>Instead, they trust that conclusions drawn from peer reviewed leading journals are accurate and they base their prescription decisions on that.

I am sure they do. However, I'd be surprised if that's the *only* source of their decisions, wouldn't you? No matter what you say about clinical practice not being 'objective' (which is the gist of what I gathered you were commenting on earlier), I'd imagine that there is plenty of communication between professionals on what's working vs not working in practice. Statistics, especially ones that are being reworked over again, are not the be all and end all factor in prescribing decisions, as far as I know.

> Please don't jump to conclusions about me. You have no idea who I am and what training I may or may not have had. If you are unable to discuss as opposed to namecall then please leave this thread for people who are able to discuss.

I am not jumping to any conclusions. I have read your posts over quite some time now, and while I'm sure you are a bright girl, I always get the sense that you're coming from a very academic POV and that you are well versed in the abstracts from several psychology databases. I have spent enough time in the university system to know what a post-graduate's writing style looks like. When I was in that position I know I pulled out all my research-oriented knowledge in many situations to prove my point too Towards the end of my thesis I must say I got rather jaded with the amount of bad research that's out there in psychology ...

By the way, if you are kicking both psisci and myself out of the thread ... well, I guess you win the argument then?

> The difference is that I'm questioning the information that Dr. Wylie is supposed to be basing his medical decisions on.

Hmmm ... that's an interesting thing to say about the intelligence / integrity of someone with his amount of training, but I suppose you are entitled to your opinion