Criticisms of “The Body Keeps the Score”

Scientific Validity of the Book vs. the Critique

• Many commenters say the article convincingly shows mis-citation and cherry‑picking in the book: cross‑sectional studies read as causation, brain and hormonal claims overstated, and recovered‑memory–style ideas resurfacing.
• Others argue this overreaches: psychology is inherently “soft,” much of the field has replication and measurement problems, and singling this book out as uniquely bad is misleading.
• Some see the Substack author committing similar sins: speculative links (e.g., diet → inflammation → PTSD) and heavy ideology, just in the opposite direction.

Trauma, ACEs, and Causality

• One camp endorses the article’s thesis: trauma doesn’t usually “damage” a healthy body/brain; instead, pre‑existing vulnerabilities (genetic, physiological, environmental) predispose people to both trauma and later problems.
• Others push back with ACE and longitudinal data: adverse experiences independently predict worse physical and mental health, and previous trauma increases vulnerability to future trauma.
• Several worry the article shades into “trauma skepticism,” implicitly calling people with PTSD or complex histories “weak” or self‑indulgent.
• Another thread criticizes pop‑trauma culture for expanding “trauma” to cover nearly all distress (e.g., birth, emotionally distant parents), which can dilute serious PTSD and create incentives for trauma‑centric influencers.

Mind–Body, Somatics, and Therapy

• Multiple commenters share strong somatic anecdotes (acupuncture, EMDR, bodywork) where releasing physical tension brought up, and eased, long‑buried traumatic memories. For them, “the body keeps the score” is experientially obvious, even if mechanisms are unclear.
• Others emphasize lifestyle changes (diet, sleep, exercise) that rapidly improved depression/anxiety once blamed on trauma, arguing the “body’s record” is modifiable, not a permanent scar.
• EMDR is seen by some as clearly effective, by others as mixed or contentious in the literature.

Stoicism, Agency, and Victimhood

• Several contrast the book’s trauma model with stoic/CBT‑style emphasis on interpreting and responding to events. They prefer an internal locus of control and worry trauma narratives encourage passivity or permanent victim identity.
• Others argue this easily becomes “just toughen up,” invalidating genuine PTSD and ignoring that some problems are not fixable by attitude alone.

Pop Psychology, Virality, and Ideology

• Strong skepticism toward bestselling “one big idea explains everything” books in general; many see TBKTS as part of a meme‑driven, influencer‑amplified trauma industry.
• At the same time, commenters note the book gave some trauma survivors a first coherent framework and a path into therapy; even an inaccurate model can be pragmatically helpful.
• The Substack piece is also criticized as clickbait, politically tinged, and selectively hostile, illustrating how both sides are selling confident narratives atop incomplete science.