His point is worthless. Just because you can't scientifically measure something doesn't mean it doesn't improve people's lives. The underlying assumption here is "if it's not scientific, then it's not helpful", which is extremely stupid.

I understood his point as "it isn't scientific, therefore we can't be sure it's helpful, therefore it shouldn't be the go-to advice for anyone suffering from mental issues". His phrasing is aggressive and generalizing, and he should've probably used a better choice of words.

But it's a point I somewhat agree with. I've personally tried different kinds of therapy for my issues, years at a time, and I can say with certainty that my time was wasted. I also personally know multiple people who've had similar experience.

One reply I can imagine is "but maybe you didn't put enough effort/spend enough time" - in which case I'd like to ask, in what way does that argument differ from the religious argument of "if God doesn't help you, you didn't pray enough"?

Another reply I can imagine is "it doesn't work deterministically, psychology/psychiatry is not an exact science" - in which case it would prove the original comment's point. It might as well all be bloody hogwash, and yet people recommend it all the time because it's "science".