This is going round in circles. Those multiple considerations you note have already been well cited by others.

We are clear that that is the case, and also clear that if you were a prescribing doctor, your dominant source of information about medications would ideally be 'double blind studies published in peer-reviewed journals'.

You're correct in that if I were to tell you why I bought my toothpaste, I might tell you it's cos I like the taste.

In fact, it's more likely that I buy that toothpaste out of habit. People are faced with so many decisions in their busy lifestyles that they basically use heuristics / omega rules to define what they buy. It might be a preferred, familiar brand, or their choice may be dictated by another rule - e.g. 'the cheapest'. Unless they are at a point where they may make a decision to change (out of stock of regular brand, alternative brand is on special, tried it in an instore sampling, a friend recommended it) they _will buy out of habit_.

Do you see why I think your analogy between a feature of supermarket shopping and the prescription of psychtropic medication is a poor one? I don't think the psychology of product placement in a supermarket is quite applicable to choice of drugs for mental disorders.

Your last point - your 'beef' - is in MY opinion quite valid - in an idea world.

Here's my argument. Quite possibly, I'm making as poor an analogy as you did with shopping - lol.

But I'm going to base this on what I know of research science in the agricultural / pastoral sector of NZ. That happens to be rather a lot ::>

The problem in this field is that funding for 'pure science' is rather thin on the ground. There are the levels of pure science, applied science, and practical science. What industry uses may be based on pure science, ideally, but what industry pays for is applied and practical. Thus, pure science often misses out, much to the chagrin of the scientists themselves. But to get funding, they have to go to the next level. They have to do some quick and dirty shiz, _to get funding_.

With expectations that e.g. Crown Research Institutes now make a profit, it's not feasible for them to concentrate on pure science anymore.

Equally, universities need to stay afloat, it is about funding for them as well.

My point is not that medical research should be 'quick n dirty', OR, as you point out, 'have their eye on ... sources of funding'. IDEALLY, no they would not, they'd be pure scientists and they would start from the base level up and they would have the time and resources to do so.

I suppose I am just saying that there are a whole lot of factors that _control what scientific researchers do__, so perhaps they aren't who you should have your beef with at all.

Just a thought.