It is a criticism of the notion of RCT as the unimpeachable "gold standard" of evidence. The limits of a tool are the most important thing to learn about it, and, for RCT, few can be bothered.

But it's not a limitation of the tool (the tool does provide gold-standard evidence); it's the stupidity of the researcher using the tool. (The tool works perfectly well and does, in fact, constitute the gold standard of causal evidence.) In your depression example, it's the stupidity of a researcher who fails to consider why a 1-in-6 success might be significant, or fails to consider that the umbrella disease "depression" can be multiply realized by different physiological mechanisms, which in turn require different treatments.

Your beef isn't with RCTs, or with the notion of RCT as evidence. Your beef is with researchers who don't know how to think.

Your complaint is like saying, we should stop considering hammers to be the gold-standard of nail-hitters because some idiots use them to try to turn screws.

My beef is with the public and policymakers convinced they have no need to understand the method's limitations, "because it's the gold standard", thus never misleading.