I think the author of this article's point, and the point that is most likely accurate is that depression is sometimes a manifestation of a physical malady and

I think the author of this article's point, and the point that is most likely accurate is that depression is sometimes a manifestation of a physical malady and sometimes not (of course the lines between physiology and psychology are becoming increasingly blurry). The take-away here is not really whether the condition is or is not physical, but rather, what the labeling of it as physical does to the perspective of its sufferers and its effect on their prognosis. Pyschological issues of this nature are a curious form of disease, in that the mental models of their sufferers form a feedback loop with the condition itself. Whether or not depression is physical, thinking that depression is physical has a tangible effect on the condition itself, one that this author and I would argue is sometimes (though not always!) negative. However, it is in the interest of pharmaceutical companies that it be thought of as purely physical, with purely physical treatments. And it can be argued that this mode of treatment, and this mental model in the minds of the sufferers is self-reinforcing. Because it is presented as a physiological ill, depressed persons see it as such, and eschew or don't fully invest themselves in alternative solutions, which make them not work. The sum of all of this is that depression is one of the few diseases that is actually itself shaped by the marketing of its treatments. Which is both interesting and troubling, given the relative inability of the current regulatory framework to cope with this systemic condition.