The problem is that we've never had an adequate theory of what depression is, and the evidence seems to be that it is far more complex and situational than any

The problem is that we've never had an adequate theory of what depression is, and the evidence seems to be that it is far more complex and situational than any one-pill-fixes-all approach could ever attack. The author is correct, but hardly novel or prescient, in noting that there are serious issues with the long-term efficacy of SSRIs and SNRIs (and most other classes of psychoactive drugs). The problems of discontinuation of drug therapy, especially for long-term users, and that the drugs often appear to exacerbate the condition when withdrawn, were noted decades ago. So, this "study" appears to rehash some old (and valid) critiques of the therapy. All it adds is the interesting hypothesis that depression is "natural" (so is senescence and death) and "beneficial". Which I guess is the novel part. We may not know what causes depression, but we do know that the constellation of symptoms that we call clinical depression are uniformly unpleasant and all-too-often fatal. So I'm really not convinced that labelling it natural and beneficial absent some pretty strong evidence is all that helpful.