Can Fear Be a Justified Tool in Managing Public Health?

Use this forum to discuss the May 2024 Philosophy Book of the Month, Neither Safe Nor Effective (2nd Edition): The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines by Dr. Colleen Huber
Post Reply
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2366
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Can Fear Be a Justified Tool in Managing Public Health?

Post by Sushan »

This topic is about the May 2024 Philosophy Book of the Month, Neither Safe Nor Effective (2nd Edition): The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines by Dr. Colleen Huber


Fear as a Tool.jpg


During crises, public health messages often rely on instilling a sense of urgency and fear to prompt collective action. This tactic was evident throughout the pandemic as governments and health organizations worked to mitigate the spread of the virus and encourage vaccine uptake.

However, the ethical implications of using fear as a motivator are complex and multifaceted. Fear can compel swift action and compliance but can also lead to panic, misinformation, and potentially coercive policies that compromise individual freedoms. Dr. Huber’s skepticism about the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines underscores how fear can also foster distrust and resistance when transparency and patient autonomy are perceived as being compromised.

Does the use of fear enhance the effectiveness of public health campaigns, or does it undermine trust and informed consent? What are the long-term implications for society if fear becomes a standard tool in public health policy?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 8145
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Can Fear Be a Justified Tool in Managing Public Health?

Post by LuckyR »

Sushan wrote: May 28th, 2024, 1:48 am This topic is about the May 2024 Philosophy Book of the Month, Neither Safe Nor Effective (2nd Edition): The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines by Dr. Colleen Huber



Fear as a Tool.jpg



During crises, public health messages often rely on instilling a sense of urgency and fear to prompt collective action. This tactic was evident throughout the pandemic as governments and health organizations worked to mitigate the spread of the virus and encourage vaccine uptake.

However, the ethical implications of using fear as a motivator are complex and multifaceted. Fear can compel swift action and compliance but can also lead to panic, misinformation, and potentially coercive policies that compromise individual freedoms. Dr. Huber’s skepticism about the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines underscores how fear can also foster distrust and resistance when transparency and patient autonomy are perceived as being compromised.

Does the use of fear enhance the effectiveness of public health campaigns, or does it undermine trust and informed consent? What are the long-term implications for society if fear becomes a standard tool in public health policy?
Well as it happens for every word put out by the CDC on Covid during the pandemic, the media put out an encyclopedia's worth of volume on it. Thus the fearmongering can be laid at the feet of the media, not the government. That's not to say that the CDC didn't caution the public about the seriousness of the virus, but they seemed in my opinion to try to stay factual. It just so happened that the facts were scary.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
JackDaydream
Posts: 3371
Joined: July 25th, 2021, 5:16 pm

Re: Can Fear Be a Justified Tool in Managing Public Health?

Post by JackDaydream »

Fear is a psychological disposition or mental state. It is hard to know about the interplay between fear and faith, including the pandemic. Fear may be useful in pointing to risks, but it may go too far, when risks may be perceived in a concrete way. It may come down to the way in which risks are perceived in the larger scope of imagination.
LifeUnboxed
Posts: 8
Joined: May 30th, 2024, 9:02 am

Re: Can Fear Be a Justified Tool in Managing Public Health?

Post by LifeUnboxed »

Yes, Fear Can Be Justified:
Fear can be a powerful motivator for prompt behavior change. In public health emergencies, such as pandemics or outbreaks of contagious diseases, fear can drive individuals to take immediate protective measures like vaccination, social distancing, and wearing masks.

Fear can effectively raise awareness about serious health risks. Public health campaigns often use fear-based messaging to highlight the dangers of smoking, substance abuse, or unhealthy eating habits, encouraging people to adopt healthier lifestyles.

In situations where the public might underestimate the severity of a health threat, fear can prevent complacency. It can keep the public vigilant and compliant with health guidelines, thereby controlling the spread of diseases.

Fear can garner public support for necessary but potentially unpopular health policies. During crises, such as a pandemic, fear of the consequences can help the public understand and accept restrictions and regulations aimed at safeguarding health.

Ultimately, if fear-based strategies lead to actions that save lives and reduce the burden on healthcare systems, they can be justified. The primary goal of public health is to protect and improve health outcomes, and fear can be a tool to achieve this goal effectively.

While fear can be a justified tool in managing public health, it must be used ethically and responsibly. Over-reliance on fear can lead to negative consequences such as panic, stigmatization, and mental health issues. Public health authorities must balance fear with accurate information, support, and positive reinforcement to ensure a holistic approach to health management.
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2366
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Can Fear Be a Justified Tool in Managing Public Health?

Post by Sushan »

LuckyR wrote: May 28th, 2024, 3:06 am
Sushan wrote: May 28th, 2024, 1:48 am This topic is about the May 2024 Philosophy Book of the Month, Neither Safe Nor Effective (2nd Edition): The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines by Dr. Colleen Huber



Fear as a Tool.jpg



During crises, public health messages often rely on instilling a sense of urgency and fear to prompt collective action. This tactic was evident throughout the pandemic as governments and health organizations worked to mitigate the spread of the virus and encourage vaccine uptake.

However, the ethical implications of using fear as a motivator are complex and multifaceted. Fear can compel swift action and compliance but can also lead to panic, misinformation, and potentially coercive policies that compromise individual freedoms. Dr. Huber’s skepticism about the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines underscores how fear can also foster distrust and resistance when transparency and patient autonomy are perceived as being compromised.

Does the use of fear enhance the effectiveness of public health campaigns, or does it undermine trust and informed consent? What are the long-term implications for society if fear becomes a standard tool in public health policy?
Well as it happens for every word put out by the CDC on Covid during the pandemic, the media put out an encyclopedia's worth of volume on it. Thus the fearmongering can be laid at the feet of the media, not the government. That's not to say that the CDC didn't caution the public about the seriousness of the virus, but they seemed in my opinion to try to stay factual. It just so happened that the facts were scary.
Thank you for your perspective on the role of the media versus governmental bodies like the CDC during the pandemic. Your point highlights an essential aspect of public health communication: the difference between issuing necessary warnings and sensationalism that may lead to fearmongering.

It’s true that the media can amplify messages significantly, often adding a layer of urgency or alarm that might not be as pronounced in the original communication from health authorities. This amplification can serve to inform but also has the potential to heighten fear disproportionately. As you noted, while the CDC aimed to remain factual, the inherent severity of the COVID-19 situation lent itself naturally to a fear-based reaction among the public.

However, it's crucial to explore further how these dynamics affect public trust and compliance. Research has shown that while fear can increase compliance with certain behaviors in the short term, it can also lead to fatigue and resistance over time, particularly if the public perceives the threat as overstated or manipulated. This is discussed in the literature on health communication strategies, where the effectiveness of fear appeals is still debated.

Reflecting on this, do you think there are ways health organizations and the media could improve their strategies to balance urgent messaging with maintaining public trust? How might we better manage this balance to avoid desensitization to genuine health threats and ensure that public responses are both informed and proportionate?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2366
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Can Fear Be a Justified Tool in Managing Public Health?

Post by Sushan »

JackDaydream wrote: May 28th, 2024, 3:00 pm Fear is a psychological disposition or mental state. It is hard to know about the interplay between fear and faith, including the pandemic. Fear may be useful in pointing to risks, but it may go too far, when risks may be perceived in a concrete way. It may come down to the way in which risks are perceived in the larger scope of imagination.
You make an insightful point about the psychological nuances of fear, particularly in the context of how risks are perceived and processed by individuals and communities. This interplay between fear and perception indeed plays a critical role in public health responses.

The effectiveness of fear in public health messaging is a topic that has been extensively debated. While fear can highlight the seriousness of risks, as you mentioned, there is a delicate balance to be maintained to prevent it from leading to irrational or counterproductive behaviors. Research suggests that fear-based messages can be a double-edged sword.

In the context of the pandemic, the use of fear might have initially been necessary to convey the severity of COVID-19 quickly and effectively to encourage compliance with health guidelines such as mask-wearing and social distancing. However, as the pandemic progressed, this approach needed to be balanced with clear, empowering information that helps people feel capable of taking meaningful action to protect themselves and their communities.

Considering your thoughts on perception and the role of imagination in assessing risks, how do you think public health officials can better tailor their messages to harness a productive level of concern without tipping into excessive fear? What strategies might be employed to ensure that fear is used judiciously and that it supports, rather than undermines, public trust and long-term compliance with health guidance?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2366
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Can Fear Be a Justified Tool in Managing Public Health?

Post by Sushan »

LifeUnboxed wrote: May 30th, 2024, 9:08 am Yes, Fear Can Be Justified:
Fear can be a powerful motivator for prompt behavior change. In public health emergencies, such as pandemics or outbreaks of contagious diseases, fear can drive individuals to take immediate protective measures like vaccination, social distancing, and wearing masks.

Fear can effectively raise awareness about serious health risks. Public health campaigns often use fear-based messaging to highlight the dangers of smoking, substance abuse, or unhealthy eating habits, encouraging people to adopt healthier lifestyles.

In situations where the public might underestimate the severity of a health threat, fear can prevent complacency. It can keep the public vigilant and compliant with health guidelines, thereby controlling the spread of diseases.

Fear can garner public support for necessary but potentially unpopular health policies. During crises, such as a pandemic, fear of the consequences can help the public understand and accept restrictions and regulations aimed at safeguarding health.

Ultimately, if fear-based strategies lead to actions that save lives and reduce the burden on healthcare systems, they can be justified. The primary goal of public health is to protect and improve health outcomes, and fear can be a tool to achieve this goal effectively.

While fear can be a justified tool in managing public health, it must be used ethically and responsibly. Over-reliance on fear can lead to negative consequences such as panic, stigmatization, and mental health issues. Public health authorities must balance fear with accurate information, support, and positive reinforcement to ensure a holistic approach to health management.
Indeed, fear can serve as a critical motivator for the adoption of health behaviors that prevent disease spread. However, the ethical deployment of fear must be carefully managed to avoid negative outcomes such as panic or resistance.

The effectiveness of fear-based messaging has been documented, such as in campaigns against smoking or promoting vaccination during flu seasons. Research supports the idea that appropriately calibrated fear appeals can enhance message processing and acceptance if they include efficacy messages that tell people how to reduce the threat.

However, as you rightly point out, the use of fear must be balanced with factual information and ethical considerations. The World Health Organization has emphasized the importance of maintaining public trust through transparency and accurate information dissemination. Excessive fear without sufficient support and actionable guidance can lead to misinformation, as seen in various instances during the COVID-19 pandemic, where fear sometimes outpaced factual understanding.

Moreover, long-term reliance on fear can have deleterious effects on mental health and societal cohesion. While fear can initiate compliance, it might not sustain long-term behavior change without intrinsic motivation and understanding.

Thus, while fear can be a justified tool, it necessitates a balanced approach that includes educating the public about the reasons behind certain health measures and providing constant updates as situations evolve. This approach ensures that fear is not just a tool for compliance but part of a broader strategy to foster informed and voluntary cooperation.

In your view, how can public health authorities better integrate fear-based messages with positive messaging to create a more effective and less coercive public health communication strategy?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
LifeUnboxed
Posts: 8
Joined: May 30th, 2024, 9:02 am

Re: Can Fear Be a Justified Tool in Managing Public Health?

Post by LifeUnboxed »

Thank you for highlighting the nuanced role of fear in public health messaging. Indeed, fear can serve as a powerful motivator for adopting health behaviors, but it must be wielded carefully to avoid unintended consequences.

I agree that fear-based messaging can be effective, as evidenced by campaigns against smoking and promoting vaccination. However, it is crucial to complement fear appeals with factual information and efficacy messages to empower individuals to take action. As you mentioned, the World Health Organization's emphasis on transparency and accurate information dissemination underscores the importance of maintaining public trust.

To integrate fear-based messages with positive messaging effectively, public health authorities should adopt a multifaceted approach. This could involve providing clear explanations of the rationale behind health measures, coupled with practical guidance on how individuals can reduce the perceived threat. Additionally, ongoing communication and updates are essential to ensure that fear is not the sole driver of behavior change but part of a broader strategy to promote informed decision-making and voluntary cooperation.

Furthermore, public health campaigns should aim to address the potential negative consequences of excessive fear, such as misinformation and adverse impacts on mental health. By fostering a balance between fear and positive messaging, authorities can create a more effective and less coercive public health communication strategy that promotes both short-term compliance and long-term behavior change.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 8145
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Can Fear Be a Justified Tool in Managing Public Health?

Post by LuckyR »

Sushan wrote: June 3rd, 2024, 2:43 am
LuckyR wrote: May 28th, 2024, 3:06 am
Sushan wrote: May 28th, 2024, 1:48 am This topic is about the May 2024 Philosophy Book of the Month, Neither Safe Nor Effective (2nd Edition): The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines by Dr. Colleen Huber



Fear as a Tool.jpg



During crises, public health messages often rely on instilling a sense of urgency and fear to prompt collective action. This tactic was evident throughout the pandemic as governments and health organizations worked to mitigate the spread of the virus and encourage vaccine uptake.

However, the ethical implications of using fear as a motivator are complex and multifaceted. Fear can compel swift action and compliance but can also lead to panic, misinformation, and potentially coercive policies that compromise individual freedoms. Dr. Huber’s skepticism about the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines underscores how fear can also foster distrust and resistance when transparency and patient autonomy are perceived as being compromised.

Does the use of fear enhance the effectiveness of public health campaigns, or does it undermine trust and informed consent? What are the long-term implications for society if fear becomes a standard tool in public health policy?
Well as it happens for every word put out by the CDC on Covid during the pandemic, the media put out an encyclopedia's worth of volume on it. Thus the fearmongering can be laid at the feet of the media, not the government. That's not to say that the CDC didn't caution the public about the seriousness of the virus, but they seemed in my opinion to try to stay factual. It just so happened that the facts were scary.
Thank you for your perspective on the role of the media versus governmental bodies like the CDC during the pandemic. Your point highlights an essential aspect of public health communication: the difference between issuing necessary warnings and sensationalism that may lead to fearmongering.

It’s true that the media can amplify messages significantly, often adding a layer of urgency or alarm that might not be as pronounced in the original communication from health authorities. This amplification can serve to inform but also has the potential to heighten fear disproportionately. As you noted, while the CDC aimed to remain factual, the inherent severity of the COVID-19 situation lent itself naturally to a fear-based reaction among the public.

However, it's crucial to explore further how these dynamics affect public trust and compliance. Research has shown that while fear can increase compliance with certain behaviors in the short term, it can also lead to fatigue and resistance over time, particularly if the public perceives the threat as overstated or manipulated. This is discussed in the literature on health communication strategies, where the effectiveness of fear appeals is still debated.

Reflecting on this, do you think there are ways health organizations and the media could improve their strategies to balance urgent messaging with maintaining public trust? How might we better manage this balance to avoid desensitization to genuine health threats and ensure that public responses are both informed and proportionate?
In my opinion, those in charge of governmental communication in the public health sector should acknowledge that in the current Post Truth era, there is a moderately large minority of the public who don't and won't trust the government (unless it is saying exactly what they already believe). I believe the maximum benefit to the public overall is to gear the communication style and content towards those who will believe it and those who will consider it and not bend over backwards in their messaging to try to convince the unconvincable. Making that attempt turns a logical review of the rationale for a policy into a sort of advertisement style of communication that sounds insincere and self-serving and risks losing the support of your core audience by attempting to persuade the lunatic fringe.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2366
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Can Fear Be a Justified Tool in Managing Public Health?

Post by Sushan »

LifeUnboxed wrote: June 3rd, 2024, 4:04 am Thank you for highlighting the nuanced role of fear in public health messaging. Indeed, fear can serve as a powerful motivator for adopting health behaviors, but it must be wielded carefully to avoid unintended consequences.

I agree that fear-based messaging can be effective, as evidenced by campaigns against smoking and promoting vaccination. However, it is crucial to complement fear appeals with factual information and efficacy messages to empower individuals to take action. As you mentioned, the World Health Organization's emphasis on transparency and accurate information dissemination underscores the importance of maintaining public trust.

To integrate fear-based messages with positive messaging effectively, public health authorities should adopt a multifaceted approach. This could involve providing clear explanations of the rationale behind health measures, coupled with practical guidance on how individuals can reduce the perceived threat. Additionally, ongoing communication and updates are essential to ensure that fear is not the sole driver of behavior change but part of a broader strategy to promote informed decision-making and voluntary cooperation.

Furthermore, public health campaigns should aim to address the potential negative consequences of excessive fear, such as misinformation and adverse impacts on mental health. By fostering a balance between fear and positive messaging, authorities can create a more effective and less coercive public health communication strategy that promotes both short-term compliance and long-term behavior change.
Thank you for pointing out the need for a multifaceted approach to public health messaging. I completely agree that fear can be a useful motivator but must be balanced with clear, factual information and positive reinforcement to avoid unintended consequences like panic or resistance.

One strategy for achieving this balance could be incorporating stories of resilience and recovery alongside warnings about the risks. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, sharing stories of individuals who recovered from severe illness thanks to vaccination could have complemented messages about the dangers of the virus. This approach can provide a sense of hope and agency, showing that there are tangible steps people can take to protect themselves and their communities.

Another aspect to consider is the role of trusted community leaders and influencers in disseminating public health messages. Studies have shown that people are more likely to follow health guidelines if they hear them from sources they trust and relate to. Engaging local leaders and influencers can help amplify the message in a way that resonates with different segments of the population.

It's also important to maintain ongoing dialogue with the public, addressing their concerns and questions transparently. This could involve regular updates from health officials, open forums for discussion, and readily accessible resources for further information. By fostering an environment of trust and open communication, public health authorities can help mitigate the negative effects of fear-based messaging.

What are your thoughts on the role of community engagement in enhancing the effectiveness of public health campaigns? Do you have any additional strategies in mind for balancing fear and positive messaging in public health communication?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
User avatar
Sushan
Book of the Month Discussion Leader
Posts: 2366
Joined: February 19th, 2021, 8:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Can Fear Be a Justified Tool in Managing Public Health?

Post by Sushan »

LuckyR wrote: June 4th, 2024, 1:41 am
Sushan wrote: June 3rd, 2024, 2:43 am
LuckyR wrote: May 28th, 2024, 3:06 am
Sushan wrote: May 28th, 2024, 1:48 am This topic is about the May 2024 Philosophy Book of the Month, Neither Safe Nor Effective (2nd Edition): The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines by Dr. Colleen Huber



Fear as a Tool.jpg



During crises, public health messages often rely on instilling a sense of urgency and fear to prompt collective action. This tactic was evident throughout the pandemic as governments and health organizations worked to mitigate the spread of the virus and encourage vaccine uptake.

However, the ethical implications of using fear as a motivator are complex and multifaceted. Fear can compel swift action and compliance but can also lead to panic, misinformation, and potentially coercive policies that compromise individual freedoms. Dr. Huber’s skepticism about the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines underscores how fear can also foster distrust and resistance when transparency and patient autonomy are perceived as being compromised.

Does the use of fear enhance the effectiveness of public health campaigns, or does it undermine trust and informed consent? What are the long-term implications for society if fear becomes a standard tool in public health policy?
Well as it happens for every word put out by the CDC on Covid during the pandemic, the media put out an encyclopedia's worth of volume on it. Thus the fearmongering can be laid at the feet of the media, not the government. That's not to say that the CDC didn't caution the public about the seriousness of the virus, but they seemed in my opinion to try to stay factual. It just so happened that the facts were scary.
Thank you for your perspective on the role of the media versus governmental bodies like the CDC during the pandemic. Your point highlights an essential aspect of public health communication: the difference between issuing necessary warnings and sensationalism that may lead to fearmongering.

It’s true that the media can amplify messages significantly, often adding a layer of urgency or alarm that might not be as pronounced in the original communication from health authorities. This amplification can serve to inform but also has the potential to heighten fear disproportionately. As you noted, while the CDC aimed to remain factual, the inherent severity of the COVID-19 situation lent itself naturally to a fear-based reaction among the public.

However, it's crucial to explore further how these dynamics affect public trust and compliance. Research has shown that while fear can increase compliance with certain behaviors in the short term, it can also lead to fatigue and resistance over time, particularly if the public perceives the threat as overstated or manipulated. This is discussed in the literature on health communication strategies, where the effectiveness of fear appeals is still debated.

Reflecting on this, do you think there are ways health organizations and the media could improve their strategies to balance urgent messaging with maintaining public trust? How might we better manage this balance to avoid desensitization to genuine health threats and ensure that public responses are both informed and proportionate?
In my opinion, those in charge of governmental communication in the public health sector should acknowledge that in the current Post Truth era, there is a moderately large minority of the public who don't and won't trust the government (unless it is saying exactly what they already believe). I believe the maximum benefit to the public overall is to gear the communication style and content towards those who will believe it and those who will consider it and not bend over backwards in their messaging to try to convince the unconvincable. Making that attempt turns a logical review of the rationale for a policy into a sort of advertisement style of communication that sounds insincere and self-serving and risks losing the support of your core audience by attempting to persuade the lunatic fringe.
Indeed, focusing on clear, factual communication for those who are willing to listen and consider the information might be the most practical approach. For instance, during the H1N1 pandemic, the CDC and other health organizations utilized straightforward communication strategies to provide updates and guidance, which helped maintain a level of trust among the more receptive parts of the population (CDC, 2010). This approach can prevent the dilution of critical messages, ensuring they remain impactful for those who are likely to adhere to guidelines.

However, we also need to consider strategies for reaching out to those who are skeptical. While it may be challenging, employing methods such as engaging local community leaders or influencers who are trusted within specific communities could help bridge the gap. For example, during the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, some success was seen when local leaders and healthcare providers communicated directly with their communities (WHO, 2021). This can personalize the message and potentially mitigate some distrust.

Additionally, transparency about the uncertainties and evolving nature of scientific knowledge can foster a more genuine connection with the public. Acknowledging what is known, what is still being studied, and why certain recommendations are made can help build credibility. This was somewhat effectively demonstrated during the Ebola outbreak, where regular updates and transparent communication from health authorities helped manage public fear and compliance (World Health Organization, 2016).

Do you think that employing community-specific strategies and maintaining transparency could help in bridging the trust gap, even with those who are more skeptical? What other methods might we consider to improve the overall effectiveness and reception of public health communications?
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied upon to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers”

– William James
Post Reply

Return to “Discuss "Neither Safe Nor Effective (2nd Edition): The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines" by Dr. Colleen Huber”

2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...

The Advent of Time: A Solution to the Problem of Evil...
by Indignus Servus
November 2024

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age

Reconceptualizing Mental Illness in the Digital Age
by Elliott B. Martin, Jr.
October 2024

How is God Involved in Evolution?

How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters

Launchpad Republic: America's Entrepreneurial Edge and Why It Matters
by Howard Wolk
July 2024

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side

Quest: Finding Freddie: Reflections from the Other Side
by Thomas Richard Spradlin
June 2024

Neither Safe Nor Effective

Neither Safe Nor Effective
by Dr. Colleen Huber
May 2024

Now or Never

Now or Never
by Mary Wasche
April 2024

Meditations

Meditations
by Marcus Aurelius
March 2024

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

The In-Between: Life in the Micro

The In-Between: Life in the Micro
by Christian Espinosa
January 2024

2023 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

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