Measures are importand as are language and concepts

If you tell a lay person it is an antipsychotic their expectation, like any other learned person outside the field of endeavour, is that it removes the delusions and hallucinations of psychosis.

If this is not true then the use of the term is highly inappropriate. As is the use of the drug.

The neuroleptic was commonly known as a major tranquilser, a 'medication' which did not function to heal true biological differences but to effect behavioural change. In the modern day where the word antipsychotic is used to describe the major tranquiliser there is another; the chemical cosh.

The fundamental point is about words and language and concepts. The antipsychotic is not about reducing the aspect which patients want and the public percieve. It is a tool driven by the power to sedate.

It may or may not have a significant effect compared to placebo responses but no review of current data is available. It is possible without a new experiment though things like these ultimately answer scientific questions.

On the question of whether the antipsychotic actually, definitely reduces the delusions and hallucinations themselves or merely sedates the individual into a conveient form of limited expression is an important question for patients, and I hope doctors too.

To the doctors I will explain using evidence which may be questioned if you are critical of evidence. A study which showed life expectancy in elderly people with dementia was reduced by 50% when antipsychotics were used shows a powerful effect but as an observational study it explains little but the existence of the effect. The criticisms which can ameliorate the effect are to do with selection of patients to get antipsychotics. Their behaviour may have been the result of a more advanced stage of a neurodegenerative illness. The effect has high sensitivity because patients were near death too. The untranquilised lived 3 years on average. The medicated 1.5.