Just because doctors have to deal with moral hazards (and sometimes fail) doesn't mean that non-doctors are more reliable sources for information about pharmace

Just because doctors have to deal with moral hazards (and sometimes fail) doesn't mean that non-doctors are more reliable sources for information about pharmaceuticals. This should be some form of cognitive bias (maybe it is and I just don't know the name for it): someone thinks something is a black and white issue, and has settled on "white" (ex.: doctors always give the most unbiased information about pharmaceuticals). Then, that person learns of a gray area in what was previously thought to be black and white (ex.: pharmaceutical companies aggressively market to doctors). Then, the cognitive bias: rather than revising their opinion about the binary, black and white nature of their belief, they keep believing it's all binary, but the evidence of the gray area causes them to flip their opinion from "white" to "black" (ex.: because pharmaceutical companies market to doctors, doctors are now considered altogether unreliable). When the reality is that even a potentially compromised doctor is most likely (not always, just most likely, but we have no way of identifying the exceptions) going to be a better source of pharmaceutical information than the collective wisdom of the rest of humanity.