The author of this paper has done something valuable, but the absolute rant in this twitter thread is frankly incredibly out there. They are dismissive of a purely chemical reason for depression. It quite simply must be due to a stressful event. Ok, so what? Does this mean it can be fixed without chemical intervention? Sometimes it cannot. How do they propose to fix it in those cases?

They are essentially advocating for a stance that the tools we have at our disposal today should not be as accepted, for the simple reason that they do not treat the exact correct thing. By this logic, we should not use chemo. It is short-sighted and really not of the level expected of someone doing any kind of research into psychiatric treatment.

I would disagree with the characterization of that Twitter thread as a rant. To me it seemed like a fairly reasonable and balanced distillation of conclusions that are suggested by the study. He didn't say that current antidepressants should never be used. He simply said we don't have evidence that a chemical approach to treating depression is the right approach.