> A great deal of the points are semantic in nature Yes, they are cautioning against using terms that are frequently misunderstood or encourage jumping to an i

> A great deal of the points are semantic in nature Yes, they are cautioning against using terms that are frequently misunderstood or encourage jumping to an incorrect conclusion. > genetics only are 90% responsible From section (1) of the paper: >> Moreover, genome-wide association studies of major psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, suggest that there are probably few or no genes of major effect > so what? Your suggestion that genetics could be "90% responsible" when available evidence is suggesting "few or no genes of major effect" is a good example of the kind of counterfactual belief that the paper is trying to fix. > Yes, antidepressants are technically selective-serotonin-reuptake-inhibitors. From section (2) of the paper: >> some authors argue that these medications are considerably less efficacious than commonly claimed, and are beneficial for only severe, but not mild or moderate, depression, rendering the label of “antidepressant” potentially Again, this isn't a minor technical quibble. The actual evidence for SSRIs (etc) having effects that counteract depression is thin and open to a lot of interpretation. Calling them "antidepressants" gives the incorrect, misleading impression that we know actually understand how depression works or how it is affected by these medications.