Do antipsychotics cause more harm than good?

Some authors state that antipsychotics (also known as neuroleptics and major tranquilizers) cause more harm than good. Are they right?

Disclaimer: The found further reading sources seem to be dominated by those arguing for the motion. Finding more sources arguing against the motion seems advisable. This debate was not reviewed by a medical professional.

Pro

 * It is so per evidence supplied by Robert Whitaker in his book Anatomy of an Epidemic in 2010. (See also Anatomy of an Epidemic.)
 * Dr. Torrey has shown why Robert Whitaker is wrong.
 * Whitaker has shown that response to be wrong.
 * That is not a specific argument that can be productively debated.
 * Actually, it can, even if it is laborious. For instance, an objector can select an incorrect argument made by Whitaker and raise an objection to the argument as an objection against the aggregate point for Whitaker.
 * The book is not peer-reviewed and thus is fundamentally unreliable.
 * Multiple sources criticized the book as per Anatomy of an Epidemic.
 * Whitaker responded to the criticism.
 * It is so per evidence supplied by Robert Whitaker in "The Case Against Antipsychotics", 2016.
 * Whitaker 2016 is not peer-reviewed thus is fundamentally unreliable.
 * It is so per evidence supplied by Peter C. Gøtzsche.
 * Peter C. Gøtzsche gives the impression of being a scaremonger, including the choice of the book titles Deadly Psychiatry and Organised Denial and Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime.
 * What matters is whether he is right. His book Deadly medicines and organised crime was a winner of British Medical Association’s Annual Book Award. Ultimately, one needs to look at the evidence provided.
 * That is not a specific argument that can be productively debated.
 * Harrow 2014 shows that patients with schizophrenia who are off medication are better off long-term than patients on medication.
 * Harrow 2014 is not a blinded study. The patients who got off medication could have been those with milder disease.
 * While correct in principle, the confounding via milder disease has not been positively demonstrated. That does not refute the above, but shows the above is not entirely conclusive.
 * Long-term use of antipsychotics in macaque monkeys leads to reduced brain volume.
 * It is not clear to what extent this result carries over to humans.

Con

 * If it were so, they would not be prescribed by psychiatrists.
 * In so far as a practicing clinical psychiatrist practices evidence-based medicine, they rely on published trials and other literature. If that literature is compromised by Big Pharma misconduct and influence, the psychiatrist gets fooled.
 * If it were so, FDA would not approve them.
 * FDA does not require long-term studies for approval of antipsychotics.
 * Since there are different classes of antipsychotics, less or more modern, it is unclear that it is useful to ask the question on the aggregate level for all antipsychotics at once, as if the answer was the same for all classes of antipsychotics.
 * Antipsychotics are beneficial per Goff 2017.
 * Goff 2017 did not investigate "the risks and benefits of antipsychotics in relation to metabolic syndrome". If it is so, it cannot reliably conclude that the benefits are worth the harms since they failed to properly investigate one class of harms.
 * Multiple authors of Goff 2017 declared ties to pharmaceutical industry. That increases the risk of bias, whether conscious or unconscious.
 * Goff 2017 is heavily criticized by Moncrieff 2017.
 * Goff 2017 is heavily criticized by Whitaker 2017.