> I'd be surprised if that's the *only* source of their decisions, wouldn't you?

I'd say that advertising goes a long way. Doctors aren't all *that* much more immune to the effects of advertising than the rest of us. Drug company representatives often present their findings during grand rounds.

> 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.

I didn't say it wasn't objective I said (and I'll say it again) that clinical practice is unable to tell you whether the response to treatment is greater than the response to placebo. Once again, that is precisely the point of running double blind randomised control trials.

Double blind randomised control trials are often hailed as the best scientific methodology that we have for sorting this out. Advertising isn't going to help. Clinical observations aren't going to help (since one isn't allowed to conduct ones own double blind randomised control trial to see whether patient response is greater to medication than either inert or active placebo).

> 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 ...

Right. That is the whole point in doing a little critical reading / thinking about the research that has been done.

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

It isn't about winning. It is about having a discussion. An actual discussion where people don't discount what I've said (and discourage others to discount what I've said) by name calling: e.g., 'amateur', 'anti-psychiatrist' and so on.

>> 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

Please don't accuse me (or jump to conclusions about my) questioning the intelligence / integrity of Dr. Wylie. It is precisely these kind of assumptions that lead people to believe that patients are unable to have intelligent rational discussions without resorting to propaganda techniques of name calling, making appeals to authority, and using 'buzz words' like 'anti-psychiatry' in order to undermine someone by association.

It is a fact that the majority of doctors do not have the time to read every study that has been conducted on every condition that their clients are likely to present with. A doctor who engaged with the literature wouldn't be a practitioner they would be a researcher. Practicing doctors rely (when all goes well) on the peer reviewed literature in their field in order to make the most empirically adequate treatment decisions. Practicing doctors rely (when all does not go well) on the claims of the drug company representatives during grand rounds or during the drug company funded presentations or luncheons at conferences.

When the peer reviewed scientific literature amounts to little more than drug company advertisements sponsored by drug companies then the science is being polluted.

My beef isn't with the practitioners who (wisely) base their treatment decisions on the literature) - I mean really, that is the most empirically adequate thing they could be expected to do. My beef is with the researchers (those whose job it is to interpret research findings) taking one hell of a long time to find out about the harm to children and adolescents. Whatever next... That is my point.

Have recent events led the APA to rethink their reccomendation about medication for depression? Seems not. Anybody wonder why???