Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by EricPH »

GE Morton wrote: February 9th, 2022, 3:48 pm ---------------
“Christianity was proslavery,”
If you take some Bible passages out of context, they can seem pro slavery.

William Wilberforce fought against slavery in parliament for eighteen years and lost every time. That is until he came up with the Golden Rule, the greatest commandments to love God and neighbour. He said, at some point we shall all have to stand before God and give an account on our stance on slavery. From today, you will not be able to plead ignorance before God. He won a landslide victory 283 for - 16 against, and he received a standing ovation; despite his winning speech being three hours long!
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by GE Morton »

chewybrian wrote: February 9th, 2022, 8:06 am
What you say here betrays the ground level beliefs that help you build your model of the way the world should or must work. You assume that everyone is out for themselves all the time and, therefore, the optimum system through which we interact must accept, reward or even glorify selfish behavior. I don't accept the polar opposite, but rather argue that the truth is in between. Further, I contend that we should be making an effort across the generations to move away from your tragic Ayn Rand ideal of selfishness toward something better.
Yes, that "something better" is the atavistic longing for the familiarity, fraternity, unity, intimacy, and conformity characteristic of pre-civilized, kinship-based tribal societies. That ideal --- the "organic fallacy" I mentioned --- underlies, not only modern religions, but also all of the destructive ideologies that emerged in the bloody 20th century, including Marxism, Maoism, jihadist theocracy, and fascism. But the structure of civilized societies renders that ideal impossible, and every attempt to realize it only produces more hostility and millions of bodies. It is an archaic ideal that is obsolete in the modern world and needs to be discarded.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by GE Morton »

EricPH wrote: February 9th, 2022, 8:49 pm
William Wilberforce fought against slavery in parliament for eighteen years and lost every time. That is until he came up with the Golden Rule, the greatest commandments to love God and neighbour. He said, at some point we shall all have to stand before God and give an account on our stance on slavery. From today, you will not be able to plead ignorance before God. He won a landslide victory 283 for - 16 against, and he received a standing ovation; despite his winning speech being three hours long!
Actually, Wilberforce's 1789 speech failed to persuade the House of Commons. They appointed a committee to examine the matter further. The first bill to abolish slavery came to a vote in 1791, and was rejected 163-88. But he or his supporters re-introduced the bill every year thereafter, each time winning a few more votes. One abolitionist MP was assassinated during this period. It was finally passed in 1807.

The slavery issue was debated not only in Parliament, but in coffee houses, pubs, and in the many small newspapers that flourished in London at the time. Religious arguments played a part, but so did the secular Whig precepts, derived from Locke, Algernon Sidney, and Adam Smith, of liberty and equality.
EricPH
Posts: 449
Joined: October 22nd, 2021, 11:26 am

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by EricPH »

GE Morton wrote: February 9th, 2022, 9:22 pm The first bill to abolish slavery came to a vote in 1791, and was rejected 163-88.
And they to continued loosing until 1807. Some major shift happened to go from 163 - 88 to a resounding about turn 283 - 16. I believe the fear of God was the key factor.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by GE Morton »

EricPH wrote: February 9th, 2022, 9:40 pm
GE Morton wrote: February 9th, 2022, 9:22 pm The first bill to abolish slavery came to a vote in 1791, and was rejected 163-88.
And they to continued loosing until 1807. Some major shift happened to go from 163 - 88 to a resounding about turn 283 - 16. I believe the fear of God was the key factor.
Hmmm. Ok . . .
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by chewybrian »

Ecurb wrote: February 9th, 2022, 5:33 pm I imagine you are correct about the criteria measured by sociologists. But it seems a negative way of viewing "happiness". Security is well and good -- but mountaineers, ski racers, sky divers and big-wave surfers seem to seek happiness elsewhere. What about social and familial relationships? Aren't they more important to "happiness" than the security a good welfare system provides? Perhaps the relationships and sense of comminity provided by religious groups are as important as free university.
Well, "happiness" is a slippery term. I will submit that "self-actualization" is a better way to describe what we should be after. I think Malsow was spot on with his hierarchy of needs. The top levels of the pyramid are necessarily subjective and up to the individual. So, maximum freedom might be said to allow them to proceed on their personal journey. However, this is putting the cart before the horse if their physiological and security needs are not met. In such cases, there is no foundation upon which to build the pyramid, and people can continue to live in fear, anxiety, anger and depression unless there are reasonable ways for those primary needs to be met. Society might therefore be said to have a duty and a keen interest in helping people to meet those needs. So, you can see why I think that we need to have a mix of safety nets and freedoms to promote our individual and (eventually, hopefully...) collective development.

Less well known is Maslow's dichotomy of cognition, which is perhaps the simplest yet most useful concept I have encountered in philosophy/psychology. Deficiency cognition is a way of looking at the world in terms of the things you don't have but desire to have and then trying to find a way to get them. In this view of the world, others are easily seen as obstacles or tools to help you get the thing you want. It aligns perfectly with any vice you can name. Being cognition is a way of looking at the world in terms of creating the best possible experience for yourself and others. In that view, others are sought out for positive encounters, and the value is the joy of being with them and sharing experiences rather than using them or pushing them out of the way to get what you want. This way of being aligns with virtue. (I know this second part of my reply might not be right on topic, but I don't think it gets brought up or considered as much as it should be,)
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by Ecurb »

chewybrian wrote: February 10th, 2022, 10:19 am
Well, "happiness" is a slippery term. I will submit that "self-actualization" is a better way to describe what we should be after. I think Malsow was spot on with his hierarchy of needs. The top levels of the pyramid are necessarily subjective and up to the individual. So, maximum freedom might be said to allow them to proceed on their personal journey. However, this is putting the cart before the horse if their physiological and security needs are not met. In such cases, there is no foundation upon which to build the pyramid, and people can continue to live in fear, anxiety, anger and depression unless there are reasonable ways for those primary needs to be met. Society might therefore be said to have a duty and a keen interest in helping people to meet those needs. So, you can see why I think that we need to have a mix of safety nets and freedoms to promote our individual and (eventually, hopefully...) collective development.
Basic needs are certainly met now better than ever before (especially in rich countries, even our own, which could do better). But are we happier? Here G.K. Chesterton chips in, from the last paragraph of his book about his frequent debate opponent, George Bernard Shaw. In one of their debates, Shaw said to Chesterton, "If I were as fat as you, I'd hang myself."

"And if I ever decide to hang myself," replied GK, "I'll use you for a rope."

Still, they repsected each other, and Shaw wrote that Chesterton's book was "the best work of literary art I have yet provoked."

The "one" in the last sentence is, of course, Shaw.

I know it is all very strange. From the height of eight hundred years ago, or of eight hundred years hence, our age must look incredibly odd. We call the twelfth century ascetic. We call our own time hedonist and full of praise and pleasure. But in the ascetic age the love of life was evident and enormous, so that it had to be restrained. In an hedonist age pleasure has always sunk low, so that it has to be encouraged. How high the sea of human happiness rose in the Middle Ages, we now only know by the colossal walls that they built to keep it in bounds. How low human happiness sank in the twentieth century our children will only know by these extraordinary modern books, which tell people that it is a duty to be cheerful and that life is not so bad after all. Humanity never produces optimists till it has ceased to produce happy men. It is strange to be obliged to impose a holiday like a fast, and to drive men to a banquet with spears. But this shall be written of our time: that when the spirit who denies besieged the last citadel, blaspheming life itself, there were some, there was one especially, whose voice was heard and whose spear was never broken.
I love the line about "driv(ing) men to the banquet with spears".
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: February 9th, 2022, 8:41 pm
GE Morton wrote: February 9th, 2022, 8:22 pm
Because maximizing returns to the stockholders is the job they hired him to do. They are ones paying him.
So what? They can choose not to pay him (if they find his work not worth the money). Surely in your own veiw of things he's out to maximize his own benefits, not those of the stock holders.
"So what"? You answered your own question. If the board decides he is not maximizing their income they'll fire him (that happens regularly). Hence his own self-interest depends upon doing the job he was hired to do, namely, maximizing returns to shareholders.
He's not a U.S. President or a soldier. He hasn't taken any oaths, with his hand upon (horrors!) the Bible vowing to work for the interest of the stock holders.
Of course he has. Every contract constitutes such an oath --- a reciprocal promise of the parties to do certain things.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by GE Morton »

chewybrian wrote: February 10th, 2022, 10:19 am
Well, "happiness" is a slippery term. I will submit that "self-actualization" is a better way to describe what we should be after. I think Malsow was spot on with his hierarchy of needs. The top levels of the pyramid are necessarily subjective and up to the individual. So, maximum freedom might be said to allow them to proceed on their personal journey. However, this is putting the cart before the horse if their physiological and security needs are not met. In such cases, there is no foundation upon which to build the pyramid, and people can continue to live in fear, anxiety, anger and depression unless there are reasonable ways for those primary needs to be met.
Some pundit (I forgot who) once observed of the social sciences, "The parts that are true are obvious; the parts that are not obvious are nonsense."

That pretty well describes Maslow's "hierarchy." When examining the motivations of actual individuals (as indicated by their behavior) departures from the hierarchy are ubiquitous. The priorities of needs vary from person to person, from culture to culture, and from time to time. For some, the need for acceptance and standing in some group overrides the desire for safety; for others group acceptance and standing has no appeal at all. Likewise for the "need" for "love and friendships." For some, e.g., daredevils, "self-actualization" overrides the need for safety; for others (some religious paupers, drug addicts) that need even overrides the need for food and shelter. Failure to attain any of those "higher" needs can also override the "basic" needs, as for all suicidal persons.

Maslow's hierarchy is, at best, a simple-minded gloss, heavily burdened with an ideological idealism, that doesn't begin to describe the chaotic complexity of human behavior.
Society might therefore be said to have a duty and a keen interest in helping people to meet those needs. So, you can see why I think that we need to have a mix of safety nets and freedoms to promote our individual and (eventually, hopefully...) collective development.
Well, that is a non-sequitur. Maslow's hierarchy sought to categorize the motivations of individuals. It has no moral implications. And, of course, "society," not being a moral agent, has no moral duties. Only its individual members can have them, and if you claim Alfie has a duty to meet some need of Bruno's, you'll need some sort of moral argument for that claim.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: February 10th, 2022, 1:03 pm
"So what"? You answered your own question. If the board decides he is not maximizing their income they'll fire him (that happens regularly). Hence his own self-interest depends upon doing the job he was hired to do, namely, maximizing returns to shareholders.



Of course he has. Every contract constitutes such an oath --- a reciprocal promise of the parties to do certain things.
Not all executives are under contract, and most contracts do not spell out fiduciary duties as you suggest.

Also, the executive who thinks his duty is to his colleagues and his customers is probably more likely to run a successful company than the one who thinks his primary duty is to maximize profits for the owners. The latter is a wage slave in the worst sense -- cow-towing to authority in order to hang on to a job which he is probably not very good at. The former will be more likely to steer a successful company (long term, at least).
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by GE Morton »

Ecurb wrote: February 10th, 2022, 7:07 pm
Not all executives are under contract, and most contracts do not spell out fiduciary duties as you suggest.
There is no need to spell them out. They are implicit.
Also, the executive who thinks his duty is to his colleagues and his customers is probably more likely to run a successful company than the one who thinks his primary duty is to maximize profits for the owners.
The former is usually necessary to accomplish the latter. But An exec who thinks his duties end with the former will soon be out of a job.
Ecurb
Posts: 2138
Joined: May 9th, 2012, 3:13 pm

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by Ecurb »

GE Morton wrote: February 10th, 2022, 11:44 pm

The former is usually necessary to accomplish the latter. But An exec who thinks his duties end with the former will soon be out of a job.
That's not true. An exec who doesn't create profits successfully may be out of a job -- but it is not necessary to think one has a DUTY to profit the stock holders. The executive who thinks his duty is to himself, his colleagues and his customers will also -- as a byproduct -- produce profits for the owners. Surrely the owners are interested in the results, not in dutiful obeisance of the exectuive. (I'll grant that some owners -- Donald Trump perhaps -- are obsessed with dutiful obeisance, and care more about that than about profits or growth. Profit and growth, by the way, are two different things, both of which benefit the owners.)
User avatar
chewybrian
Posts: 1594
Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Florida man

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by chewybrian »

GE Morton wrote: February 10th, 2022, 2:20 pm
chewybrian wrote: February 10th, 2022, 10:19 am
Society might therefore be said to have a duty and a keen interest in helping people to meet those needs. So, you can see why I think that we need to have a mix of safety nets and freedoms to promote our individual and (eventually, hopefully...) collective development.
Well, that is a non-sequitur. Maslow's hierarchy sought to categorize the motivations of individuals. It has no moral implications. And, of course, "society," not being a moral agent, has no moral duties. Only its individual members can have them, and if you claim Alfie has a duty to meet some need of Bruno's, you'll need some sort of moral argument for that claim.
The world would be a better place if we did X. We can afford to do X without any undue hardship. Therefore we should do X. Uncertainty about housing, health care, transportation and such is a fact of life for most people in the US. Most of us are just a couple paychecks away from disaster. Living in that situation indefinitely is a formula for mental illness, and makes it all but impossible for many folks to self-actualize. We should prefer to live in a society of folks who are not mentally ill, who are willing and able to work for the common good because they are not living in fear. If we are on the path to self-actualization, we should naturally want to help others to take that path if we can.

^That is what a moral argument looks like, I suppose, and that is what I am saying. A moral argument doesn't show that Alfie will be richer if he helps Bruno. The whole Alfie/Bruno model which you seem to mistake for the actual world is just a method for enshrining selfishness and turning vice into virtue. We can't create a better world if we are all focused on personal gain all the time.

Huxley was asked what advice he might have for non-philosophers after a lifetime spent studying philosophy. He replied that he was a bit embarrassed to say that he would simply advise them to be a bit kinder to each other. I don't think he should have been embarrassed in the least. That's about as good as it gets. Moral arguments fit his criteria, not yours.
"If determinism holds, then past events have conspired to cause me to hold this view--it is out of my control. Either I am right about free will, or it is not my fault that I am wrong."
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by GE Morton »

chewybrian wrote: February 12th, 2022, 5:26 am
The world would be a better place if we did X. We can afford to do X without any undue hardship. Therefore we should do X. Uncertainty about housing, health care, transportation and such is a fact of life for most people in the US. Most of us are just a couple paychecks away from disaster. Living in that situation indefinitely is a formula for mental illness, and makes it all but impossible for many folks to self-actualize. We should prefer to live in a society of folks who are not mentally ill, who are willing and able to work for the common good because they are not living in fear. If we are on the path to self-actualization, we should naturally want to help others to take that path if we can.
That argument embodies all the fallacies and non-sequiturs I previously pointed out. It persists in assuming that some collective ("the world," "we," "society"), rather than individual moral agents, is the primary unit of analysis, i.e., the subject of moral concern and the bearer of moral obligations. That assumption is empirically false, and propositions which embody it are non-cognitive (whether they are true or false is undeterminable).

For example, whether the "world would be a better place if we did X," for any given X --- assuming you mean "better for people" --- can only be determined by determining whether doing X would be better for Alfie, Bruno, Chauncey, and every other individual included among those "people." We can make no claim that "The world would be a better place if we did X" WITHOUT making those individual determinations. And, of course, when we set about making them, we'll soon find that doing X may be better for Alfie, but not necessarily for Bruno or Chauncey. So the original claim about "the world" will be false.

Same with "undue hardship." Undue for whom? Unless you spell out the hardships X imposes on each person, and find that it imposes no hardships on anyone, then you can't claim that X is "without any hardship." But, of course, you said, "undue hardships." But you give no criteria for determining whether a hardship is "undue," and could not do so without knowing how X would impact Alfie, Bruno, Chauncey, etc. I assume you would say that If X confers a benefit on Alfie, but imposes a hardship on Bruno, then that hardship is not "undue" if the benefit to Alfie "outweighs" the hardship on Bruno. But you can't do that weighing, because the benefit and the hardship are both subjective and occur in the value hierarchies of different individuals, and interpersonal comparisons of utility cannot be made.

"Most of us are just a couple paychecks away from disaster. Living in that situation indefinitely is a formula for mental illness, and makes it all but impossible for many folks to self-actualize."

Well, no. The first sentence is false, and the two sentences contradict each other. Losing a job is not a "disaster" for hardly anyone. It is a setback, a challenge, and source of angst for some, but one most people overcome and allay in fairly short order (by finding another job). Calling it a "disaster" is histrionic hyperbole, lefty demagoguery. And if "most of us" face that "disaster," and that situation is a "formula for mental illness," does that mean most of us are mentally ill?

"We should prefer to live in a society of folks who are not mentally ill, who are willing and able to work for the common good because they are not living in fear."

And there it is again . . . "willing to work for the common good." There is no common good. There are only "good for Alfie," "good for Bruno," etc. And those goods differ from person to person.
^That is what a moral argument looks like, I suppose, and that is what I am saying.
No, that is not what a moral argument looks like. At least, not a sound moral argument. The latter begins from premises which are self-evident or empirically verifiable and yields conclusions which have determinable truth values and follow logically from the premises. No do they beg the question by embedding subjective judgments of value into the premises.
User avatar
AmericanKestrel
Posts: 356
Joined: May 22nd, 2021, 6:26 am
Favorite Philosopher: Yagnyavalkya
Location: US

Re: Religiosity mitigates mental health burden of poverty

Post by AmericanKestrel »

GE Morton wrote: February 12th, 2022, 2:07 pm
That argument embodies all the fallacies and non-sequiturs I previously pointed out. It persists in assuming that some collective ("the world," "we," "society"), rather than individual moral agents, is the primary unit of analysis, i.e., the subject of moral concern and the bearer of moral obligations. That assumption is empirically false, and propositions which embody it are non-cognitive (whether they are true or false is undeterminable).

For example, whether the "world would be a better place if we did X," for any given X --- assuming you mean "better for people" --- can only be determined by determining whether doing X would be better for Alfie, Bruno, Chauncey, and every other individual included among those "people." We can make no claim that "The world would be a better place if we did X" WITHOUT making those individual determinations. And, of course, when we set about making them, we'll soon find that doing X may be better for Alfie, but not necessarily for Bruno or Chauncey. So the original claim about "the world" will be false.
Democratic civil societies impose certain values by means of legislation, mandate, constitution etc. It does not depend on any individual's moral value, which may be non-existent, to guide them to simply do the right thing. Like this, the US constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We, the people, will do all these things.
That is a moral code. It governs government actions to establish laws for fair trade, progressive tax rates, welfare programs, health care, school lunch, civil rights, free public school, right to form unions etc etc. We the people grant the govt the power to do these things.
"The Serpent did not lie."
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

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