I have to get this off my chest. So Bob Whitaker wrote a concise article about the methodological limitations of the Tiihonen studies that allegedly show lower mortality risk with antipsychotics. In short, these studies have serious methodological flaws: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/viewpoint-do-antipsychotics-protect-against-early-death-a-critical-view/D1DF91752396A7B7A5D466618A7B9810

And now this. Tiihonen et al reply by reassuring that antipsychotics reduce mortality by citing the very same studies that Whitaker criticised for their methodological flaws. They don't address any of the issues raised by Whitaker. Complete disregard: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/commentary-on-robert-whitakers-viewpoint/5E16365F7F598C50B977BC4268AAA3E7

This is the poorest reply I have ever seen. Perhaps we should interpret this as a silent admission that their studies were indeed terribly flawed and the results unreliable and/or misleading. Fortunately others also noted this unscientific manoeuvre https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/antipsychotics-and-mortality-more-clarity-needed/F7D08BAF6C543098579E33FAA679A648

See also Joanna's commentary https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/misleading-information-about-antipsychotics/889C10E17953A43BB9394389A0DF711A

@joannamoncrieff @markhoro

One last thing: yes, Bob Whitaker is a journalist, but he has a better methodological understanding than many (perhaps most) researchers in this area.