This has led to additions to the methods, results and discussion sections. age 12. Paragraph starting "In the Tiihonen study, the best outcomes were found for patients on...". This part of the discussion is not based on any results given in this MS, because authors used no medication data. This is more speculation than discussion based on facts. Agree -- have removed entirely Tables 1, 2, and 3. These tables contain not much information. Authors should consider replacing them with results of survival analysis. E.g. Table 3 could be replaced with Age-Period type Poisson regression analyses. ( http://bendixcarstensen.com/APC/ ) As outlined we have replaced Table 3 and introduced Figure 1 -- giving the survival analysis. Reviewer #6: General comments This is a well designed trial though there are potential avenues that could have improved the standard of the study. I am very worried by the censoring of individuals in the contemporary cohort. In particular the all column indicates 355 psychoses, with 33 causes of death however how many of these had 10 year follow-up data is not indicated by the authors. We have clarified this issue and taken it into account  A very large proportion had 5 year follow-up data. Specific comments 1.      In England and Wales there has been a full death registration system for some time. Individuals that left the asylum back to the community would have been registered as the deaths in the national system. The exact date and cause of death could have been obtained for