Double’s reply implicitly accepts the critiques of critical psychiatry in the article (including conceptual rigidity, individuals not changing their minds with the evidence, unfortunate alliances, and justifications for cutting access to welfare and support) by not contesting them. His repetition of critical psychiatry views on mainstream psychiatry were rebutted with supporting evidence in my article. As an example, he ignores Jaspers – who provided the conceptual basis for mainstream psychiatry – and his dictum that psychiatrists should try to use both psychological understanding and scientific explanation as appropriate to the particular case, rather than Double’s portrayal as one of reductionist positivism only. The fault for Double’s repetition of rebutted claims may be mine – my article may have been too uninteresting or soporific for him.