I've seen cases where antidepressants saved people's lives. I've also seen cases where they were pushed on people who needed psychotherapy and not medication. Access to quality psychotherapy is unfortunately very low.

Venlaflaxine not only saved my life, but gave me a new one. It shouldn't be looked to as the only solution, however, it's one of the most powerful ones in the arsenal. This bias against anti-depressants is quite miseducated and unfortunate.

How exactly is the cost really low?

The study you linked doesn't scientifically prove antidepressants help.

Exactly, what undue bias against antidepressants have you found?

I often see antidepressants held to more stringent standards of evidence, theoretical backing, and safety than other treatments. It's pretty common to see someone claim that the chemical imbalance theory is bunk and that antidepressants don't outperform placebo, then glowingly endorse something else with markedly less scientific support as a treatment for depressive disorders (e.g. exercise, supplements, insight-oriented psychotherapies, mindfulness meditation).

I’m not sure how this adds to answering the questions and which I’m apparently downvotes for curiosity. Apparently treatment in regard to a diagnosis of depression does not need scientific standards of evidence and we should just experiment on people willing to trust misinformative beliefs of promoting unclear benefits which may not exist.