Birth Trauma
There is some limited evidence that birth trauma, hypoxia (low oxygen) or anoxia (no oxygen) at birth can correlate with psychological or physical problems that last a lifetime. Cerebral palsy is a good example of a disease that is likely caused by birth trauma in some cases. That is the real science that shouldn’t be cited to support pseudoscience. There was even a few interesting weak correlations with variables such as suicide and birth difficulties, but these correlations could have been due to a third variable (such as variables like stress or poverty that cause both of the other variables).
Despite primal theorists’ claim that no one knows about birth trauma, in reality nobody really disagrees with the idea that births should be non-traumatic. Also, the suggestion that primal theorists somehow predicted these findings before they came about is nothing more than grandiose intellectual abuse. Long before primal therapy, science suspected that traumatic births did harm. In fact, even the dreadful pseudoscientist L. Ron Hubbard was trying to steal real scientists’ thunder with an exaggeration of birth trauma theory more than a decade before Janov did something similar. To suggest that the primal therapy movement is fighting the world to try to expose the importance of birth trauma is a combination of taking the theory way beyond the data, and again, trying to steal the thunder and claim authorship of the ideas of real doctors.
There is also some agreement that conditions during pregnancy also can correlate with some problems later on, again cerebral palsy is thought to be an example of this. Just to keep things straight in primal therapy fanboys minds: This was not discovered by anyone connected to primal therapy. It is more that primal therapy writers have jumped on the bandwagon and then given the distinct impression that they somehow discovered it or foreshadowed it.
Although there is some agreement that birth trauma should be avoided, there is disagreement about how this determines ones life. Janov has written that birth trauma creates an imprint in most people that helps shape one’s life in a deterministic way that lasts a lifetime. This is a necessity of income generation, because if people were resilient of early difficulties, if no imprint determined ones whole life, then the need for primal therapy 30 years after the original event would evaporate. Even if strong immovable imprints are laid down during birth as Janov claims, which is doubtful, it is highly suspect that reliving anoxia or crushing would be a sane treatment choice.
In contrast to Janov, I think scientists would likely say that if a child gets through a difficult birth without any neurological or physical damage, there likely are no lifelong effects. Only in cases of damage, such as cerebral palsy, would the birth have lifelong effects. Of course, primal therapy IS NOT a valid treatment for such lifelong diseases like cerebral palsy. We will now think about why reliving birth is not a valid treatment for birth trauma.
Which brings us the real chasm of a disagreement about birth trauma between sane doctors and primal therapists. Primal theorists’ assert that reliving birth could reverse some of the problems created by birth trauma (or in fact, as they claim, almost all ailments). There is no good evidence to say that birth primals are safe or effective. Why would subjecting brain cells to hypoxia again in adulthood help? How would that work physiologically? Why is that logical?
To illustrate this, lets consider another physical injury to cells, say a car accident that breaks your legs. Would recreating the same physical trauma, i.e. bashing legs again, help healing or make it worse? Or is it better that the treatment does not resemble the trauma? Is it better to put casts on the legs to allow the bones to heal?
[Consider this too: Imagine that your therapist incorrectly thought you have been in an accident in which your legs were broken, and the therapist gets you to recreate the accident (that actually didn't take place) physically, by bashing your legs (or something less drastic, like pushing on the legs) so as to reverse the physical (and emotional) problems you supposedly had after the accident (that actually didn't take place, it was assumed by the therapist it must have). Wouldn't that do more damage than no therapy?
Now try rereading that paragraph substituting "car accident" with "birth trauma".]
One concern is that the patient could lose brain cells or do some other damage by repeatedly facing anoxia in ”birth primals.” Now think of the effect on the patient if some brain cells were lost: would beliefs in primal theory be altered if damage did happen? Or would the patient just maybe lose a little sharpness, but still believe in primal even more religiously? When you lose brain cells, you don’t know you have lost them, you just tend to confabulate to fill in the gaps without even knowing the difference. If someone loses brain cells, would they be more or less able to use critical thinking and independent evaluative skills on the therapy they are in, and understand the social factors at work? Or are they likely to become more religious about their beliefs?
There are great dangers in reliving birth, regardless of whether it is done the way Janov says it should be done, or not, and regardless of whether it is possible or not to relive birth. I make no comment on whether it is possible, or not, to relive birth, because if I do, I lose 50% of the readers right there. Although I used to think there may also be a benefit of reliving birth, I now wonder if the process just releases endorphins (or something) that makes the person feel great temporarily for a day or so, and by using primal theory they read great significance into it, and that extends the good feeling and it leads them to say it changed them permanently, for the better.
Isn’t it better to go through life with enough oxygen, constantly and forever? If not, why not, and what evidence do you have?
I am concerned that primal participants may push (or be pushed) their birth primals too far, holding their breath or breathing all the way out to recreate the hypoxia in birth , and harm themselves (by losing or damaging brain cells, or maybe physical problems). The harm may be difficult to detect, especially if you don’t look for it, it could turn up it mental slowness, slight speech problems, planning problems, etc. Hypothetically, if the birth relivings damage the brain or body so as to lower the vital signs, the danger is the primal theorist may then label that as success, and go for more of that and encourage it in other patients. That is why vital signs may not necessarily be a good measure of mental health.
It is possible that the percentage of people damaged by anoxia or hypoxia at birth is much less than estimated by primal theory? Primal theory seems to suggest almost all people had anoxia at birth. Is that true? It is worth checking with those that actually monitor and study those things (and who are not in primal therapy or hired by them).
What evidence is there that active people (“sympaths”, Janov called them) have anoxia of a certain sort, and non-active (parasympaths) had anoxia for longer and they gave up (at the end)? What evidence is there apart from the group coming to a consensus? Why for example can’t activity levels be genetic or dietary or environmental (genetic variability in species is crucial for survival in changing environments). And the choice of the words, “sympath” and “parasympath”, aren’t they just chosen to sound scientific, aren’t they in the old American tradition of “winner” and “loser”, “extrovert” and “introvert”?
I think it is not advisable to go without oxygen. It sounds silly to even write that, but it has to be written. The brain is plastic, it can recover to a degree, but don’t push your luck, don’t deprive it at all. If you have done birth primals and lost some sharpness, it may come back, especially if you stop doing them and then exercise the brain (through learning or practicing whatever skill was diminished). Protect those cells, because after a certain age, only very few new ones are produced (although you can make many new connections between cells, number of cells is not the same as number of connections).
In fact, and this embarrasses me too as an ex-believer, there is something inherently stupid about reliving birth in primal therapy: a stupidity that can come about by intelligent people believing in an untestable underlying theory, combined with the undermining of previous beliefs and a belief conversion process that then generates testimonials as a byproduct.
The miracles promised of birth primals are not going to materialize. Primal therapists may tell you the results are always just around the corner, just after the next few birth primals, that you have to get worse before you get better. Don’t bank on it.
Written: 2007.
Last Updated: January 2011
