The Only Cure by Mark Solms Freud and the Neuroscience of Mental Healing
What's it about?
The Only Cure (2026), reexamines one of the most controversial figures in the history of science and finds that the case against him was aimed at the wrong target. It argues that while Sigmund Freud's theories were flawed and of their time, the method he built around them remains uniquely equipped to address the kind of suffering that conventional psychiatry fails to cure.
For more than half a century, one of medicine's most powerful ideas has been dismissed as unscientific. Since the latter-half of the Twentieth-Century, the work of pioneering psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud was abandoned as unverifiable in clinical settings. What replaced it as a treatment for mental disorders is faster, cheaper, and measurable. It is also, for a significant class of human suffering, not helpful.
Some patients find their lives and health unraveling despite seeking medication and cognitive-behavioral therapies. They may develop chronic pain conditions, autoimmunity, heart or neurological irregularities that are significant and debilitating. Their symptoms morph with each new intervention, but with no one listening to them, they never subside.
This lesson traces what became lost in translation when Freud’s work was dismissed as pseudoscience. It aims to uncover why philosophy, neuroscience and clinical research are all, in their different ways, circling back to recover Freud.
Every illness has two potential futures. In one, the symptoms are treated: identified, targeted, and eliminated as efficiently as possible. In the other, the symptom is heard. It is understood as a signal, sometimes urgent and often cryptic, that something deep is asking to be listened to. Modern medicine, including psychology and psychiatry, for all its extraordinary achievements, has grown remarkably good at treating symptoms. It no longer bothers to listen to them.
This distinction is more important than it might at first appear. A symptom, like a fever, a pain, a persistent low mood, in the purely medical sense is a sign that something is wrong. But there is an older and more demanding way of understanding what a symptom does. It is the mind and body's way of saying something that they cannot yet articulate. It is not a malfunction. It is a message. And a message, unlike a malfunction, can’t just be fixed. It has to be received.
Psychoanalysis, whatever its many controversies, was built on precisely this premise. Its central wager was that human suffering is rarely random. Pain has a history, a logic, and a meaning that the sufferer themselves may not consciously grasp. The work of analysis was not to silence the symptom but to follow it, the way you might follow a thread through a darkened room, until the larger pattern it belonged to became visible.
That premise was, for a time, genuinely electrifying. Freud and his followers offered a framework for understanding human suffering that felt like a discovery on the scale of Darwin or Copernicus. Then the backlash came. By the mid-twentieth century, a powerful philosophical critique had taken hold, led most forcefully by philosopher of science Karl Popper.
His argument was precise and damaging: psychoanalysis could not be disproven. Whatever happened in the consulting room, the theory could absorb it. Resistance confirmed the theory. Compliance confirmed the theory. A framework that explains everything, Popper argued, actually explains nothing and has no right to call itself science.
This critique opened the door to a very different model of mental healthcare. Behaviourism, and later cognitive behavioural therapy, offered what psychoanalysis conspicuously lacked: measurable results within controlled timeframes. It was rigorous, efficient, and evidence-based. It also, not coincidentally, treated the symptom as the problem. Identify the distorted thought pattern. Correct it. Discharge the patient.
For a significant range of human distress, this approach works well. For another range — chronic, recurring, shapeshifting, resistant to every intervention — it keeps arriving at the same quiet dead end. The symptom lifts, and then it returns, or something very like it does, and the cycle begins again.
What that pattern suggests is that for certain kinds of suffering, the symptom was never the problem. It was always the message. And until the message is heard, the suffering will always find another way to speak.
Working in Vienna in the final decades of the nineteenth century, Sigmund Freud began noticing something that neurology of the time had no framework to explain. His patients were suffering from real, debilitating symptoms like paralysis, blindness, or chronic pain, and no physical cause could be found. The body was expressing something the mind could not yet articulate. In case after case, when Freud created the conditions for patients to speak freely, without the usual social filters and self-censorship, the symptoms began to shift. Sometimes they even dissolved entirely.
From this clinical observation grew a set of ideas that would reshape how the Western world understood humans. For instance, that the mind contains processes to which we have no conscious access, and early experiences leave lasting traces in the personality. Or that what we cannot remember, we are condemned to repeat. Or that dreams, slips of the tongue, and irrational fears are not noise, they’re signals from a part of the mind that cannot speak.
These weren’t idle speculations, but conclusions drawn from years of close, painstaking work with real patients in real distress. Famous cases like Anna O., the Rat Man, the Wolf Man, however contested, represented something genuinely new: a systematic attempt to read the language of suffering rather than suppressing it.
Freud's framework spread far beyond the consulting room into literature, anthropology, philosophy, and art. It offered something that felt, to many, like a discovery on the scale of Darwin — a new map of what it meant to be human.
Then came Popper’s falsifiability critique, and the map began to be rolled up. The philosopher Adolf Grünbaum extended the attack with greater technical precision in the 1980s, arguing that even the clinical evidence Freudian analysts cited was fatally compromised: patients were suggestible, analysts were not neutral, and the consulting room was the last place to look for scientific proof of anything.
A host of critics were evaluating Freud’s theories, but what Freud had built was a method. These are not the same thing. A theory makes claims about the world that can be tested and potentially refuted. A method is a set of practices oriented toward a goal, and it is judged by whether it achieves what it sets out to achieve.
Surgery was saving lives for centuries before anyone understood infection. Aspirin was prescribed for decades before its mechanism was fully understood. The effectiveness of a practice does not wait on the perfection of its theory.
What the method of psychoanalysis sets out to achieve is something that no controlled trial has ever been able to measure: a fundamental shift in how a person relates to their own inner life. Not the removal of a symptom, but a change in the conditions that keep producing symptoms. Not a better coping strategy, but a genuine encounter with the material that the symptom has been holding in place.
Meet Daniel.
Daniel is a senior cardiac surgeon in his mid-forties, known for his precision and grace under pressure. Several years ago, his father died suddenly, and within eighteen months his marriage had quietly unravelled. He sought help promptly, and his doctor prescribed antidepressants and referred him to a cognitive behavioural therapist. Daniel engaged fully with both. The depression lifted. He was, by every clinical measure, a treatment success.
Then his hands began to shake.
For a surgeon, tremors are a career-ending event. Daniel was removed from operating duties while investigations were conducted. Neurological tests came back clear. Stress was cited as a likely factor, and his medication was adjusted.
The tremors subsided, but were replaced within months by a severe inflammatory condition affecting his joints — his knees swelled so badly that some mornings he couldn’t handle a single flight of stairs. He was placed on immunosuppressants. The inflammation eventually stabilized, but he was now experiencing episodes of heart arrhythmia that required further monitoring and medication.
Three years after his father's death, Daniel is on extended medical leave. A man who spent years training to operate on the human heart cannot reliably walk to his letterbox. He is managing six separate prescriptions. He is no longer depressed, technically. He is also barely living.
It’s at this point that Daniel enters a psychoanalyst's consulting room. The analyst notices something that none of his previous clinicians had even looked for: Daniel speaks about his father's death with careful, measured composure. He describes his divorce as a mutual and reasonable decision. He is intelligent, cooperative, and almost entirely unreachable. The original loss — not just his father and his marriage, but the self image that had been organised around both — has never been felt.
Each symptom, it gradually becomes clear, arrived at precisely the moment a feeling was about to surface. The tremors began near the first anniversary of his father's death. The inflammatory episode followed a chance encounter with his ex wife. The body had been keeping a faithful record of everything Daniel’s mind had refused to hold.
Daniel did not need his symptoms removed. He needed the conditions in which he could finally begin to feel what he had lost. That process would take years — not weeks — and there would be no clean endpoint, no moment at which the analyst could declare the case closed. What there would be, slowly and unevenly, was a life reassembling itself.
The tragedy is that in discrediting Freud’s work as pseudoscience, an entire culture also abandoned his method. To sit with a patient and slowly follow the thread of their suffering wherever it leads is not a theoretical claim: it is a dynamic healing practice.
Across clinical literature, a consistent pattern emerges among patients whose suffering resists conventional intervention, or even decline with treatment. They are not imagining their symptoms — the pain, autoimmunity, or heart irregularities are physiologically real. They are not failing to engage with treatment, either.
Most, like Daniel in the last chapter, are model patients. What they share is a particular kind of history: significant loss or trauma that was never fully processed, and a symptomatic life that keeps reorganising itself around that unaddressed core.
The medical term for this territory is psychosomatic — a word that has been so badly misused it has almost lost its meaning. It has come to imply that the suffering is somehow less real, a product of weakness or imagination. What it actually describes is one of the most sophisticated things a human organism can do: convert unprocessed psychological material into physical experience. So that what cannot be thought can instead be felt in the body. The neuroscience of this process is now well established, even where the treatments remain contested.
What changes in the consulting room is not dramatic or sudden. There is no breakthrough session, no cathartic release that resolves everything. What happens instead is slower and more structural. It begins with speaking about oneself and one’s experiences, slowly becoming able to speak about topics like loss or traumas. Patients are guided to feel what all the symptoms have been expressing on their behalf.
The physical changes follow gradually. Flare-ups of autoimmune conditions, for instance, become less frequent. They may even begin to correlate less with the body and more with identifiable moments of emotional pressure. This means that they can be anticipated, contextualised, and over time, metabolised instead of medicated.
It is important to note that for Daniel, treatment did not mean a return to his life as a surgeon. Some losses are permanent, and analysis does not promise otherwise. What it offers instead is the possibility of a life no longer organised around the avoidance of feeling. Daniel did return to medicine in a teaching capacity, which was actually closer to something he had always wanted to do but never allowed himself to consider.
Wellness, in this framework, isn’t the absence of symptoms, or a return to what was once considered normal. It looks more like a person who has developed the capacity to carry their experience without being capsized by it. That is a quieter outcome than most pharmaceutical medicines deliver. It is also, for a significant class of human suffering, the only one that lasts.
Freud, it turns out, is difficult to bury.
Even those most determined to move beyond him have found the attempt surprisingly costly. Political radicals approached his work with particular ambivalence, drawn to the possibility that a theory of individual repression might illuminate something larger about how societies organise and suppress desire.
Herbert Marcuse extended Freudian concepts to diagnose the psychological conformism demanded by capitalist life. Frantz Fanon brought psychoanalytic thinking to bear on the lived experience of racism and colonial subjugation, finding in it a language precise enough to describe damage that political theory alone could not reach.
Deleuze and Guattari mounted perhaps the most energetic philosophical challenge. They argued that Freud glimpsed something genuinely revolutionary in the nature of human desire — and then, at the critical moment, pulled back from it. Claiming Freud chose order instead of following the implications where they led. Their frustration is telling. It is the frustration of thinkers who needed Freud's insights badly enough to be furious at his limitations.
Freud himself would not have been surprised by any of this, and likely not flattered either. His own view of political life was deeply pessimistic. Mass movements of any kind, be they political, religious, or nationalist, struck him as regressive, driven by unconscious forces not rational ones. Given he had to flee to the United Kingdom when Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938, his pessimism was hardly unfounded.
What this intellectual history reveals is something important about the nature of Freud's contribution. His theories were products of their time: bounded, flawed, and in several respects just wrong. But the conceptual tools he forged proved durable enough to be picked up, repurposed, and sharpened by thinkers with radically different agendas across more than a century. That kind of longevity is not possible for a belief system kept alive by institutional loyalty. It is the longevity of something that keeps proving useful.
The contemporary rehabilitation of psychoanalytic thinking in neuroscience and long-term clinical research has made this clearer still. Affective neuroscience has confirmed that the unconscious processing of emotion is not a poetic metaphor but a neurological reality. Long-term outcome studies have demonstrated that psychodynamic treatment produces benefits that continue accumulating after the therapy ends — a finding that short-term models cannot replicate and have largely struggled to explain.
Freud was wrong about many things. He was also the first to build a systematic practice around the proposition that suffering has meaning, that the therapeutic relationship is itself an instrument of change, and that lasting recovery requires something more than silencing what the symptom is trying to say. Those ideas did not become false when the theory around them was found wanting. They simply waited.
The main takeaway of this lesson to The Only Cure by Mark Solms is that…
A symptom is not always a malfunction. For many patients, it is the mind and body's best attempt to communicate something that has never been safely said. Treating it as a problem to be eliminated — efficiently, measurably, and fast — can suppress the signal without addressing its source, producing suffering that migrates rather than resolves. The evidence from neuroscience and long-term outcome research increasingly supports what psychoanalytic practice has long observed: that lasting recovery doesn’t need the removal of symptoms, but safe conditions to be expressed, through which their meaning can finally be understood.
The Only Cure (2026), reexamines one of the most controversial figures in the history of science and finds that the case against him was aimed at the wrong target. It argues that while Sigmund Freud's theories were flawed and of their time, the method he built around them remains uniquely equipped to address the kind of suffering that conventional psychiatry fails to cure.
For more than half a century, one of medicine's most powerful ideas has been dismissed as unscientific. Since the latter-half of the Twentieth-Century, the work of pioneering psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud was abandoned as unverifiable in clinical settings. What replaced it as a treatment for mental disorders is faster, cheaper, and measurable. It is also, for a significant class of human suffering, not helpful.
Some patients find their lives and health unraveling despite seeking medication and cognitive-behavioral therapies. They may develop chronic pain conditions, autoimmunity, heart or neurological irregularities that are significant and debilitating. Their symptoms morph with each new intervention, but with no one listening to them, they never subside.
This lesson traces what became lost in translation when Freud’s work was dismissed as pseudoscience. It aims to uncover why philosophy, neuroscience and clinical research are all, in their different ways, circling back to recover Freud.
Every illness has two potential futures. In one, the symptoms are treated: identified, targeted, and eliminated as efficiently as possible. In the other, the symptom is heard. It is understood as a signal, sometimes urgent and often cryptic, that something deep is asking to be listened to. Modern medicine, including psychology and psychiatry, for all its extraordinary achievements, has grown remarkably good at treating symptoms. It no longer bothers to listen to them.
This distinction is more important than it might at first appear. A symptom, like a fever, a pain, a persistent low mood, in the purely medical sense is a sign that something is wrong. But there is an older and more demanding way of understanding what a symptom does. It is the mind and body's way of saying something that they cannot yet articulate. It is not a malfunction. It is a message. And a message, unlike a malfunction, can’t just be fixed. It has to be received.
Psychoanalysis, whatever its many controversies, was built on precisely this premise. Its central wager was that human suffering is rarely random. Pain has a history, a logic, and a meaning that the sufferer themselves may not consciously grasp. The work of analysis was not to silence the symptom but to follow it, the way you might follow a thread through a darkened room, until the larger pattern it belonged to became visible.
That premise was, for a time, genuinely electrifying. Freud and his followers offered a framework for understanding human suffering that felt like a discovery on the scale of Darwin or Copernicus. Then the backlash came. By the mid-twentieth century, a powerful philosophical critique had taken hold, led most forcefully by philosopher of science Karl Popper.
His argument was precise and damaging: psychoanalysis could not be disproven. Whatever happened in the consulting room, the theory could absorb it. Resistance confirmed the theory. Compliance confirmed the theory. A framework that explains everything, Popper argued, actually explains nothing and has no right to call itself science.
This critique opened the door to a very different model of mental healthcare. Behaviourism, and later cognitive behavioural therapy, offered what psychoanalysis conspicuously lacked: measurable results within controlled timeframes. It was rigorous, efficient, and evidence-based. It also, not coincidentally, treated the symptom as the problem. Identify the distorted thought pattern. Correct it. Discharge the patient.
For a significant range of human distress, this approach works well. For another range — chronic, recurring, shapeshifting, resistant to every intervention — it keeps arriving at the same quiet dead end. The symptom lifts, and then it returns, or something very like it does, and the cycle begins again.
What that pattern suggests is that for certain kinds of suffering, the symptom was never the problem. It was always the message. And until the message is heard, the suffering will always find another way to speak.
Working in Vienna in the final decades of the nineteenth century, Sigmund Freud began noticing something that neurology of the time had no framework to explain. His patients were suffering from real, debilitating symptoms like paralysis, blindness, or chronic pain, and no physical cause could be found. The body was expressing something the mind could not yet articulate. In case after case, when Freud created the conditions for patients to speak freely, without the usual social filters and self-censorship, the symptoms began to shift. Sometimes they even dissolved entirely.
From this clinical observation grew a set of ideas that would reshape how the Western world understood humans. For instance, that the mind contains processes to which we have no conscious access, and early experiences leave lasting traces in the personality. Or that what we cannot remember, we are condemned to repeat. Or that dreams, slips of the tongue, and irrational fears are not noise, they’re signals from a part of the mind that cannot speak.
These weren’t idle speculations, but conclusions drawn from years of close, painstaking work with real patients in real distress. Famous cases like Anna O., the Rat Man, the Wolf Man, however contested, represented something genuinely new: a systematic attempt to read the language of suffering rather than suppressing it.
Freud's framework spread far beyond the consulting room into literature, anthropology, philosophy, and art. It offered something that felt, to many, like a discovery on the scale of Darwin — a new map of what it meant to be human.
Then came Popper’s falsifiability critique, and the map began to be rolled up. The philosopher Adolf Grünbaum extended the attack with greater technical precision in the 1980s, arguing that even the clinical evidence Freudian analysts cited was fatally compromised: patients were suggestible, analysts were not neutral, and the consulting room was the last place to look for scientific proof of anything.
A host of critics were evaluating Freud’s theories, but what Freud had built was a method. These are not the same thing. A theory makes claims about the world that can be tested and potentially refuted. A method is a set of practices oriented toward a goal, and it is judged by whether it achieves what it sets out to achieve.
Surgery was saving lives for centuries before anyone understood infection. Aspirin was prescribed for decades before its mechanism was fully understood. The effectiveness of a practice does not wait on the perfection of its theory.
What the method of psychoanalysis sets out to achieve is something that no controlled trial has ever been able to measure: a fundamental shift in how a person relates to their own inner life. Not the removal of a symptom, but a change in the conditions that keep producing symptoms. Not a better coping strategy, but a genuine encounter with the material that the symptom has been holding in place.
Meet Daniel.
Daniel is a senior cardiac surgeon in his mid-forties, known for his precision and grace under pressure. Several years ago, his father died suddenly, and within eighteen months his marriage had quietly unravelled. He sought help promptly, and his doctor prescribed antidepressants and referred him to a cognitive behavioural therapist. Daniel engaged fully with both. The depression lifted. He was, by every clinical measure, a treatment success.
Then his hands began to shake.
For a surgeon, tremors are a career-ending event. Daniel was removed from operating duties while investigations were conducted. Neurological tests came back clear. Stress was cited as a likely factor, and his medication was adjusted.
The tremors subsided, but were replaced within months by a severe inflammatory condition affecting his joints — his knees swelled so badly that some mornings he couldn’t handle a single flight of stairs. He was placed on immunosuppressants. The inflammation eventually stabilized, but he was now experiencing episodes of heart arrhythmia that required further monitoring and medication.
Three years after his father's death, Daniel is on extended medical leave. A man who spent years training to operate on the human heart cannot reliably walk to his letterbox. He is managing six separate prescriptions. He is no longer depressed, technically. He is also barely living.
It’s at this point that Daniel enters a psychoanalyst's consulting room. The analyst notices something that none of his previous clinicians had even looked for: Daniel speaks about his father's death with careful, measured composure. He describes his divorce as a mutual and reasonable decision. He is intelligent, cooperative, and almost entirely unreachable. The original loss — not just his father and his marriage, but the self image that had been organised around both — has never been felt.
Each symptom, it gradually becomes clear, arrived at precisely the moment a feeling was about to surface. The tremors began near the first anniversary of his father's death. The inflammatory episode followed a chance encounter with his ex wife. The body had been keeping a faithful record of everything Daniel’s mind had refused to hold.
Daniel did not need his symptoms removed. He needed the conditions in which he could finally begin to feel what he had lost. That process would take years — not weeks — and there would be no clean endpoint, no moment at which the analyst could declare the case closed. What there would be, slowly and unevenly, was a life reassembling itself.
The tragedy is that in discrediting Freud’s work as pseudoscience, an entire culture also abandoned his method. To sit with a patient and slowly follow the thread of their suffering wherever it leads is not a theoretical claim: it is a dynamic healing practice.
Across clinical literature, a consistent pattern emerges among patients whose suffering resists conventional intervention, or even decline with treatment. They are not imagining their symptoms — the pain, autoimmunity, or heart irregularities are physiologically real. They are not failing to engage with treatment, either.
Most, like Daniel in the last chapter, are model patients. What they share is a particular kind of history: significant loss or trauma that was never fully processed, and a symptomatic life that keeps reorganising itself around that unaddressed core.
The medical term for this territory is psychosomatic — a word that has been so badly misused it has almost lost its meaning. It has come to imply that the suffering is somehow less real, a product of weakness or imagination. What it actually describes is one of the most sophisticated things a human organism can do: convert unprocessed psychological material into physical experience. So that what cannot be thought can instead be felt in the body. The neuroscience of this process is now well established, even where the treatments remain contested.
What changes in the consulting room is not dramatic or sudden. There is no breakthrough session, no cathartic release that resolves everything. What happens instead is slower and more structural. It begins with speaking about oneself and one’s experiences, slowly becoming able to speak about topics like loss or traumas. Patients are guided to feel what all the symptoms have been expressing on their behalf.
The physical changes follow gradually. Flare-ups of autoimmune conditions, for instance, become less frequent. They may even begin to correlate less with the body and more with identifiable moments of emotional pressure. This means that they can be anticipated, contextualised, and over time, metabolised instead of medicated.
It is important to note that for Daniel, treatment did not mean a return to his life as a surgeon. Some losses are permanent, and analysis does not promise otherwise. What it offers instead is the possibility of a life no longer organised around the avoidance of feeling. Daniel did return to medicine in a teaching capacity, which was actually closer to something he had always wanted to do but never allowed himself to consider.
Wellness, in this framework, isn’t the absence of symptoms, or a return to what was once considered normal. It looks more like a person who has developed the capacity to carry their experience without being capsized by it. That is a quieter outcome than most pharmaceutical medicines deliver. It is also, for a significant class of human suffering, the only one that lasts.
Freud, it turns out, is difficult to bury.
Even those most determined to move beyond him have found the attempt surprisingly costly. Political radicals approached his work with particular ambivalence, drawn to the possibility that a theory of individual repression might illuminate something larger about how societies organise and suppress desire.
Herbert Marcuse extended Freudian concepts to diagnose the psychological conformism demanded by capitalist life. Frantz Fanon brought psychoanalytic thinking to bear on the lived experience of racism and colonial subjugation, finding in it a language precise enough to describe damage that political theory alone could not reach.
Deleuze and Guattari mounted perhaps the most energetic philosophical challenge. They argued that Freud glimpsed something genuinely revolutionary in the nature of human desire — and then, at the critical moment, pulled back from it. Claiming Freud chose order instead of following the implications where they led. Their frustration is telling. It is the frustration of thinkers who needed Freud's insights badly enough to be furious at his limitations.
Freud himself would not have been surprised by any of this, and likely not flattered either. His own view of political life was deeply pessimistic. Mass movements of any kind, be they political, religious, or nationalist, struck him as regressive, driven by unconscious forces not rational ones. Given he had to flee to the United Kingdom when Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938, his pessimism was hardly unfounded.
What this intellectual history reveals is something important about the nature of Freud's contribution. His theories were products of their time: bounded, flawed, and in several respects just wrong. But the conceptual tools he forged proved durable enough to be picked up, repurposed, and sharpened by thinkers with radically different agendas across more than a century. That kind of longevity is not possible for a belief system kept alive by institutional loyalty. It is the longevity of something that keeps proving useful.
The contemporary rehabilitation of psychoanalytic thinking in neuroscience and long-term clinical research has made this clearer still. Affective neuroscience has confirmed that the unconscious processing of emotion is not a poetic metaphor but a neurological reality. Long-term outcome studies have demonstrated that psychodynamic treatment produces benefits that continue accumulating after the therapy ends — a finding that short-term models cannot replicate and have largely struggled to explain.
Freud was wrong about many things. He was also the first to build a systematic practice around the proposition that suffering has meaning, that the therapeutic relationship is itself an instrument of change, and that lasting recovery requires something more than silencing what the symptom is trying to say. Those ideas did not become false when the theory around them was found wanting. They simply waited.
The main takeaway of this lesson to The Only Cure by Mark Solms is that…
A symptom is not always a malfunction. For many patients, it is the mind and body's best attempt to communicate something that has never been safely said. Treating it as a problem to be eliminated — efficiently, measurably, and fast — can suppress the signal without addressing its source, producing suffering that migrates rather than resolves. The evidence from neuroscience and long-term outcome research increasingly supports what psychoanalytic practice has long observed: that lasting recovery doesn’t need the removal of symptoms, but safe conditions to be expressed, through which their meaning can finally be understood.
Comments
Post a Comment