitating statues.

I thought it was horrible that a mental problem could turn people into statues for the rest of their lives, but about 20 years ago, I learned that it was not the mental problem, but the medication that turned these people into statues trapped in their bodies. Does this still happen 60 year later -- today? Yes.

Gee
You are free to have your doubts, but when discussing technical fields "common sense" or gut feeling opinions are no match for rigorous research, typically by professionals in the field.

A quick PubMed search for the neurological basis for, say depression, can reveal the state of research up to a few years ago (which is much more developed than human understanding of say depression in 1939).
"As usual... it depends."
Gee
Posts: 667
Joined: December 28th, 2012, 2:41 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re: Psychopathology - philosophy of psychiatry

Post by Gee »

LuckyR wrote: June 29th, 2021, 2:49 am
Gee wrote: June 28th, 2021, 6:24 pm
LuckyR wrote: June 28th, 2021, 2:01 am
Gee wrote: June 27th, 2021, 7:39 pm
A lot of people believe this, but it is simply not true. As long as neurology continues to believe that consciousness is produced by the brain, there will be no help from that quarter.

I did some studying on Freud a few years back and was surprised to discover that he was not a trained psychologist, or a trained psychiatrist -- he was a neurologist. A scientist, and it was his most fervent wish that psychiatry/psychology would be an accepted science one day. Back in his day, psychiatry/psychology was too much voodoo and "the devil made me do it" to be considered science.

So he gave us the divisions of mind, then he tried to explain the divisions by referencing different parts of the brain, but he was almost completely unsuccessful. I think there was one part that he got pretty close to right, but he did not have the equipment that we have now. Anyway, if you go to the science forums, they will tell you that Freud was a quack because he got everything wrong when assigning parts of the brain to aspects of the mind -- he established no valid association there. Now this thread tells me that psychopathology is valid and that it validates psychiatry -- because of a "promise". Has everybody lost their minds?

Gee
Not true? I was describing a future possibility. No one said it was true.
So you were not saying that it was truly possible? I seriously doubt that psychology is getting closer to neurology and suspect that it is moving in another direction. Actually psychology seems to have a great deal in common with some eastern religions/philosophies, which are also being used to try to resolve mental issues. Both psychology and religion/philosophies study mind -- not the brain -- mind.

Looking for solutions to mental problems by using neurology would be much like trying to find the source of oceans by climbing a mountain range. Yes, you can learn things and you might even run across Crater Lake in the mountains, but you are not going to find the ocean.
LuckyR wrote: June 25th, 2021, 3:09 am I see you did some studying on Freud a few years back. There has been a lot of progress since 1939.
Has there? I don't see it. Attitudes are a little better, but too many people remember the movie, Psycho, and actually buy into the idea that psychotics are dangerous. Mostly psychotic people are dangerous to themselves because they can't cope with reality. Normal people are dangerous.

Neurology has learned a great deal, but has still not discovered the source of consciousness nor has it discovered mind. Psychology is still trying to digest the ideas of the divisions of mind that Freud gave us, the collective unconscious that Jung gave us, and the five stratums of the unconscious that Blanco worked out -- using math. I have no idea of how he did that, but his work explains so much about the unconscious.

Schizophrenia runs in my family, as does brilliance, and often they run together. One of my earliest memories is of going to the County hospital to visit my aunt. She had received shock treatments, back when they were really shock treatments. My mother explained that my aunt might not know me because her memory would not be good for a while, but that did not really disturb me. I was only five years old and so when my aunt smiled at me, I was fine. What disturbed me was the statue people. They were in the halls standing, sitting in chairs, and generally imitating statues.

I thought it was horrible that a mental problem could turn people into statues for the rest of their lives, but about 20 years ago, I learned that it was not the mental problem, but the medication that turned these people into statues trapped in their bodies. Does this still happen 60 year later -- today? Yes.

Gee
You are free to have your doubts, but when discussing technical fields "common sense" or gut feeling opinions are no match for rigorous research, typically by professionals in the field.
It has been a while since we had the above conversation, so I decided to copy all of it into this post to help people understand what led to my response.

First I should state that I found your above statement regarding my "'common sense' or gut feeling opinions" rather condescending. My doubts are not due to gut feelings, they are due to my understanding of science, philosophy, consciousness, and my experiences and my knowledge of medical practices throughout history.

Every discipline has a weakness, and science's worst weakness is confirmation bias -- as they have nothing in the scientific method that counters this problem. Once they have tested and retested and retested, they believe their position valid and it is almost impossible to shake them from that position. Now in many branches of science, there seems to be the ability to advance normally, but in the medical field confirmation bias rules. There is evidence of this throughout history from "bleeding" a patient to release the "bad humous", to killing thousands of young women in birthing fevers because the doctor did not think it necessary to wash his hands. (Look up the "Doctor's Plague" in Wiki.) Years ago doctors prescribed laudanum and opium freely, even giving it to babies, and now they are behind the OxyContin drug explosion.

You can say that greed is behind the drug problems, and that would be true, but the simple truth is that in each of the situations described in the above paragraph, there were some professionals who sounded the warning, but no one listened for a very long time. I know that doctors were killing off new mothers for more that 200 years, so 60 or 80 years of studying depression does not impress me much.

Confirmation bias is a real problem in science, so if philosophy does not monitor science, who will? And I am going to be frank here, mental patients have no credibility.
LuckyR wrote: June 29th, 2021, 2:49 am A quick PubMed search for the neurological basis for, say depression, can reveal the state of research up to a few years ago (which is much more developed than human understanding of say depression in 1939).
I am going to use a little of my "common sense" and state that since I believe confirmation bias is at the heart of this problem, why would I study PubMed, which looks like a cheerleader in the confirmation bias game?

Philosophy is not innocent in the problems that psychiatry/psychology have dealing with drugs and mental patients. In fact some of the problems are caused by philosophy's thousand year old debate. If you read Arjand's posts, it is clear that free will v determinism and monism v dualism are at the base of his/her assumptions and premises. When Arjand says "causal", s/he is talking about the brain and/or chemistry and has no idea that consciousness is actually causal. Changes in chemistry cause changes in emotion which cause changes in thinking. (determinism) Changes in emotion causes changes in thinking and changes in chemistry. (religion's position) Changes in thinking causes changes in emotion and changes in chemistry. (free will) It all works together and is not static -- it is ever changing and self-balancing.

Since we have been denying the physical aspects of consciousness for 1,000 years, I don't see much change or advancement since 1939.

Gee
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3218
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Psychopathology - philosophy of psychiatry

Post by JackDaydream »

@psyreporter

I was reading this thread which I believe you wrote a couple of months before I joined the forum. I found it extremely interesting because my own background is in psychiatric nursing. I worked in acute psychiatry as well in mental health rehab. I have not worked for over a year and am not sure if I wish to continue in healthcare or go in a different direction. But the whole question of the medical model of psychiatry raises many questions.

Before ever training in nursing, I had read a lot in the direction of the antipsychiatry movement in sociology. This was useful for thinking about but it may underplay the needs and reality of mental illness. I have also known people with severe mental illness since my student days before my nursing training. So, I actually chose to go into mental health care in order to understand the issues and I had some background studying of psychology which meant it was a possible career pathway.

While training and working in mental health care, I have come across various perspectives of practitioners. Some adhere to views of mental health problems strictly from an organic point of view and others take on board the psychological and social aspects. It does seem that the majority of psychiatrists in England come from a sciences background. With nurses and others this seems to vary considerably. The majority of psychiatrists seem to study psychotherapy as registars before going on to become consultants. I was aware of a big difference this made in the way they approached patients, although there were big variations in their approach. I am extremely interested in the ideas of Carl Jung and only ever came across one psychiatrist who took on board the ideas of Jung and when I mentioned him to the junior doctors many had not heard of him at all.

From my reading of psychiatry there is a big split in how much is genetic and how much is related to experience, especially stress. In fact, a close female friend has been in psychiatric hospital on a number of occasions and she believes that the reason she became unwell with psychosis is connected to her childhood traumatic experiences. I am also aware of many service users who feel this too, and often they feel that this is not taken on board fully by mental health professionals. They are usually not wishing to be without medication but do feel that the psychological aspects need to be tackled as well. One positive development is the recovery model which does seek to empower people through courses in 'recovery colleges' and also about helping people to identify goals for working with in order to improve their lives.
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Psychopathology - philosophy of psychiatry

Post by EricPH »

psyreporter wrote: June 26th, 2021, 2:42 pm
My personal idea is that humans should learn to overcome psychological problems with their mind, in order to become 'stronger'. With each solved problem, the mind becomes stronger and people share their knowledge with people around them, enhancing human resilience and its chance of long term successful survival.

The idea: "Without overcoming problems there is no progress in life. Overcoming problems is vital for successful evolution".
I agree with you, but when the trauma starts in childhood; the child is at their weakest, they have not built up coping skills and resilience. I have listened to the stories of people who have been abused by paedophiles. One man has suffered mentally for fifty years and still has counselling; he has been prescribed all sorts of drugs over the years. He has attempted suicide a number of times, become an alcoholic, tried heroin weed etc. None of these things make the pain go away. The man still carries a huge amount of rage, his paedophile was never convicted. I can't imagine what it must be like to carry this burden for so long.

The only thing I was able to say; was that he is incredibly strong because he has survived so much and battles with his demons every day. But the more he survives means he will be in a better place to help others. I have noticed his willingness to help others over the years, this also helps him.
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