The article acknowledges that, despite pharmacological treatments, cases continue to rise. It also acknowledges that there have been no major advances or innovations, yet curiously, those affected are pressured to continue with a treatment that has not demonstrated any benefit, and the law is even used to enforce this.

In the "real" world, any symptom that contradicts the use of the medication is minimized, despite the complaints of those affected and their worsening condition. These individuals are forced to adhere to a treatment that reduces their life expectancy and, in the best-case scenario, causes side effects worse than the disorder itself, when what these people demand is empathy and help. What they never ask for is information to be withheld from them, a very paternalistic attitude that is also extended to their families. Informed consent is conspicuously absent.
To begin with, I question all the studies since the subjects were not properly selected. There is no conclusive objective test for this, and this is acknowledged in the DSM. How samples or data are collected is another point that calls the trials into question. Therefore, all studies, absolutely all of them, should be read with great caution and then put into practice with even more caution, informing patients and caregivers so that they are the ones who will make the decision, since they will be the ones to suffer the consequences.
The “anti-psychiatry,” “new psychiatry,” “people affected by psychiatry,” etc., movements did not create what is happening; it is a social response to these events. They do not reject the existence of the disorders; they reject the label because of what it implies for those affected and the way it is used. What is beyond doubt is that these people suffer and need help. And we must humbly acknowledge that we still don't know exactly how to do it. So what we should do is listen—listen carefully to what they want, what they need—and help as much as we can. It costs less than medication but has a greater impact (real-world observational data).

Regarding investment, it's curious that funding is only being requested for pharmacological research as the sole alternative. This is the reality. Therefore, we'll find few studies on psychosocial treatment, and consequently, there will be no way to test the hypotheses. Thus, we continue to operate with a research bias.