I'd expect any paper that shits on an entire field and especially on a massively profitable industry to be controversial. Here is Kirsch's reply to Fountolakis's paper, by the way: https://academic.oup.com/ijnp/article/15/8/1193/659638
Note that in this case it's psychologists calling the paper controversial. Psychologists in BPS, the organisation that put out shit like Understanding Psychosis[0] or Power Threat Meaning Framework[1] - for an anti-psychiatry organisation to call an anti-psychiatry document "controversial" shows the document is pretty poor.
[0]Here are links to critiques of both version of Understanding Psychosis: https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/psychosis/u...
https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/schizophren...
[1] Here's a link to critiques of PTMFramework https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/power-threa...