My perspective is that ideas need to earn their keep. You have said a few times that I'm "dismissing" ideas, whereas the way science works is that you have to make a case for why your idea should be valued.
Tallis is a clinical psychologist and as I mentioned the clinical (which above I called applied but really I mostly meant clinical) psychologists have been trying to revive Freud for a long time. Tallis is also an author and as even he points out Freud is studied more in literature than in psychology. So yes there is a whole literature of clinical psychologists trying to revive Freud's reputation, and it goes back decades and possibly centuries. I have no problem with you agreeing that literature, but I do want to point out that I already indicated above that it existed.
But clinical psychologists are not trained in research, which is the branch of psychology that conducts the science. So they usually don't have the background to understand whether his contributions count as scientific research. The article also makes at least one factual mistake -- Koller discovered the anesthetic properties of cocaine, Freud did not suggest them. It doesn't seem to make a case for any science Freud did.
Galileo is a good scientist because he did science. We don't include his horoscopes as science. Same with Newton and his alchemy. Freud has just the horoscopes and alchemy so he hasn't achieved the same status.
Most of what people typically say they value in Freud predates him by thinkers whose reputation is stronger. The idea that the mind does a great deal of unconscious work goes back to the 1700s with people like Kant and Hume in philosophy. William James started writing about the unconscious mind in 1890, a few years before Freud. Ramón y Cajal was doing his neuroscience work around the same time as Freud. We sometimes think of Freud as one of the first psychologists and as inventing some famous concepts like the unconscious. But that's not actually true. There were other psychologists who predated him or were working at the same time who are considered today to have made lasting empirical contributions in a way that Freud hasn't. So it's not about his being early it's about the way he chose to go about things.
> their individual-centric approach and reasoning
I'm not sure what you mean here, but if by individual-centric approach you mean case studies, then yes this is very relevant. An individual experience is an anecdote or one datum. You need to systematically study lots of data. Freud dealt in case reports, so units of individual anecdotes. There's not enough information and not enough systematization to extract useful signal from the noise.
> I strongly disagree with your statement that psychological disorders are distinct in terms of etiology. That's just not true, and frankly, unscientific to make up such a claim.
Under your view, how would you explain why the disorders have different rates of heritability, different genetic markers, different fMRI patterns, and different treatments?