I find it interesting that the article doesn’t describe a single harm from the drugs, instead focusing on alleged weak efficacy. My theory is that the article

I find it interesting that the article doesn’t describe a single harm from the drugs, instead focusing on alleged weak efficacy. My theory is that the article is playing into a vaguely Protestant ethos that drugs are Bad and Unnatural and thus suspect, and (implicitly) that suffering is actually good to some extent and that alleviating it through “artificial” means is unnatural. This attitude is ubiquitous in the US and I assume UK (where Economist originates) as well. Even artificial sweeteners are ridiculously scrutinized and suspect for the same reason. If some or even many people are taking what the article calls “useless” drugs, how is that, absent serious side effects, bad?