The guy reads some articles and right away he's an expert on pyschiatry and drug therapy. He can reasonably tell Matt Lauer that Lauer doesn't know anything about the subject, but can he tell that to all psychiatrists and researchers? Drugs save lives in many ways.
That's the flaw in Tom's argument and his purpose. He's asking that we accept his opinion over Matt's opinion, since he's read some articles. Uh huh... some articles provided by Co$ perhaps?
Tom then goes over the top by choosing extreme examples that he then applies across the whole spectrum of drug therapy.