One glaring problem is the author's bias in the citations, which have been handpicked or misused to support his conclusions. The citation biases will not be obvious to readers who are not thoroughly familiar with the specific details or sources of the material. For example, Healy believes that claims of benefits of atypical antipsychotics in terms of extrapyramidal effects are the result of the excessive dosing of high-potency conventional antipsychotics used in clinical trials. Fair enough. To support his point, he reports—but does not cite—a comparison study of different doses of haloperidol and the atypical antipsychotic sertindole (1). The text reads "Sertindole was in fact no better than haloperidol at 8 mg a day, and both haloperidol at 8 mg a day and sertindole were better than haloperidol at 16 mg a day." However, that study showed that therapeutic doses of sertindole were associated with fewer extrapyramidal effects than a low dose of haloperidol (4 mg a day). I was able to find many other examples of incomplete citations and misleading conclusions. The reader needs to be much better informed of the author's biases and should be very skeptical in accepting the "facts" as they are presented.