Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D,B.C.S.A.,DAPA.

Dr. Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D,B.C.S.A.,DAPA.
e-mail: batushkad@yahoo.com

Thursday, August 31, 2006


I would like to know what your supposed "scientific screening tools" consist of. Your colleagues vote 'disorders' in and out of the DSM. There are certainly political machinations at work. Take for example, homosexuality, once considered a 'disorder', now no longer. Why?
The premise of bio-psychiatry today is to consider these various contrived disorders as the product of a 'chemical imbalance', however there exists no such thing. Even Sharfstein, the president of the APA acknowledged this by stating that 'there is no clear cut test for chemical imbalances." If you read my presentation, "Thinking Outside the Bio-Psychiatric Paradigm", you will find other references in this regard. In the early 1900's the idea was that 'humoral imbalances', improper blood flow to the brain caused mental illness which led to the development of a number of oppressive treatments.
Each era has contrived a new conception of the causation of mental illness, and the 'treatments' often are oppressive.
I would like to see your evidence that the various disorders listed in the DSM are 'diseases'. When we imply 'disease' we are implying a physical abnormality. What do we find in an autopsy of those who are labeled 'mentally ill"? There is no evidence of a physical abnormality.
You make the claim that you address 'symptoms', thus this is an admission that you are not getting to the root cause of anything but merely masking something by subduing behaviors. People are becoming reliant on mood altering drugs to cope with these 'symptoms', but how would it be any different for an individual to choose to use recreational drugs or have a few shots of whiskey to 'tone down' after a stressful day. What really is the difference between some of the prescribed drugs versus illicit drugs? One is better solely because we have the MD okaying it?

In regards to my statement, " "We are looking for externals, particularly drugs, to resolve our problems. But they do not, and in some instances our children have commited suicide and children on stimulants have developed psychosis. I assume psychiatrists can say they have 'treated' the problem, as these children are no longer hyperactive, depressed, etc., rather they are dead."
I offer no apology as psychiatrists certainly have offered no apology to the children or their families who I have seen who have experienced the damaging effects of psychiatry. Many families have sought my aid and I have worked alongside their pediatricians because they developed such things as tardive dyskinesia, psychosis, or became suicidal because of the 'treatments' offered by psychiatry.
And I am also aware of families of those who lost their children because of psychiatric drugs. Thus, I can again say with no apology, that psychiatry thinks it has a solution to the problems, but the solution offered led to harm. It is a violation of the oath as a physician to do no harm.
Where did people turn prior to the 'wonders' of psychiatry, think about that. Psychiatry has become a replacement for actually seeking meaning, it has become a replacement for spirituality. But- among those in the medical field- psychiatrists have the highest divorce rate, highest addiction rate, highest suicide rate. The majority of training is not in counseling, but rather diagnosing and prescription- thus psychiatrists have no real ability to counsel and not even having their own lives in order, how can they really expect to tell others how to live?

You chide me for stating that 'psychiatrists can say they have treated xyz, but these children are dead." I am not implying that death is a treatment. I am implying that the treatments have caused death in a number of situations or has led to harm. Psychiatry interprets many things as 'progress' which is not. The practice of lobotomy was justified in that though the person after this procedure really had no mind or soul, this did not matter as the person no longer was a disturbance to others. Thus this was seen as 'progress'. Or another example- a child is overly sedated, cannot hardly speak, has impaired functioning from the medications, yet the psychiatrist says, "well, at least he is not aggressive."
Because something can be 'scientifically validated' does not make it good or ethical. Science is important, but so is ethics. There was a study in the late 60's in which using electroshock on children with autism was seen to curb problematic behaviors. This study was scientifically validated but was this an ethical practice? I could probably validate that strapping a child to a chair would reduce hyperactivity, but is this ethical? Is giving often addictive, mind altering substances which we are finding can lead to neurological impairment or psychosis or suicide, is this ethical, even if we can validate that it may subdue 'symptoms'?

It is interesting that you mention the Nazis in your e-mail, as it was psychiatrists who were an integral part of Hitler's network. In the former Soviet Union, political dissidents were labeled mentally ill and tortured by psychiatrists. And more recently, Karadzic in Bosnia was a psychiatrist who was responsible for innumerable war crimes.

The recent school shootings- all of them (except the ones whose medical records are sealed) all received psychiatric care and were either on or withdrawing from a psychiatric drug. Psychiatric drugs induce violence. The FDA is learning that slowly. The British seem to be getting it before us Americans particularly in their ban of Paxil.
You state that you have had individuals who have stated, "you saved my life." First, this implies your arrogance to think that you did anything. When I look at my role as a therapist, I am only a coach, I am there to empower people. If anything changes, it is not my doing but the work of the client themself. Second, you might have provided a temporary ease to their pain and suffering by offering them something to alter their mood, but take this away and they are where? Have you really helped to resolve their inner conflicts or distress? And particularly, if you prescribed them an anti-depressant, they may never be able to get of the drug because the withdrawal effect is so awful. And just how long will they have to take your drugs? Will they become a life long consumer?

Lastly, it is so nice to know that with psychiatry so much 'good' can be done while making so much money.

-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.


Anonymous said...

Well stated. I agree.

Anonymous said...

I am trying to save a family member whose psychiatrist feels that his ten minuet observation carries greater weight than ten years of personal experience on the part of his patient’s parents.
This has been hell!
May I have your consent to publish this post as an article on my fitness website “Lift for Life”?
Kerry Dulin