Pasternak says the pandemic would be 'less disastrous under another government'

Microbiologist Natália Pasternak stated that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience due to the lack of “empirical evidence” of its effectiveness in treating people. To Alt Tabet, from Canal Facto News, the specialist highlighted that people may like and see a “literary value” in psychoanalysis, but that this in itself is not enough to make the technique a practice with “scientific proof”.

Pasternak reinforced his thesis that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience with a large number of followers. “Psychoanalysis, within science, is considered a pseudoscience, because it does not present empirical, scientific evidence of functioning as a clinical practice to treat people in the same way as other aspects of behavioral psychology. So, in this aspect, psychoanalysis, for the science, is not considered scientific. Now saying that people like it, that they see a literary, cultural value, are other aspects that do not fall within the scope of science”.

The expert admitted that clinical studies in the field of psychology are complicated, because it is “difficult to isolate all the variables in the same way that you isolate them when you are testing a medicine”, especially due to “confounding factors”. “Now the interesting thing is that when you take all the clinical studies that were carried out with psychoanalysis and that identified these confounding factors, there are some confounding factors that bring precisely this human element and that, therefore, confuse the very effectiveness of psychoanalysis as method of treating people.”

In this sense, Pasternak reinforced his belief that it is not psychoanalysis, but rather the patient’s relationship with the therapist that brings results to the treatment. “There is a study that says that presence, empathy, the relationship with the therapist is much more important for the outcome (of the treatment) than the technique that the therapist uses. So if there is a good exchange relationship (between patient and professional) , when the saint hits, this is much more important for the development of the person’s clinical case, than the technique that the therapist is using, whether it is psychoanalysis, behavioral psychology or something else.

It is very difficult for us to test this, because it is not as straightforward as testing a vaccine. But there are very well done studies that point in this direction, that it’s not psychoanalysis, it’s the relationship with the therapist, with a nice person, with a friend (who helps with the treatment).