Without denying the relevance of your personal experience, both your critique and the NYT article inevitably fall into the argument of the pot calling the kettle black. This is because the premises of both arguments are merely about the management of depression, and not the foundation of a theory of depression. This is made evident in the highlighted Harvard article, where it is stated, “researchers BELIEVE” … it is only that, belief, possibilities, on the causality of depression with nothing necessary. Without getting to any necessary argument, people are left today with only speaking of possibilities, their beliefs, opinions, and what makes them feel better. Without ever addressing anything necessary on depression or its cure, we are doomed to consensus by opinion and opposing critiques. On one hand, Aspirin may work, it makes people with broken arms feel better, but on the other, people can critique this way of managing symptoms and pain. But left at this therapeutic level, neither argument, pro or con, addresses a cure nor the necessary basis for a medical theory of broken bones. In fact, such speech and arguments avoid it.

Your possible critique is as valid as the NYT possible argument, and that is the problem.

The question remains as to whether anyone can speak of anything necessary when it comes to depression and what is being avoided in only speaking about possibilities.

a grain of salt,

S