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

Saturday, February 17, 2007


As I look back, my first encounter with the damaging effects of bio-psychiatry occurred when I was seven years old. Next door to my home in St. Petersburg, FL was a boy of the same age, Gary. Gary and I became immediate friends. We would play for hours in the tree fort in his yard or down by the creek behind our homes. There were many joyful times, yet I knew even at this age, that these probably were the few of Gary's joyful times. He had witnessed domestic violence from his father. His grandmother despised him and gave him beatings causing Child Protective Services to become involved many times. Gary would often appear very sedated and uncoordinated. I never understood why, I do now. He was being drugged into submission. Submission to a disordered world. Bio-psychiatry had its grip on this seven year old boy and never was his pain heard or understood. I moved away from St. Petersburg and lost contact with Gary. I can only pray that he has survived through the ordeal forced upon him.

Saturday, February 03, 2007


You are empowering them. Your colleague is misguided. Youmight dig around, ask him questions and find out where his negativity iscoming from. You may be surprised.

First of all you are not merely on a 'personal campaign'. This is a tactic to isolate the critic and argue it's just his/her has their own axe to grind. There are a whole wealth of critics, both professional Szasz, Breggin et al, and various survivors . It would be a persona campaign if you were the Lone Ranger. You are not, you have plenty of Tontos with you.

Second, you are not placing yourself in a position of 'authority'. On the contrary you are offering an alternative perception regarding drugs etc and letting others side for themselves. It is mainstream psychiatry and the drug industries that claim to be the authorities and have infected the thinking of Western society from child rearing through to addictive behaviour.


While this is easy to say and not as easy to feel, please do not take yourcolleagues' concern's personally.We are the accused and will be until our stand is done.We are for children living a full life.One where they are free to think and feel, a place where a child's emotionscome from their heart and nota pill. Where children learn to use their mind and will and and unlike thosewho question us have a clarity of what is right and wrong.Each of us ended up in this war for different reasons, there is not too muchof a power trip only our collective desire to save childrens' lives, whichyou are doing.Do I take other peoples' children dying personally? You bet I do.I could have been mine.I never planned on being here. When a classmate of my daughters' who washeavily medicated attempted to kill their teacher in front of the wholeclass, my daughter stopped him. This began my investgation into these drugsand their effects on children.Every word I type is my way of thanking God for the lives that were sparedthat day because I knowit could have been mine.You are not wrong and you are not alone.

You wrote that a colleague suggested that you are on a 'personal campaign' to end all psychiatric drugging and you are using a particular agency's clients as 'guinea pigs.' Feedback on how you might respond to this would, it seems to me, depend on whether or not it is true that you personally are seeking to do what you can to end all psychiatric drugging. I know that I am seeking this. In my opinion, if all of the psychiatric drugs were dumped to the bottom of the sea, it would be all the better for the human race and all the worse for the fishes. I realize you might be concerned that if you do have similar beliefs as I do on this matter, and were to be so straight forward with your colleague, it may produce more of a negative reaction than you care to put up with at this time. Thus, you may want to be somewhat more circumspect.With regards to you being accused of treating clients as 'guinea pigs', my reaction would be that I am a supporter of the humane treatment of guinea pigs and my standard of concern for my clients, who are all human beings is even higher than guinea pigs. It is for this reason that I am seeking to inform people of the risks of these drugs, and what safer alternatives are available.Later in your email, you write: >>Second, it was suggested that my pointing out dangers of certain psychiatric drugs was placing myself in a 'role of power' and that disadvantaged individuals would automatically look at my credentials, role, and words, and automatically 'follow wherever I lead them."I pointed out that surveys given to the families I have been involved with all had positive feedback, and this was acknowledged by this colleague.I would point out that my power is partly obtained legitimately by the years of training that I have obtained and the years of experience I have working with clients. All professionals have a certain amount of such power, and it is offset by other professionals with alternative opinions and the pharmaceutical financial interests that have been able to buy off professional opinions and, with huge financial backing, put forth their agenda in the media. There are also other sources of information available to clients, such as discussions that occur among friends and relatives, books, etc. This is the current power structure in our society, it is not my making, and I am doing my best to make it work as best as I can.

Thursday, February 01, 2007


I was recently challenged by a colleague:

First, it was suggested that I am on a 'personal campaign' to end all psychiatric drugging and am using a particular agencies clients as 'guinea pigs.'

Second, it was suggested that my pointing out dangers of certain psychiatric drugs was placing myself in a a 'role of power' and that disadvantaged individuals would automatically look at my credentials, role, and words, and automatically 'follow wherever I lead them."

I look at that it is not a 'personal campaign' but rather examining the role of health professionals to do no harm. I see the importance of informing parents as an ethical responsibility, to allow them to know that there do exist psycho-social alternatives.
I pointed out to this colleague that surveys provided to each family I am involved with all had very positive remarks and feedback from each and everyone. This was acknowledged by the colleague.
The fact that it is known that many of these psychiatric drugs are leading to psychosis, mania, violence, and suicidality should make this ethical responsibility even more paramount.
Also, NEVER have I suggested to a family to stop a psychiatric drug without them first consulting a medical professional and the majority of the time I have been present to also consult with the medical professional myself.
What I find interesting is that a mental health professional (or educator) who would suggest the psychiatric drugging of children as the first or only resort would almost never be called into question. This would not be construed as a 'personal campaign'. However, this is often far more a personal campaign, as the psychiatrist and even the educator often have something to gain by recommending the drugs. What exactly do I have to gain? Nothing. I do not feel I am exercising undue power of individuals but giving them options, and by this am actually empowering them.

-Dan L. Edmunds, Ed.D.