That's coincidental. In doing further research regarding clinical trials and the contracts between corporate sponsors and physicians, there have been lawsuits regarding the fact that corporate sponsors put clauses in their clinical trial contracts regarding "publication" of the results of the trials - and unfortunately, the doctors who entered into those contracts didn't "notice" that clause. It was/is very common practice apparently. (I even tried to no avail to get my hands on an example of a clinical trial contract between a corporation sponsor and the medical industry. I'm a paralegal, and I'd LOVE to tear it apart! HAH!)
Apparently, it may take legislative action before those kind of practices can be completely controlled.
The information I ran across basically said that these clauses dictated that publication of the results of the trial would only happen if the trial produced "positive" results, whereas any negative results would be supressed and not published. (And basically amounted to a "gag agreement" on the doctor!) I found where at least academic institutions were attempting to make their research and physician staff aware of these types of clauses, and to be very careful about entering into these type of agreements. This is another area that might get blown wide open soon (or maybe already has and I'm behind the eight ball). I'm not trying to sound like an overzealous conspiracy theory fanatic - this is simply the truth, and what I see every day.
Anyway, with regard to anti-depressants, I totally support what you state here. During my research with my own personal little cause (desipramine), I ran across several instances where there have been attempts by groups of physicians, etc., who have been trying for years to force pharmas to correct their anti-depressant dosage recommendations and contraindications for use in children (i.e. to not use for children)! I even ran across a copy of letter (sent to I think a regulatory commission) signed by several highly known and respected physicians regarding this very subject.
I'll tell you.........a good lawyer CAN make a very good case of those practices by pharma companies to be false promotion and marketing of drugs simply for profit. How uncanny, Harry!
Oh, boy.....I suspect this is going to be a very interesting area to watch.
As for alternative medications, etc., I support more oversight of false claims there, also. I hope that doesn't sound completely bureaucratic, because not all alternative treatments can or should be considered total quackery! I simply advocate safety and truth in advertising.