Many critics of Freud have not been successful in convincing the world about Freud’s folly. In fact an American historian Paul Robinson writes as recently as 1993, " At most they have delayed the inevitable process by which he will settle into his rightful place in intellectual history as a thinker of the first magnitude. Indeed the very latest scholarly studies of Freud suggest that the anti-Freudian movement may have already begun to pass." This recent book by Webster is a mighty work of research into all aspects of Freudian thinking and has explored all the original data from Freud’s patients stories and all the anecdotal narratives written down by Freud himself. In an in-depth study of the book and various other literature on the same subject, Prof. R.C.Tallis, of Salford, brings out many more details of the other side of Freud. ( Burying Freud, The Lancet 1995; 347: 669-672).

Earlier thinkers also had expressed similar opinions but then they got diluted in the sea of pro-Freudian opinions. Esterson in 1993, in a book had this to say " the rise of psychoanalysis to a position of prominence in the twentieth century will come to be regarded as one of the most extraordinary aberrations in the history of western thought."( Esterson A. Seductive mirage: an exploration of the work of Sigmund Freud. Chicago and La Salle, Illinois: Open Court Books, 1993: 254) Medawar, an eminent scientist had this opinion: " Opinion is gaining ground that doctrinaire psychoanalytic theory is the most stupendous intellectual confidence trick of the twentieth century: and a terminal product as well- something akin to a dinosaur or a zeppelin in the history of ideas, a vast structure of radically unsound design and with no posterity."

Freud is credited to have discovered a cure for morphine addiction; by substituting it with cocaine claimed to be non addictive by Freud. It is a well known fact that cocaine is as addictive as morphine if not more. Freud’s ideas were more acceptable at that time because of his clear prose which was really marvelous. Psychoanalysis has been extensively investigated scientifically and has been found wanting in many areas for its authenticity and also validity. The damage done by psychoanalysis is being assessed in the USA in a recent study by Crew and his colleagues. Since 1988 nearly 10, 00, 000 families have been affected by therapist inspired charges of sexual molestation’ supposedly uncovered by the awakening of the repressed memories. Many women have suffered immensely as a result of the therapist construing real episodes of sexual abuse as oedipal fantasies.( Crew F. The revenge of the repressed The NewYork Review of books part I I 1994 )

The very idea of the Oedipus complex as the root of all human problems seems to be far fetched. The discovery of the unconscious was also shrouded in mystery. The analysis of dreams , again based on the Oedipus complex did not stand the scrutiny of scientific studies. Eventually even the so called data base of clinical cases seemed to be a hoax when investigated by Thornton. ( Jones E Sigmund Freud: Life and Works Hogarth Press, London 1953.) When they are talking about the unconscious they are only talking " about things of which we are conscious but are not yet conscious of reflectively" says Chapman in an elegant article in the Lancet entitled Is it possible to have an unconscious thought? ( Lancet 1994; 344: 1752-53. )

Almost a century has passed since we had the new thoughts of Sigmund Freud changing the scene for patients with the reputation of a great scientist, healer, and also of a thinker par excellence. New cracks are developing in the thought process now that psychoanalysis seems to have gone astray. The truth is hidden in the womb of the future but the truth in this matter is of great importance to millions of innocent people who have had the misfortune of undergoing psychoanalytical process in their healing. Science is purely based on change and all the scientific tenets are only tentative. There is no place for dogma in science at all. In fact in a sensational case in January 1982 the federal court judge William R. Overton ruled that " A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision and abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory". He also wrote " A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not scientific theory". The state of Arkansas did not appeal against this judgment in the case of Creationists Vs Darwinists.

If the findings of this book are proved true in times to come it will have exposed one of the great frauds in the history of modern medicine in this century. If not this may be added to the small list of critics of Freud to go down the annals of medical history as tormentors of a great man.