The Only Cure by Mark Solms review – has modern neuroscience proved Freud right?

 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2026/jan/12/the-only-cure-by-mark-solms-review-a-bold-attempt-to-rehabilitate-freud

I read The Only Cure through the lens of its bold – perhaps too bold – title. It contains two claims. First, that psychoanalysis is a cure in the sense that its benefits are lasting and may continue after treatment has been completed. Second, it is the only cure since rival treatments – notably drugs – may lose their effect when they are discontinued because they do not address underlying causes. Solms cites overviews of clinical trials that he believes support these claims. The story he tells seems extremely encouraging – unless, like me, you are obsessional enough to read the papers to which he refers.

When Solms homes in on the evidence for what he calls “good old-fashioned psychoanalysis”, he cites the positive findings of an authoritative systematic overview, but omits reference to the final lines of the paper, which warns against drawing hasty conclusions and calls for “larger studies of higher quality”. A more recent systematic review published in the Lancet Psychiatry was similarly cautious. Admittedly, the treatment schedule was brief. More relevant, perhaps, is an examination of the effectiveness of long-term psychoanalytic therapy (at least 50 sessions over a year). This seems to show clear benefit, but again the authors counsel caution “given the low quality of available evidence”.

The jury is still out, therefore, as to whether psychoanalysis is a cure, never mind the only cure. At best one can conclude it is as effective as other psychological treatments such as cognitive behavioural therapy, which are, however, less labour intensive.