it is a thought-provoking article, though i disagree with its arguments.

the fact that WE, as a society, don't understand fully the mechanism behind the mental illnesses themselves, doesn't mean we should make it sound worse than any other illness there is, for which there is a treatment and a medicine (we don't know why they work, but they do and that is all that matters).

and the attitude of society can have that effect. if one feels it is something so special and distinctive and so challenging about mental illness that sets it apart from all other physical illness, one may not be motivated at all to treat it with medicine and therapy because why? it was made to look terrifying and hopeless.
imo, one-size doesn't fit all.
sometimes brief psychotherapy can work better than longer one, and if a long-term psychotherapy is applied where there should be brief instead, the client can be damaged permanently. vice versa, too, of course.

i read a similar discussion with the same sentiment recently, but i agreed with its argument. it said that the main issue in presenting depression and bipolar as a biochemical disbalance (sort of analogous to diabetes) is that it didn't destigmatize mental illnesses at all, just made people with bipolar and depression more prejudiced toward people with other mental illnesses (say schizophrenia) and it served as a distinction to preserve their self-esteem "i am not crazy and uncountable and out of my mind, those are people with schizophrenia"... which is, beside being untruthful and derogatory to people with schizophrenia, also heartbreaking and saddening.