Maybe you should read closer? The article does not just say “absenteeism”, it speaks about the workplace,i.e., “absenteeism at work”. And if this external circumstance is ‘irrelevant’, then why does the article reference it? Bad writers? Or just quasi-science trying to promote itself as something useful for the manipulation of others? Why didn’t the article say absenteeism from church? or from going fishing?. The reason is obvious to anyone who can read. And if I referenced social concerns it is because the article does.

There is so little scientific about this article I do not know where to begin. But since you want to give me a platform. How about this, I give you a scientific refutation on why none of the arguments in the said article explain a depression and we publish it in this humble little note. If you can follow it, and you are not some 12 year old kid calling people names. If you cannot, then let the authors of the article respond themselves.

What do you say?