At this point, and reading your other replies, it really seems as though you’re just trying to justify a position you took which is not borne about by the factu

At this point, and reading your other replies, it really seems as though you’re just trying to justify a position you took which is not borne about by the factual evidence. The other day I read an article in the paper about a woman’s journey with uterine fibroids and how it had affected her life. It contained a large amount of misinformation that my partner (obs and gynae doctor) objected to strongly but at the end of the day it’s been published and that’s that. But in this case what you’re objecting to isn’t even incorrect information. I mean, the first typical antipsychotic, Thorazine was literally called ‘a lobotomy in a pill’. The trade name, Largactil, is because it was ‘large acting’ in basically turning the patient into a walking vegetable. This is at a point in the history of psychology when asylums were being shut down and over the next few decades the large numbers of people who had previously been held in often awful conditions were released into society, and despite the literal sledgehammer effect of these ‘typical antipsychotics’, any side-effects we’re considered mild in comparison to not having them. Until the extrapyramidal effects started showing up. Haloperidol acts on the same system as Thorazine.