No Free Speech In Psychiatry?

Aside from the findings themselves, one things that jumped out at me from the WaPost's account of the recent CATIE study was:

"In an indication of the widespread unease in the psychiatric establishment over the results, one senior doctor who helped conduct the study but not the cost-effectiveness assessment said the new finding faced stiff headwinds before it was published, and was subjected to an extraordinary level of review.

"'You are saying perphenazine is $500 cheaper,' said the doctor, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, to explain why many psychiatrists weighing the study seemed aghast. 'Now the physicians feel defensive, because people will ask, "Why are you charging the patient and insurance company $500 more when the drugs don't give you anything more?""

Now, why did this doc have to guard his identity? Would speaking the truth with his name attached to it, the way adults are supposed to, threaten his job, home and physical safety? Is some pharma rep going to be waiting for him in the alley after work? Or are the politics always this dicey when a treatment modality/technology goes down that has been touted by some of the best minds in medicine?

The other interesting thing is that, much as with the recent British antipsychotic study, researchers themselves didn't quite believe their own data and had to go through all manner of hand-wringing before publishing the reuslts. Now, why is that so?