I have no real issues with the original study, or its authors! This was responsible research: it combined existing data without running new experiments on people, and it fully addressed its limitations. My issue is with the press release and its loose use of the phrase "effective anti-depressant" and neglect to mention a few caveats, which would only take a few sentences to include.

While the article was useful research (as would be your hypothetical on bee stings), its press release was misleading (as it would be to call bee stings "effective anti-depressants" based on your paragraph).