> Do you see why I think your analogy between a feature of supermarket shopping and the prescription of psychtropic medication is a poor one?

No, I'm still unclear on that. I'm not saying that there is a perfect analogy (indeed if the analogy was perfect then it actually wouldn't be an analogy because I'd be talking about the same thing twice rather than talking about two quite different things that - i'm claiming - are similar in ONE relevant respect).

> I don't think the psychology of product placement in a supermarket is quite applicable to choice of drugs for mental disorders.

The purpose of the analogy was MERELY that the reason why one makes the choice that one makes is often not transparent to the maker of the choice. consumers confabulate rationales for their decisions. humans do this in general. hence... it would be likely that psychiatrists similarly would have a comperable lack of insight into the reason why they make their treatment decision. that is all i intended to convey with the analogy. i didn't mean to convey that the drugs are all lined up on the shelves and that the psychiatrist prescribes those at eye level i didn't mean to convey that the psychiatrists made their decision on the basis of pretty packaging and taste of the product. i simply meant to convey that human beings in general confabulate reasons and don't have good insight into the features that are relevant to their decision making processes. hence, if we want to know how in fact psychiatrists make their decisions we are better to run an experiment and see rather than to ask them directly.

> 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.

the reinterpretation of the statistics isn't to do with new studies being funded. it is to do with people taking their time to conduct a meta-analysis of the studies that have already been funded / conducted. the point is that the stuff that is coming up now should have been picked up on well before now.

by the peer review process. that is precisely the point for peer review.

if a study is published in a leading journal and it has a blatant methodological flaw then that is a major embarrassment for the journal. it undermines its credibility as a leading journal in the field.

that these findings haven't been picked up on well before now is an embarrassment to science. i say this while identifying myself (as a i do periodically) as a scientist.

my point... is basically that people need to be aware of some of this stuff when their doctors tell them they need to be on meds for the rest of their life or they need to be on meds for a time... the doctors don't have time to look into things properly. the doctors don't have to live with the side-effects of the medications.

when i hear people tell others that psychiatric medications are like taking diabetic medication i feel upset because that is NOT how psychiatric medications work. when i hear people tell others that psychiatric medications rectify chemical imbalances so a person is normal i feel upset because that is NOT how psychiatric medications work. when i hear people tell others that they are 'not willing to help themselves' if they don't want to take the medication then i feel upset.

what is happening to the science???

and the drug companies get richer...

ugh.