It is absolutely unusual and cause for concern for this logic to be brought into play at this stage.A here stands for "Anomalous Cognition/ESP has been sufficiently established by the research."
B here stands for "We ought to focus our resources on underlying mechanisms of action research."
So the claim is "If ESP has been sufficiently established by the research, then we should now focus our resources on studying the underlying mechanisms of action."
And since she believes ESP has been sufficiently established by the research, she is calling for the parapsychology community to shift their focus now to mechanisms of action research.
Your disagreement with her is on whether or A is true, not on whether the conditional If A - > B is true.
In general, you might find some effect in a specific experimental situation. Research then focuses on replicating the effect, and on extending the knowledge about the types of situations where it occurs. For your example with SSRIs, you might want to find out which kinds of diagnoses predict that the treatment with SSRIs would be effective (and which wouldn't).
After cursory research, it seems to me that the field of ESP (including remore viewing) moved in the opposite direction: after early claims that free-form remote viewing was possible, it narrowed to an experimental protocol where people are asked to divine a choice between a small number of images/objects, and judges being required to determine if the viewing fits the selection because the viewings ate so unspecific as to be useless by themselves.
It is a protocol that is extremely narrow in scope, compared to the phenomenon it is supposed to be "proving".
It is a protocol that is designed to create a huge number of false positive outcomes.
And it lends itself easily to cheating and manipulation.
For example, if I was operating a RV tournament app, I'd soon have access to a huge database of what kinds of images are very likely to fit random predictions, and what images aren't. It's obvious how that knowledge could be used to game an RV experiment in a way that might not be obvious—a way to raise the number of false positives significantly above 50%.
The sensible call is to broaden the number and type of protocols that show ESP effects. A call of "let's stick to what works, and explain that" is unscientific.