In this exchange between Rob Wipond and Dr. Pies, in my opinion, Rob Wipond emerges as the clear winner. Dr. Pies disparages Wipond's position as lacking balance and critiques him for using "negative words", suggesting that in doing so Wipond is not being "objective". However this begs the question, for if on balance the psychiatric drugs do far more violence than good, then the "objectivity" requires that this be said. Correspondingly, Pies states that in his own personal experience he sees the drugs as doing far more good than harm. What makes Pies think that a psychiatrist trained to see "dulling" as a good outcome is in any position to objectively evaluate? Is not the fact that evaluations are overwhelming done by care prpfessionals with a demonstrable bias exactly what has always made the "treatments" look good? Objective? Hardly! Thank you, Rob Wipond, for exhibiting far greater "objectivity"!