While I applaud your concern about the long term impacts of Antipsychotic medications, such as Diabetes, Hypertension, Elevated Triglycerides, and others, I am concerned about a couple of areas mentioned in your assertions. For one, I do not see any indications that you have included ANY confounding social, economic, or other situational factors into the conclusions that you draw from your data. Have you looked at the totality of the environments that your subjects come from? Did you include pre-existing conditions as an indicator of what is acceptable as a “quality of life indicator”? If someone suffers from a heart condition, for example, the risk of elevated blood pressure makes the use of any medications that elevate blood pressure a possible absolute counterindication for use of Antipsychotic meds known to cause such elevated levels. However, if the person shows no indication of such risks, and there are familial, economic, and social benefits that could be included in your metrics for taking Antipsychotic medications, how do you account for these in the interpretation of your data? It really does not seem fair to discuss outcomes for patients solely in terms of self-reported symptoms, and not include an entire axis of other factors impacted by the symptoms most effectively reduced by some of these Antipsychotic medications. That tends to reduce the person to a series of numbers, rather than a complex and social being that has the right to decide whether the risks and even deleterious potential outcomes might be more valuable to them than simple reduction of risk of side effects. I have no love or personal interest in the pharmaceuticals in question. I think your pursuit of their advertising and coercive practices is very valuable. It just seems like your expression across the board of minimizing the value of Antipsychotic medications fails to look at the totality of circumstances that people find themselves in. And, using employability or other generic mainstreamed metrics as a measure of “quality of life” is not only culturally insensitive, I am not certain that it is economically viable in an age where we are seeing a necessity to move more and more towards socializing medicine as a necessity of public health. (Yes, I am an advocate of Single Payer healthcare, admittedly). As someone who has a Chronically Depressed son, a wife with an extremely severe presentation of Bipolar Disorder Rapid Cycling Mixed, and had two parents afflicted with psychotic disorders, this is VERY PERSONAL to me. I am working on compiling information for both a book and other information which I am hoping to present with some professional collaborators in the Mental Health field as a more socially aware and more personalized approach to both diagnosing and treating Mental Health issues, I find that what I saw in your article in the December 9, 2013 Washington Post, and what I see here send off some alarms for me. How can we consider that getting a job is any indicator of relief of distress from the most damaging impacts of Psychosis? I think that you have failed to consider many factors that are not part of common metrics, such as the dignity of self determination and the benefit of situational awareness in a person’s life. That a person can operate machinery or drive a car to earn a paycheck is not really proof that they are enjoying a higher quality of life. There are actually ways to factor in the idea that a greater sense of personal well being, spiritual fulfillment, greater closeness and quality of personal relationships, and other less readily acknowledged factors, are really important to lots of people. I know they were to the many people I have known that felt alone and isolated because of their psychosis or delusions. Perhaps you might enlighten people like myself how simply tapering off without considering the entirety of environmental and situational factors is not an oversimplification. Thanks in advance.