My issue is that he implies that there’s something nefarious going on because of a lack of discussion of genes. I claim he lacks critical thinking because he ignores that the book’s primary audience is a person with past trauma, not someone with sufficient biological understanding to get the nuances of “genes”. So, instead of implying some political agenda, it’s safer to infer that the author left out the discussions to prevent an overly-generalized explanation that may cause more harm. For example, see what happened with BRCA. Look also what happened with “The Bell Curve”. It’s easy for a lay reader to view genetics as the cause rather than one (extremely nuanced) factor of many. And, when we see that many victims of trauma are, by circumstance, at the lower end of the social class spectrum, this leads down a slippery slope.

Second, medical doctors aren’t usually also research scientists. They’re specialists in clinical treatment of physiology. He’s probably smart and well educated. But, not a scientist. As an analogy, it’s similar to when I cringe when I see a programmer try to write a new cryptography protocol or algorithm. Some things are complex and risky enough to leave to the experts.