Criticising the critic and anti-antipsychotic evidence and how everyone seems to use to research to support a preconcieved position

"There is no significant body of research to prove that neuroleptics
have any specific effect on psychotic symptoms, such as hallucinations
and delusions. To the contrary, these remain rather resistant to the
drugs. The neuroleptics mainly suppress aggression, rebelliousness, and
spontaneous activity in general."

This is a statement that surprised me. It comes from this link on the
Mind Freedom website froman article called "Should the use of
neuroleptics be severely limited? " byPeter R. Breggin and published in
/Controversial Issues in Mental Health/.
http://lancaster.mindfreedom.org.uk/node/14

As usual its selective picking of evidence to support the author's
position. It's something that I'm guilty of and it's useful to see it.
It's noteworthy that a lot of the references are to his own work. (btw -
I highly respect the work of Peter Breggin).

The evidence he's brought to bear is powerful and its worth reading. The
author uses the evidence to question psychiatric practice and and that
is a vital part of the path to progress. There's an example from the text.
"
The neuroleptics are supposedly most effective in treating the acute
phase of schizophrenia, but a recent definitive review of controlled
studies showed that they perform no better than sedatives or narcotics
and even no better than placebo (Keck et al., 1989). One psychiatrist
(Turns, 1990) responded to these revelations with anguished questions:
"Has our clinical judgement about the efficacy of antipsychotics been a
fixed, encapsulated, delusional perception . . . Are we back to square
one in antipsychotic psychopharmacology?"
"

I disagree with some of his conclusions, certainly here:
"
If the neuroleptics are so dangerous and have such limited usefulness,
and if psychosocial approaches are relatively effective, why is the
profession so devoted to the drugs? The answer lies in maintaining
psychiatric power, prestige, and income. What mainly distinguishes
psychiatrists from other Mental Health professionals, and of course from
non-professionals, is their ability to prescribe drugs. To compete
against other Mental Health professionals, psychiatry has wed itself to
the medical model, including biological and genetic explanations, and
physical treatments. It has no choice: anything else would be
professional suicide. In providing psychosocial therapies, psychiatry
cannot compete with less expensive, more helpful non-medical therapists,
so it must create myths that support the need for medically trained
psychiatrists.
"

I know psychiatrists aren't bad people or ogres, yet I could say the
same of many human beings. I don't believe psychiatrists do bad things
with evil in their heart and money on their mind. I think they do what
they do because they think it's right. Who doesn't?