In children, depression is “a love disease that always signals a lack of presence, joy and family support”. This is what the psychoanalytic school psychologist Caroline Goldman said on August 3 on France Inter. Since July 3, public radio has been broadcasting, every weekday at 8:50 a.m., a chronicle of the daughter of the famous singer. To date, 37 episodes have been broadcast, out of the 40 planned. So many programs which, almost every time, have aroused the anger of many psychiatrists, scientists and researchers.
This is the case of Hugo Baup, a psychiatrist at the Périgueux hospital center who, for nearly two weeks, has been listening to Caroline Goldman’s chronicles daily and suggests, on his X account (formerly Twitter), a critical analysis of his remarks. “It started when I stumbled upon this episode about childhood depression. It knocked me out,” he explains.
The specialist recalls that it is perfectly possible “that a child has everything he needs on a personal level and is still depressed: because that is called an illness”. And when Caroline Goldman affirms, in this same column, that it is “quite simple to treat a child’s depression with proof of attachment and by making peace reign over his head”, he does not lose his temper. “This speech makes parents feel guilty, whom she describes as clumsy and ‘unable to have a good time with their children’. It is wrong to assert, as she does, that hyperactivity is systematically a syndrome that comes in response to depression, he tackles. It is a well-differentiated disorder: it can be one symptom of depression among others or a symptom of a disorder that can be treated, for example with methylphenidate [la molécule de la Ritaline, NDLR]”.
Hugo Baup also deplores that the psychoanalyst does not cite any study, investigation or work recognized by the scientific community in support of his remarks. “All while staging a binary vision of mental health that is completely false,” he insists.
An accumulation of errors
On August 10, Caroline Goldman also tried her hand at a chronicle on transidentity by highlighting the hypothesis of Christian Flavigny, a retired child psychiatrist, according to which “the feeling of belonging to the other gender would often initially hide a disarray any other and more particularly the fantasy in the child of having disappointed his or her parents for completely variable reasons” or even “that the children would unconsciously say to themselves that by becoming different everything could be arranged between separated parents “. The psychoanalyst claims to have had “a revelation” concerning this assumption, which came to confirm her own observations and her “tenderness for her little patients”.
“I listened 20 times to be sure… The scientific level of these declarations is nil, laments Hugo Baup. Dr. Flavigny argues that ‘speaking in consultation finally comforts the child and that this very frequently chases away this first desire for change of a kind that ultimately only dressed up this unconscious deception’, except that he did not carry out any experiments and did not publish any scientific studies to support these claims or to assess the effectiveness of his ‘solutions'” .
“Neither him nor anyone else. This assumption is not supported by any factual data and is not recognized internationally. It is a very risky guess, which is unfortunate because the general public has rather need to hear the scientific consensus”, abounds Franck Ramus, director of research at the CNRS, and researcher at the laboratory of cognitive sciences and psycholinguistics of the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Paris.
The next day, Caroline Goldman split another column that was particularly annoying. This time, she tackled attention deficit disorder with or without hyperactivity (ADHD) and worried about a risk of overdiagnosis and overprescription of methylphenidate. Nothing surprising for those who know her, since she has already gone so far as to affirm in a podcast that this neurodevelopmental disorder would be an invention of the pharmaceutical industry aimed at selling more drugs, including Ritalin.
What to provoke the anger of the association ADHD everywherewho published a statement denouncing “heaps of false information against which patients, patient associations as well as experienced professionals on this subject have been fighting for years”. In a report published in 2021, the High Authority for Health also pointed to a “significant delay in the identification, diagnosis and effective management of this disorder” caused by insufficient training of health professionals.
The use of methylphenidate has already demonstrated its efficacy and a benefit-risk balance in favor of its use for patients who need it. “It is unworthy and disrespectful (not to say dangerous) that such ideas are still propagated on a public channel”, insists the ADHD association everywhere. “Furthermore, there is a statement of international scientific consensus on ADHD, says Franck Ramus. It was produced by world specialists in the field and holds 14 points. And Mrs. Goldman ignores or contradicts each of these 14 points.
Psychoanalysis is not a science
On August 15, Caroline Goldman launched into a vibrant plea in favor of psychoanalysis, affirming that her opponents would be ignorant, and deploring that she is “so hated in France”. An astonishing assertion, since if the psychoanalyst is neglected and ignored in all the countries of the world, she remains on the contrary very influential in France – and in Argentina -, as well in the universities as the care centers and the media. In this column, Caroline Goldman again explains to France Inter listeners that it is necessary to do “long studies” to become a psychoanalyst. This practice is in reality neither recognized nor framed: anyone can proclaim themselves a psychoanalyst in a few minutes, since this term covers neither a title nor a diploma.
“What shocks me is the dogmatic aspect of her speech, which she delivers with disconcerting aplomb. She gives lessons on what should be believed, with a contemptuous tone towards science, without moderation, without source and without taking a step back, denounces for his part David Masson, psychiatrist at the Center de psychothérapique de Nancy and of the CURe Grand Est network.Like Hugo Baup, he also listened to several chronicles by Caroline Goldman and decided to share his critical analyzes on his Twitter account. “The worst thing is that it leads uninformed listeners to believe that psychoanalysis is a calm and effective science – when it is only a set of theories for the majority that have not been validated or tested – which would be the unique benevolent and humanist response to people with mental disorders, while tackling neuroscience (especially in the episode of August 17), drugs, questionnaires and doctors who are not very committed or involved and who do not take the time with their patients “.
“In the midst of the shipwreck of child psychiatry, where the workforce is collapsing and the delays have never been so long, precisely where psychoanalysis seems to hold its last bastion, Caroline Goldman is surfing on an unhealthy wave by asserting loud and clear that ‘psychoanalysis cures the child where neuroscience simply allows him to acclimatize with his disorders’. In terms of public health, it is dramatic”, abounds Hugo Baup.
The two specialists are also worried about the potential damage that Caroline Goldman’s speech could cause. “In the program ProFamily, which accompanies relatives of patients with schizophrenia, I receive many people in great pain, who very often feel guilty and think that they are the cause of the disease, because they have not accompanied enough, not loved enough . But the kind of speech uttered by Caroline Goldman completely validates this guilt”, believes David Masson. More generally, if the psychiatrist refuses to criticize all psychoanalysts, he recalls that psychoanalysis is not indicated in the care of severe mental disorders such as psychoses or neurodevelopmental disorders and can even lead to delays in taking charge of treatments which have themselves demonstrated their effectiveness, such as psychotherapies or drug treatments.
“At a time when everyone can give their opinion and divert scientific data”
The psychoanalyst is not at her first scientific approximations. At the beginning of the year, for example, it tackled positive education by opposing the Time Out, a tool that comes from positive parenting programs that she has largely distorted. In her books and podcast, she also argues that “isolating your child from the age of 1 has important educational virtues” and that this practice would be based on “an international scientific consensus”. A false statement, as explained by a dozen child psychiatrists and researchers interviewed as part of an investigation by L’Express.
The words of the psychoanalyst have, moreover, been sharply criticized by more than 280 researchers who signed a column published in The worldin which they pointed out its errors and deplored the media benevolence from which it benefits.
None of this, however, prevented France Inter from granting her 40 broadcasts in which she has carte blanche to detail her theories, without contradiction from either a journalist or any specialist in the subjects she addresses. In what might look like a snub, France Inter even goes so far as to write, on the web page dedicated to his column : “At a time when everyone can give their opinion and divert scientific data, Caroline Goldman wishes to take psychology out of research laboratories and complex books”. Asked by L’Express, the latter did not answer our questions.