Autism Blog - Facilitated Communication – where does a neurodiverse skeptic stand?

06 Oct 2009

Author: Kev
Comments: 269

Facilitated Communication – where does a neurodiverse skeptic stand?

An article in yesterdays Longmont Times raised (for me anyway) the issue of Facilitated Communication.

This is an issue that is, in its own way, just as divisive as the vaccine issue amongst sections of the autism community and science. You see, some autistic and autism advocates believe passionately in the efficacy of FC whilst science largely rejects FC:

Current position statements of certain professional and/or advocacy organizations do not support the use of Facilitated Communication due to their objections that it lacks scientific validity or reliability. These organizations include the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI), American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the American Association on Mental Retardation. ABAI calls FC a “discredited technique” and warns that “its use is unwarranted and unethical.”

The Association for Science in Autism Treatment reviewed the research and position statements and concluded that the messages typed on the communication device were controlled by the facilitator, not the individual with autism, and FC did not improve their language skills. Therefore, FC was reported to be an “inappropriate intervention” for individuals with autism spectrum disorders

The section of the autism community that accepts FC as a valid technique is largely the neurodiversity movement in who’s ranks I place myself. But is this making me a hypocrite? I place such firm emphasis on science when it comes to vaccines I can do no less in other areas. But on the other hand voices I trust implicitly within the neurodiversity movement speak out in favour of FC. Amanda Baggs, Kathleen Seidel and (I think) Michelle Dawson to name but three. * [correction: Michelle is not an FC supporter] *

So what do I do? Should I be making a call for more studies (sounds familiar!) or dismissing the voices of autistic people I trust on the issue or dismissing established science?

Or is there another option? What are your thoughts on FC? A decent debate would be useful for lots of people I think.

Link to this post?

If you want to reference this post in your site, use the code below to link to me from your website.

<a href="http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/10/facilitated-communication-where-does-a-neurodiverse-skeptic-stand/">Facilitated Communication – where does a neurodiverse skeptic stand?</a>

Comments

269 Responses to “Facilitated Communication – where does a neurodiverse skeptic stand?”

Jen
October 6th, 2009
11:48:50

I believe that it is possible to disagree respectfully within a community while still holding true to your own beliefs (certainly the World Council of Churches often manages it, and religion is often more divisive than anything else.) Debate is rarely a bad thing if it is done respectfully, and I don’t believe that we can just ignore scientific evidence in one area while holding less controversial subjects (less controversial at least within our community) to a higher standard of proof just because some of our friends disagree. In every marriage, community, belief system or movement there are going to be growing pains, and I don’t believe that ignoring the elephant in the room is going to help at all in the long run.

I’d certainly be interested in learning more about FC from people that I respect- from everything that I’ve read and seen it doesn’t seem to be valid, but I’m hardly an expert on it. I’d be very interested to know if there are any scientifically valid studies that do give it credence, and if not, why should we hold it to a different standard of proof?
Dawn
October 6th, 2009
12:00:10

I think one of the problems, from the studies on FC, is that you can’t be sure the answers are from the facilitated person rather than the facilitator. I seem to recall one study where the tested persons gave very discordant answers depending on whether the parent or a trained but unrelated person was facilitating.
Rather like a Ouija board, the parent may not be aware of their controlling of the conversation, it’s based on unconcious muscle movement. But I think more studies would be interesting.

@ Jen: as far as I have found, there are no current studies that give it credence. All the recent studies (all a few years or more old) discredit the theory. But, like you, people I respect accept it so I would like to see more proof it works or doesn’t work.
Jeff Gitchel
October 6th, 2009
13:37:50

I would like to see what happens when FC is combined with some of the new Japanese exoskeleton advances. If my understanding of FC is at all realistic, then it has to do with attentuating extraneous movement. The same exoskeletons that can magnify movement should be able to attenuate it as well. If a machine takes over supporting the communicator, perhaps we’ll get a real test of FC.
Joseph
October 6th, 2009
13:40:28

From studies I’ve seen, the vast majority of what is called FC is fraudulent (even if the facilitator is not doing it on purpose, in much the same way an astrologist might be convinced of their woo.) However, it is possible (not proven) that it has worked for some individuals, i.e. there are people who now communicate independently using a keyboard who have started out using FC.
farmwifetwo
October 6th, 2009
13:46:27

Everyone uses FC, EVERYONE… they just call it “Hand over Hand” now. How else do you teach ANYONE how to do a task that cannot learn easily by watching you??? To discredit it 100%, is impossible.

NOW… if someone gets handed a keyboard and claims their child is a genius – add Estee Klar in this group – is blatantly lying.

One thing I have discovered, and I have both ends of the spectrum in my house – is that you CANNOT skip a developmental milestone. You have to learn to roll, sit, crawl and then walk… always.

That’s not to say that the use of a weighted vest, weighted pencils (little boy has one), weighted wristbands, don’t all work and don’t all help, because they do for those that require the sensory input to concentrate.

But to claim a 5yr old or a child that has never seen a computer or a keyboard or has never been taught to read or to spell, never learned to put together a sentence, can miraculously produce epics…. not true.
Rose
October 6th, 2009
14:46:59

I’d say listen to the experts. Of course, in this case, I’m deciding who the experts are!

Communication, even facilitated, is a profoundly difficult task for some kids. To even get them to begin, to want to leave the world of passive existence is going to take intermediary steps. It’s got to be made worth the trouble for so many children who have to undergo intensive machinations to do what most kids do in an instant without trying.

We (her mom and I) developed a low-tech (made out of manilla paper) communication device for a 11 year old girl with severe CP. It might take her 5 minutes to spell a 4-letter word. But we tried to be kosher, and make sure it was her efforts. We were pretty sure it was when asked “Who is coming”, and she spelled “Gude” for Judy, her speech teacher. She had never been taught to spell or even read as it was supposed she was retarded. It was a laborious process on the part of her teacher (me) and her mother to get to this point, and took weeks to develop a simple communication device that would fit her. It’s easier just to teach kids nursery rhymes that you sing to them all their lives….................. jus’ sayin. Now, I know I never was a “normal” teacher, and it’s unlikely that you are going to get a “professional” to want to see anything but the “child” who is easy to please in any severely handicapped person. As long as they remain an “eternal child”, they are a hell of a lot of fun. That’s why I lived in fear that “fossilized communication” would become the standard for my student and her mother.

See the following abstract for clarification:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu.....d_RVDocSum

So, it’s either FC (facilitated communication), or FC (fossilized communication). What would you want for your child?

(PS—that young girl changed the way I see handicapped people profoundly.)
Laurentius Rex
October 6th, 2009
15:09:48

It’s perfectly acceptable to disagree, I spend a lot of my time disagreeing with my neurodiverse colleagues on all manner of things except for the fundementals, that we are people with rights.

How to achieve them however is often a matter of much heated discussion.

For the record I am one who considers everything to do with diet as woo, on the other hand because there are a significant number of people on the spectrum following the diet I would no more wish to interfere with there right to follow it by choice, than I would there right to be vegan or kosher or whatever.

With regards to FC, there is no doubt that there is evidence of massive fraud (or delusion).

On the other hand there are examples of people who have gone on to type independently, however I have to say seeing the ‘magical’ explanations from t from some advocates of FC,(who certainly do the cause no good whatever by there rejection of science) they are way out there with the homeopaths and pixies.
Rose
October 6th, 2009
16:35:21

The woo factor is important. But to me the greater factor that I saw repeatedly in my two years (yeah, I know…BIG hero, eh??)was the inability (perhaps desire) of teachers to see their handicapped students as cognizant beings.

Or maybe they wanted to, but the most difficult thing in the world is to build that bridge. It’s just easier to ignore the need and fossilize communication at a pre-school level.

ESPECIALLY when the student may have behavior modifications employed. You wouldn’t want to think of treating someone with an adult cognizance like that!
Badger3k
October 6th, 2009
17:17:57

Dawn – the way it works is that the advocates of FC have the burden to show that it works. No one has to prove that it doesn’t. Of course, all the studies done indicated that, sorry, despite the wishes of those who want it to work, it doesn’t. Perhaps there is some benefit to the child in the interaction (touching/contact, whatever else) but it doesn’t actually allow communication. That seems like wishful thinking. I’m sorry to hear that some of the people I’d otherwise respect fall for the same irrational thinking, but we’re all human and all vulnerable. For me, this means that now I know I have to double check anything they write, looking back at their sources in more detail, since the lack of critical thinking in one area can be indicative of more.

If those who think FC works want to pursue more ethically-based studies (I’ve noticed the same thing, Rose), then let them, but for people to rely on it now…it doesn’t stand the reality test. If we are wrong, and it is found to work, or have some benefit that otherwise would not occur, then it can become a useful tool/procedure as opposed to the wish-fullfillment woo it seems to be.
Michelle Dawson
October 6th, 2009
17:28:50

I have never supported FC in any way. I’m amazed (gobsmacked…) that anyone would suggest I do.

In reality I’ve been berated (at length, and to extremes) by some FC promoters, for taking a science- and ethics-based position re FC. You can find this on the TMoB board.

My view includes that whose who have promoted FC have been grossly irresponsible, which has harmed autistics.

To claim that I support FC is totally false. Also, unlike many others on the Hub, I do not support AutCom or the “USD Autism Institute,” in part because they promote FC.
Kev
October 6th, 2009
17:41:22

Thanks for the correction Michelle.
Michelle Dawson
October 6th, 2009
17:52:48

I suggest changing the original post, to remove what is extremely misleading information. Many thanks in advance.

Having been berated at length by FC promoters, because I think autistics deserve recognized standards of science and ethics, I’m not looking forward to being attacked by others because it is falsely and misleadingly reported, on a very popular and presumed-to-be authoritative blog, that I may or do support FC.

Claiming that I may or do support FC is as wrong and misleading as claiming that I may or do support the DAN! view of autism. Or for that matter, as wrong and misleading as claiming that Kev Leitch may or does support the DAN! view of autism.
Rose
October 6th, 2009
17:59:36

I don’t think I’m talking about FC…nevermind!!
Tweets that mention Autism Blog - Facilitated Communication - where does a neurodiverse skeptic stand? « Left Brain/Right Brain -- Topsy.com
October 6th, 2009
18:04:18

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by autism_hub, Autism Hub and Michelle Dawson. Michelle Dawson said: Autism advocacy standards: Kev Leitch grossly misrepresents the work of an autistic (me) http://tr.im/ASJB See the comments. [...]
Kev
October 6th, 2009
18:09:06

Have just done that very thing Michelle :)
William Carman
October 6th, 2009
18:33:30

FC is to a speech disability as a wheelchair is to a walking disability if the possibility of walking exists … time would be better spent walking, and if speech is possible practice speech.
Dedj
October 6th, 2009
19:01:48

Normalisation should always be balanced against the cost to the individual.

Non-obligate w/c users can often be better off using a wheelchair than a painful, exhausting, frustrating and often embarrasing and dehumanising attempt at walking.

There’s no evidence to support the idea that speech normalisation is the preffered, appropriate, ethical or even possible universal option for each and every person with ‘atypical’ speech.
Richard
October 6th, 2009
19:14:33

I have been typing both independently and with support (fc)
since l992. I think I would have the necessary experience
therefore to make an informed comment and state that FC
offers support to people that need it for a number of reasons.
I had low muscle tone, suffered from Mearles/Irlen/Scotopic
Sensitivity and also have a diagnosis of attaxic cp and
the disability label of autism. Along with those of low
functioning, learning disabled. I was denied an equal
education on grounds of disability. At the age of 19 I
joined Advanced Level (pre-university in England) on the
merit of a poem that I had written. I am now classed
as physically disabled and have an IQ of approx 135 and
was stated to be the brightest student in a Lecturers
career. Am I mad that 19 years of my life were taken
from me – exceedingly. Will I ever forgive the people
that condemned me to the sheer hell of segregated
education – probably never. So can I communicate – I will leave you to work that out for yourselves – and no one is supporting my arm whilst this is typed!

Over the years my hands have strengthened, I wear tinted
lenses but my verbal speech has made little headway but
I am able to communicate in a way I never thought possible.
Contributing author to “Autism and the Myth of the Person
Alone”.
VAB
October 6th, 2009
19:24:54

I’m not really up on the details, but could it not be possible that there are cases of legitimate FC and cases of phony FC. I would have thought that the chances of legitimate success would vary widely with both the person who one wishes to help and the person doing the facilitating.
Michelle Dawson
October 6th, 2009
19:28:53

In comparison to the more extreme misrepresentation (which was read by numerous people before it was corrected in any way) of my work this may now seem trivial.

But I also don’t see “neurodiversity” as a movement (I realize others do), and I lack the skills and abilities required to be part of any movement.

It’s true that my work and views are very frequently misrepresented, often in extreme ways. People who read (and write) this blog are probably much more likely to have read the misrepresentations than to have read my work. But this does not mean the misrepresentations (and now there’s more) are accurate, or that it is a good thing to repeat them.
Dawn
October 6th, 2009
19:38:00

@Richard: I think you have made the point that I was trying to make. You were helped to communicate, but eventually you were able to take over on your own to communicate. No one here is saying you can’t communicate alone. The concern is that some are never “let go” to communicate on their own, and then one wonders if it is truly them or the facilitator.

@Farmwifetwo: You also proved my point (which means I did not make myself clear). Teaching “hand over hand” still means as the steps are learned, you allow the child to do alone what he/she can do alone, and only step in once they reach a point they need help. (However, I have to argue with you – amiably – my mother’s constant lament was that my sister never DID crawl. She went from sitting/standing to running around after my brother and me. So she missed a step in there.)

From what I read about FC, as I said, the problem was when tested by a parent vs a trained non-family facilitator, the results of what the child produced was extremely variable (from a parent/family member, the child would give full sentance answers, from the non-family member the same child could only give 1-2 word misspelled answers to the same questions.

Again, I am not saying FC is worthless. However, I do feel that if it is used, great caution should be taken to make sure the facilitator isn’t putting their words into the person’s mouth/typewritter.

As Farmwifetwo pointed out, I wouldn’t expect any child, NT or autistic or whatever, to start off spelling all words correctly, for example, if they have never been exposed to written words. One to two word sentances would be logical starting periods. Epics (in a child) would be questionable.

However, FC started with an adult like Richard who had 19 years of living under his belt would probably come out with fuller sentances but I would question immediate perfect spelling and grammar.

Richard – would you be willing to tell us how FC started with you and how you were able to make sure your words were written instead of what the facilitator wanted?
David N. Brown
October 6th, 2009
19:49:35

The prevailing understanding of FC, which I have seen no reason to question, is that it is similar to the “Clever Hans” case, and also comparable to “automatic writing”. But, I think there are significant implications even within this standard appraisal. It strongly indicates that autistics are NOT innately handicapped in reading “body language”. I think it is also debatable whether FC messages are “only” coming from the facilitator. It might instead be regarded as a “gestalt” of both parties’ personalities in interaction.
On a side note, I received this comment recently in response to a “fan fiction” post: “If it was the movie, I could imagine them acting like that very clear.” As someone who is “supposed” to be impaired in body language, I consider it high praise.
Kev
October 6th, 2009
19:59:39

Michelle no one ‘grossly misinterpretted’ you so please, just once, stop sulking when a genuine error, corrected upon request is made. I’m not super human, I’m capable of error. I made one, you noted it and I highlighted it in both the comments and the post. End of story. If you want to carry on moaning, go do it somewhere else.
jypsy
October 6th, 2009
20:31:16

“FC” and “hand over hand” are not the same thing.
Arthur Golden
October 6th, 2009
20:42:05

jypsy,

Thanks for making the extremely important comment that:

““FC” and “hand over hand” are not the same thing.”

Now, could you or anyone else give a more detailed explanation?

I’m afraid that I am not the one to attempt to do so.

Arthur Golden
Kev
October 6th, 2009
20:58:20

Like I told you Michelle, this ain;t the Michelle Dawson show. Take it elsewhere unless you have something on topic to say.
Richard
October 6th, 2009
21:32:22

In answer to your questions:

I was not helped to communicate. I was given support to enable me to type. These are two different areas of expertise as they would be in mainstream. One is an ability to type, the other is the ability to communicate. I had a vast verbal vocabulary as a child and I spoke the occasional sentence.

I began to type at the age of fifteen when I finally realised that my verbal speech was not going to allow me to communicate at a level that allowed me to express myself. By this age I was really angry that I was regarded as intelligent by some people and learning disabled by others and furious at being said to be low functioning.

I never typed hand over hand – I typed independently – a sentence, a paragraph and then a page, and opted for support to enable me to type for longer periods and at greater speed. I was so desperate to communicate at this age that I did not mind the dependence of support.

I was trying to walk at seven months, never crawled other than on my stomach, pulling myself along, until I given remedial movement at the age of three/five and learnt how to crawl. Because of ataxic cp I did not walk until I was 20 months and then with great difficulty. I am regarded as a miracle in the medical profession that I walked. At the age of 14 my movement was stated to by extremely high functioning in that I adapted every muscle to compensate for an overall ataxic condition. The physiotherapists were amazed at my ability. But at the same time I was seen to be low functioning by one person and highly intelligent by another. A teacher who had worked with children with cp recognised my intelligence. People that had not just assumed that I was learning disabled. I attend schools for children on the spectrum.

I never under went fc training, my mother supported my hand as a baby, child, and from the time I was five to teach me to write, and it was just a natural process of progression. I taught myself to read from the age of two and a half. I can remember the books and the words in the books. My mother helped me to learn to read from the age of five. It was mainly due to her efforts that I am where I am today because everyone wrote me off as retarded at the age of two. When I began to type at the age of fifteen I was able to spell words correctly. A teacher at school at the age of 14 stated that I was able to read anything – out loud. Again due to my own efforts and that of my mother. I always loved books and still do. I have hundreds of them on many subjects.

My typed language improved dramatically in the space of a week after I was diagnosed with Mearles/Irlen and I wore tinted lenses. I have typed for thousands and thousands of hours. I worked at my communication. I was determined no one was ever going to refer to me as low functioning again. If you have poor language skills you have never had the opportunity to put verbal language into practice. And it is scary and it is very emotional. I first typed on a small device called a canon communicator which has a very small keyboard with a guard because it meant that I did not have to use arm movement merely move my hand. I am now able to type on a keyboard but still prefer a notebook because of the smaller keyboard. I am also able to use a keyboard on a mobile telephone if I use my finger tip – with some difficulty. It is great to be able to text people because I am not at a social disadvantage.

I studied English Literature at College and Art History – my choice. I was advised that I should study at degree level by my College Lecturers on the basis of the work I had completed at College. I was twenty before I realised who I could be as a person – not the person that other people perceived me to be. For the first time at mainstream College I was treated with respect for my ability not demeaned because of perceived ‘disability’.

Every child will have had a different experience. Words are part of the world – books have words next to pictures, and sentences. If you all learnt to read as children why do you think that people with disabilities are any different to yourselves. As I understand it when the tests set for fc users have been met the goal posts have been moved. Every group of people with ‘disability labels’ have been seen as ‘retarded’ – people with cerebral palsy, people with Down’s, people with hearing difficulties, and people who have the ‘disability label’ of autism. Being unable to speak does not mean being unable to think or being unable to comprehend. It certainly does not mean ‘in a world of ones own’. I had to fight every inch to win a war against disability. The alternative was that I became the ‘disability label’.

Why would I allow any person ever to move my hand to type a word when I am perfectly capable of typing my own words. As I stated ‘support’ allowed me to type quicker and for longer periods.As a child in special education at the age of nine I can remember being furious that people told me a sentence to repeat back and I would often refuse because it was not what I wanted to say. The example that remains in my mind is “May I have a drink please” – probably because I had been able to ask for a drink since I was a child of two. And perhaps at the time I did not want a drink.

I had the building blocks in place so as a society we have a duty of care to make sure that all children have the building blocks in place and give them the opportunity to learn and express themselves – whether it be one word or two words or one sentence. Nothing is more soul destroying than being unable to communicate.

Richard
Dawn
October 6th, 2009
22:29:35

@Richard: thank you for your explanation. So you never received facilitated communication, you were simply assisted in doing what you could do on your own so you could complete your typing more quickly. But I really appreciate your complete description of what you did, learned, and can do.
Stephanie
October 6th, 2009
22:40:45

People within a community can certainly disagree, and the accuracy of a study or studies is debatable depending on the criteria used. If you believe there are problems with the studies that have been done, you certainly have the right and perhaps the responsibility to talk about those issues.

That being said, I thought the purpose of communication devices was to enable the person to communicate out loud independently. It’s something I’ve been looking into for my son. I understand using hand-over-hand to teach the person how to use the device, but isn’t the point to move towards the individual’s independence?

I would think an on-going facilitator would defeat the purpose. I would also suspect that, even were it proven that facilitated communication can work, there would always be the possibility in individual instances that the facilitator was essentially putting words into the autistic person’s “mouth.”
jypsy
October 6th, 2009
23:25:15

@Dawn – you don’t “receive facilitated communication”. That sentence structure makes me wonder just what you think “FC” is and are referring to.

@Stephanie – FC is not a “communication device” and the “out loud” isn’t what “FC” or AAC is about. Is sign language “out loud”?

I have often had words put in my mouth, it has even happened today, and I am an independent speaker & typist. It doesn’t take a facilitator to do that.

I will only ever vouch for the validity of my son’s “FC”. I will assume everyone else’s is valid unless provided with evidence proving otherwise. In the same way, I will assume everyone is being honest and truthful, unless provided with evidence proving otherwise. Naive maybe but that’s how I am.

My son started typing with support just before his 4th birthday and went on to type independently. Depending on your definition of “independently”, that was either in grade 3 when he was 8 or grade 9 when he was 13.

This is not a simple topic. Even “Facilitated Communication” – the word itself, has taken on so many meanings and has come to include so much, I am hesitant to and rarely use it now (rather like “neurodiversity” – I subscribe to my definition of neurodiversity but not that of many others). Alex typed with support/assistance. The technique was not “hand over hand” (he did learn a lot, including printing & cursive writing, hand over hand). I call it “supported typing” and you can call it whatever you want. You can see it in a number of videos on our YouTube channel, I’d recommend starting with this one. There is some hand over hand prompting and printing (a period and a couple of letters after it) as well as an attempt at supported typing (the batteries were dead on the device) here.

From preschool up until about grade 3 Alex’s TA would mark his schoolwork “Ind” (independent), “FC” (supported) or “h/h” (hand over hand) to indicate how it had been produced. This applied not only to text but to drawing, colouring, using scissors, etc etc.
Rose
October 6th, 2009
23:34:16

Richard isn’t the only one who needed help to communicate. All of our children would communicate if they knew how, in our language, or if they had the muscle skills, or any of a million reasons.

Richard, to hear you talk only reminds me of Paige, who I left to fall back into the abyss of special education. I don’t know that her mother has the strength/energy to physically care for her, as well as learn how to become a teacher. Paige is totally depedent.

Let me tell you, if it isn’t easy…people just don’t care! Or maybe they don’t have the ambition to try or the desire to help. There are many minds rotting in special ed. My own son spent years there…his “behaviors”, you know…

Aw, to hell with it. Decide whether it’s better to assume that a person is fully cognizant, or that it’s better to assume they have the forever mind of a child. How you treat them is up to you, and has nothing to do with FC or not FC. Which do you think would be the most helpful? If you were going to make an assumption on the side of error, which mistake would be the least damaging?

I’m not writing sense. My mind easily misses the mark, but I try.
I would rather ass a person believed to be brilliant rather than believed to be retarded.
Rose
October 6th, 2009
23:36:21

I meant, I would rather assume a person to be brilliant.

Brain Farts…old age…
Richard
October 7th, 2009
00:06:44

Stephanie, some children/people with poor motor skills may never reach independence – so having been unable to communicate myself I would ask the question – do we as a society deny children/people the opportunity of communication? Do we have the right to make that decision on behalf of someone? Surely it is down to the individual to make that decision for themselves? We have to take into account the rights of the individual whatever
their ‘disability label’. Do we as a society believe in equality?

Dawn, as a child I was unable to do many things and each new skill I learnt was with facilitation. For instance, as a small child my hand was too weak to hold a fork, so my mother held my hand until I was able to hold the fork. I was unable to pull my socks on, so my mother held my hand until I was able to do it – it took four years. I learnt to write with facilitation until I was able to do so independently. The issues will be different for each individual. Each person will have different areas of difficulty. So yes, I do have experience of
facilitation. My first experience of typing was at the age of
five, my hand was to weak to hit the key, so my mother held my
hand and I typed a word, a sentence. I was fifteen before I
typed again and I held a picture of the typewriter in my mind
and remembered how it felt, and decided that I had nothing to lose. Although I was able to type independently it took extreme effort. If I could overcome adversity than so can others. We owe it to them to give them the means by which to communicate. Many children have not been screened/or are unable to be screened for tinted lenses because they have no language – it could change their world.

I had to relearn everything I had ever known once I had tinted lenses. Instead of sensing my way around I had to physically
learn to see with my eyes in a different way – I described my
vision as fractured and detached – and for some children/people
it would seem so frightening they would retreat back into the
safety of what they know. It would be hard to type unaided if
the keyboard is out of focus for some children. When I read as
a child the words jumped and danced about and then went out of
focus; bright light stressed me out; I had migraines; I suffered from extreme fatigue; I had panic attacks; sometimes I
had double vision. sometimes I could not see faces. The world
was a very frightening place. I had to learn how to cope. My thoughts are that if it makes a child feel safe for someone to support their hand while they hit a few keys on a key board them give them the opportunity to do so.

It is rather more complex than sitting in a test situation and
getting a few answers wrong – rather like sitting an exam yourself – everything you know can go out of your head you are
so nervous. Or the lights could be stressing you out. Or the
room could be unfamiliar. Or you go into flight mode or freeze
mode. Or your hand goes dead and you cannot feel it. Or the
words do not come or your mind goes blank. Or you are just so
damned scared you drown in fear.

Richard
Laurentius Rex
October 7th, 2009
00:08:56

Well speaking specifically to Richard here, I am aware of where FC originated, do you know this website

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dealcc/Anne2.htm

FC did originate with CP.

I have known and do know a number of non verbal CP people, who have used a variety of augmented communication techniques and equipment from alphabet board, to bliss symbols to speech synthesis a la Stephen Hawking.

My mum actually used a possum device to type towards the end of her life. In case people don’t know what that is, it is a microswitch that controls a scanning device, you stop it when it gets to the right letter, takes a long time to type with that.

That is not the same as FC, and my problems with FC is the abuse of it, which I do believe is what the experimentation has exposed.

Do you know what really makes me angry about assumptions of non verbalism, and that is the idea that it is an autistic thing only, that is an example of supreme arrogance.

Not only my speech, but my language can break down, particularly under stress, at least I am fortunate (if you can consider such a thing fortunate at all) in that this is now recognised as a problem with me, the most loquacious and hypervocabulariosly endowed notwithstanding. At last those who hear me fluent have seen me struggle even to write words.
Laurentius Rex
October 7th, 2009
00:14:30

Rose don’t you dare assume that of me, only I have a right to assume that about myself, but then you see I am grey of hair these latter days walking on three legs riddle of the sfinx (bugger the spelling) notwithstanding.

Gandalf the grey, Gandalf the white, na, Gandalf the old fart.
NightStorm
October 7th, 2009
01:15:23

Again mostly tl:dr

But if I may suggest something. Whilst I am now rather on the fence with FC. I do believe teaching a non-verbal to communicate Via typing to be much more crediable than FC. Mostly there is no grey area that the facilcator is doing it but the autist.
Richard
October 7th, 2009
01:26:55

Laurentius Rex,

Yes, I am familiar with the website. I was sorry to hear about
your mother.

I once met a person on the spectrum who had a panic attack but
focused if you gave them an object to touch that they were familiar with. Language was no use but the familiar feel of the object stopped the panic.

If you at times struggle to write words think what it must be like for people that struggle to write or type words – all the time.

Perhaps the touch/support in some way focuses them – I am not sure – just an idea. But perhaps if they are given the opportunity and became more familiar with typing then maybe it would become easier. Many however are at a disadvantage because many will never had had the opportunity to learn formal reading or writing.

Children in mainstream practice writing every day and they all make progress at a different rate. Many children with disability labels have never had the opportunity to learn the basics – they have no point of reference. Others, like myself, are somewhere in between.

There are many good honest people who have been involved in FC
and I think we should try to look at FC with new eyes, eyes that are open and not blinded by prejudice and discrimination – as is
the case for many who believe that children on the spectrum
cannot communicate. I see myself as a survivor – one of the
walking wounded – others did not survive the system.

Richard
Rose
October 7th, 2009
03:20:15

Laurentius:

Can you assume my assumption was about you? Isn’t that presumptuous ?

I wonder what “sumpt” derives from? There’s a whole lotta sumption going on around here…

In truth, you are brilliant. Can I have my dollar now?

Jypsy: The videos were great. That, to me, is science. Something you see with your eyes, observe. Something repeatable. Alex did a lot of it himself. Even at that young age it isn’t presumptuous to see he had a degree of competence, although he might not have gotten the whole she-bang. (The j-e-l-l-o was so sweet!)

Richard: Do you have a website? I so appreciate your input.
navi
October 7th, 2009
03:38:54

too lazy and depressed to read the comments.

I think FC today is different from the FC that was a scam. There was a specific case of FC that was a scame, and it’s that blemish, I think, that means we don’t have enough research. Kind of how the blemish of autism = gut problems meant it took forever for me to get my ped to look at my son’s gut problems that had nothing to do with his autism… That said we need more research. right along with more research on sign language and pecs. We actually have done a significant a mount of research into vaccines. I’m pretty sure past FC research wasn’t geared towards people with autism specifically.

I think if you call it AAC (sp?) a greater number of people accept it….
Chris Borthwick
October 7th, 2009
04:07:00

Since this site seems to be the go-to place for ringing declarations of principle, and as I would probably fall into the category Michelle Dawson describes as ‘FC promoters’ who have ‘berated’ her – In reality I’ve been berated (at length, and to extremes) by some FC promoters, for taking a science- and ethics-based position re FC…. because I think autistics deserve recognized standards of science and ethics…
I’d like to say for the record that I haven’t berated Michelle for requiring high standards, I’ve criticised her for not living up to them, in this one instance, herself. Much as I admire Michelle, and much as I appreciate her work, when it comes to FC she has
(1) relied on secondary or tertiary sources to source her assertion that FC is anti-science, and
(2) neglected to read the scientific literature that supports it (for example, Cardinal, D., Hanson, D., & Wakeham, J. (1996). An investigation of authorship in facilitated communication. Mental Retardation 34, 231-242)
I’m not sure, come to think of it, that she’s actually read the journal articles that attack it: I’d be surprised if she didn’t have some comments about their methodology, if so.

Read more: http://leftbrainrightbrain.co......z0TDMZq9Wj
Chris Borthwick
October 7th, 2009
04:17:55

Moving right along, another form of evidence that FC (or, as I prefer it, FCT - Facilitated Communication Training) works, at least for some, is that a number of people who were for many years able to communicate only through FC have now attained independent communication (see the video here – http://www.inclusioninstitutes.org/fci/). You can now ask them ‘Was what you were saying when you were facilitated what you meant to say?’ and they can, and do, say ‘Yes.’ Just for the moment I’m going to sit on that, leaving aside the question of how large a proportion of the speech-disabled population this applies to and the question of whether FC is, even so, the treatment of choice. Can anybody who want to join the FC debate first say whether they believe that anybody has ever communicated successfully using FC? At the moment in the debate we’re trying to juggle the arguments of total skeptics and partial critics (and – a much larger group – those who fuzzily remember having seem something somewhere sometime about FC and fill in the details from their imagination), which complicates the issue even further
Arthur Golden
October 7th, 2009
08:33:15

jypsy,

I know you stated you are not a message passer, but could you make an exception and be a message passer to Michelle Dawson?

When Kev wrote to Michelle “Take it elsewhere unless you have something on topic to say” it seems Michelle only processed the first part of the sentence and missed the part “unless you have something on topic to say.” It appears that concerning the very specific statement by Chris Borthwick about the position of Michelle Dawson on FC that Michelle Dawson wants to respond but feels she cannot post at all on this thread, as she just posted on her own discussion board.

So could you please tell Michelle Dawson that she can post a comment which is on topic about FC?

I think it is very important that Michelle Dawson should, as she wrote she wants to do, respond to Chris Borthwick, a Facilitated Communication Promoter, in the same place where he posted his comment – here.

Art
Kowalski
October 7th, 2009
08:48:20

Kev said:

Like I told you Michelle, this ain’t the Michelle Dawson show. Take it elsewhere unless you have something on topic to say.

Amazing double standards you have, farmwife is allowed to be off-topic AND lie, gossip, misrepresent and insult people on top of that.
Laurentius Rex
October 7th, 2009
08:54:36

The trouble is we can’t expect to have it both ways. I am using the royal “we” here not just to refer to neurodiversity advocates, but also anti vaxer’s that is to say on both side of the argument, we cannot demand a higher standard of proof of the opposition than we demand for ourselves, at the risk of attracting Michelle’s ire in paraphasing her Michelle is correct that we should always take a scientific position.

Paul Offit, that prophet of rationalism, is pretty scathing about FC, on the other hand we accept what he writes about the weight of evidence that vaccines are safe within the normal margins of probability that when something bad happens it is rarer than the event the vaccine is otherwise forestalling.

Some people do fall ill after vaccination, that is undeniable, and I think it is also undeniable that some people do go on to independent typing after FC.

What I do question is the number and the claims of FC’s more outrageous proponents.

There is now in English law a new rule regarding mental capacity, that it should always be presumed unless there is strong evidence to the contrary.

I would like to think that if for any reason I were to permanently lose my speech through either accident or trauma that I would be given a computer to attempt communication, however I would prefer a scanning device like my mum’s possum in the first instance. I think we need to be clear as to the differences between facilitated communication and augmented communication and be very sure that no-one is denied augmented communication because of the bad reputation that FC has got.

Of course it would not be beyond the wit of anyone to invent an augmented communication device, that denied the users input and randomly threw out it’s own phrases. A sirius cybernetics production perhaps, however lets not forget what it must be like to be aware that someone is manipulating what they want to say, that happens with the parents of completely normal kids as often as not, where a mom will correct her child’s phrase and say “he didn’t meant to say that, what he really meant was .. blah blah blah.” Then unconscious temptation to do that is going to be so much greater with FC, there need to be rigorous checks and balances to ensure that is not happening.
Arthur Golden
October 7th, 2009
09:47:48

Kowalski,

Although I disagree with some of what farmwife commented, and I also agree with some of it, I think Farmwife’s comment on this blog entry was on topic. I think your claim that it was off topic etc. is completely off topic.

Do you have anything specific to comment that is on topic? (example – in response to farmwife, jypsy wrote ““FC” and “hand over hand” are not the same thing.”)

Farmwifetwo,

My 37 year-old son Ben who is completely nonverbal with an official diagnosis of autism at age 5, does not write epics but does write with his type of faciliated communication long philosophical essays that have been published in several places on the internet and in several books. My son never crawled but went directly to walking and then running, which has been documented to be so for many persons with autism and also apraxia. I realize FC has not been scientifically validated but my son’s walking and running without crawling first is “validated.”

Art
Stephanie
October 7th, 2009
09:55:43

jypsy,

“FC is not a “communication device” and the “out loud” isn’t what “FC” or AAC is about.”

My apologies. The computers that the school where my child attends have demonstrated for me “talk” after the child writes the word. The teacher called it a “facilitated communication device.” Thus, my understanding of FC. The product magazines I have looked also used “facilitated communication device” to label talking/typing computers.

As per doing homework using supportive assistance (like in the video), that is a different type of “facilitated communication” from what I’ve been exposed to and my previous comment do not apply. Your son is obviously applying himself, even if he’s not completing the work without assistance.

Richard,

“Stephanie, some children/people with poor motor skills may never reach independence – so having been unable to communicate myself I would ask the question – do we as a society deny children/people the opportunity of communication?”

I realize that and certainly would not advocate denying the opportunity to communicate, but also recognize that the integrity of the facilitator is a factor. Is a human facilitator the only option, or could the devices be designed in such a way to compensate for poor coordination and muscle strength?

The right innovators could come up with a different solution that may remove the potential for facilitator bias.
jypsy
October 7th, 2009
11:40:18

I know you stated you are not a message passer, but could you make an exception and be a message passer to Michelle Dawson?

No. Please leave me alone.
Alain
October 7th, 2009
17:06:16

Kevin,
Would it have been difficult to email Michelle Dawson to ask about her position regarding FC before writing your blog post?

It would have eliminated a lot of arguments going both ways.

Alain
Anne
October 7th, 2009
19:39:11

“Like I told you Michelle, this ain;t the Michelle Dawson show. Take it elsewhere unless you have something on topic to say.”

Ouch! Actually, Kev, it kind of is, since you wrote about her in your post. Seems like that made her response to what you wrote on topic, too.

From Michelle’s reaction to your saying that you thought she supported FC, I’d conclude that she has very strong opinions in the opposite direction. Since you have ambivalent feelings about FC based on your perception that certain people like Michelle support it, I’d think her response would be of interest and that you might like to hear more about what she thinks on it. Although you’ve said she can still post here if she has something “on topic” to say, your message of unwelcome I’m sure makes it hard to do so.
jypsy
October 7th, 2009
20:14:55

What Anne said.
Benjamin Ethan
October 7th, 2009
21:02:58

Since no FC users have identified themselves as making comments here, I will identify myself as an FC user, known to 3 others on this thread. FC is a tool, but a crucial tool to allow autistics and others who cannot communicate independently to make important life decisions. Without this ability to make life decisions, an autistic is not really a person, no matter what any tribunal states. Since facilitators are aware of and on guard for so-called facilitator influence, in the decision-making process it is ubiquitous outside influence that is the real problem.

If autistics or others do not have independent communication, then facilitated communication is an essential human right that all autistics must demand. I wish FC was scientifically validated 15 years ago when I had an important life decision to make, but would you really force me to wait 15 years and still be waiting? I protest such cruel treatment no matter how ethical one thinks they are being by upholding the idolatry of Science.
Kev
October 7th, 2009
21:21:36

Anne, no the subject is not Michelle Dawson, its FC. I made a mistake in mentioning Michelle at all as, as always happens when you do, you run the risk of upsetting Michelle into ever increasing umbrage. I made a mistake, which when brought to my attention I noted and fixed. At that point Michelle could simply have accepted that but didn’t and carried on taking umbrage for no good reason.

I won’t be part of the Michelle Dawson pity party. Neither will this blog. The discussion about Michelle ends here. Further comments will simply be deleted.
James Todd
October 7th, 2009
21:26:27

Being “neurodiverse” or anything else should have nothing to with assessing the validity of facilitated communication. The evidence for FC is not there. The evidence against it is overwhelming.

Over the last 30 years or so, depending on when the formal origins of FC are dated, we have seen exactly zero properly controlled, peer-reviewed studies showing that FC has worked reliably for even one person. Dozens of studies—summarized in tabular form in Green (1994) and Mostert (2001) and reviewed in many other venues—have demonstrated that FC fails to produce useful literacy even under the most benign experimental conditions. Other than FC not working, the most robust finding in the research literature is that the facilitator authors the output. The critics of these studies complain about external validity—the studies are too different from real life. Yet, in many of these studies the subjects seem to type with no problems, being asked the same kinds of things they might be asked in school or home, merely unaware of what information is being fed to whom. Only when the analysis shows problems do the objections start.

The proponents of FC, in contrast, have yet to publish a single, properly controlled, peer-reviewed study showing that their method works. They are fond of citing studies like Cardinal et al. (1996). But, in citing Cardinal et al., they rarely (if ever) point out that out of 3800 recorded trials, fewer than 10% correct answers were produced. They especially don’t care to mention that those correct answers were outnumbered by correctly spelled wrong answers—a fact that suggests that one of the main operative features of the procedure was the induction of guessing by the facilitator. An expected retort might be, “Well what about the nearly correct answers that weren’t included in the count?” To that we might counter-retort, “It sure is hard to interpret the significance of those when the authors failed to tell us how many identifiable but wrong responses there were in addition to the hundreds of correctly spelled wrong ones. Do you want to go to court and say a man should be in jail based on evidence such as this?” The list of problems in Cardinal et al. does not stop there. We also find inexplicables such as the experimenters unnecessarily supplying the list of answers to everyone, and making sure that the experimenter and observer in the test settings were not blind to the answers on each trial. Of course, Cardinal et al. did not include a test for facilitator influence.

FC advocates sometimes also cite in their favor controlled “validation” studies by Sheehan et al. (1996) and Weiss et al. (1996). The interesting thing about Sheehan et al. is that the supposedly “naive” facilitators were given ongoing feedback on the accuracy of the responses by the experimenter during the test sessions. It probably need not be mentioned that the experimenter knew what the answers should be. Are we really supposed to attach credibility to a study in which the subjects were being guided to the answers by contingent feedback while the experimenters, astoundingly, seemed to believe they were addressing the problem of facilitator control by simply asking the facilitators to avoid doing it? Here is what they said: “The presence of the original facilitator at the information disclosure sessions raises a question about the possibility of cuing. With this awareness, we made significant efforts to disallow both obvious and subtle cuing, such as voice intonation, head nodding, bodily cues, visual gaze, and facial expression that would inadvertently shape or prompt a desired response from the participant. ” (p. 99). There was no need to worry about inadvertent cueing. Cueing of that kind couldn’t have made much of difference given that cueing through direct instructional feedback was built into the experimental procedures. Of course, Sheehan et al. did not include a test for facilitator influence.

The oft-cited Weiss et al (1996) study may be more interesting from an empirical standpoint. A 13-year-old boy, who could supposedly do honor-roll level work with FC at school, was barely able to pass a second-grade-level recall test with FC after being presented the information multiple times in multiple modalities, and after practicing answering the questions with the main experimenter serving as facilitator immediately before the test sessions. What is especially interesting is that only the wrong answers raised concerns about facilitator influence. Why not the right answers? What is even more interesting is the admission by the authors that the procedures only seemed to start working when the experimenter first practiced the items with subject then conducted the test sessions: “During that time we had begun employing the consolidation [practice] phase used in the current protocol and had the experimenter remaining in the room presenting questions during the test phase.” (p. 228). I can just hear Robin from the old TV series saying: “Holy ‘Clever Hans,’ Batman! A fatal flaw like that invalidates everything!” Of course, Weiss et al. did not include a test for facilitator influence.

Of the few remaining allegedly controlled studies “validating” FC often cited by FC advocates, we find the same kinds of problems. A sampling should suffice. Calculator and Singer’s (1992) test of FC with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test only seemed to work when Calculator did it. At least three attempts by others have failed. Of course, Calculator and Singer (1992) did not include a test for facilitator influence. It was probably helpful for Bundschuh and Basler-Eggen’s (2000) study that the facilitator had also created the stimulus materials for the tests. Of course, Bundschuh and Basler-Eggen did not include a test for facilitator influence. Emerson et al. (2001) differed from their FC advocate colleagues by conducting objective tests FC and finding all the typical problems—only to dismiss those findings and treat the FC as genuine. That is, guesses about whether information might have been unknown to facilitators was granted more credibility than objective tests. More incredibly, just one or two suspected “communications relevant to self” over a span of five or six years was considered evidence of independent communication. We can be forgiven if we hoped for more.

As for the ethics of FC, FC may be the only widely used developmental disabilities intervention for which there have been more imprisonments due to false allegations of rape than objectively demonstrated successes. To use or recommend something with a record like that is irresponsible in every possible way. Just last year, a man in Bloomfield Hills Michigan spent 80 days in jail due to false statements made through FC that he (and his wife and son) had been raping his daughter for years. Officially he was put in jail because of facilitated claims that he had violated the court’s order not to visit the child in foster care. The word of an Orthodox Rabbi, in whose house the daughter was staying, was rejected in favor of claims facilitated by a teacher at school. If you don’t believe FC is accepted by the courts, you are wrong. The Michigan court accepted the FC as valid testimony even after every single expert witness, including even the FC advocate, had repudiated the typing. The court accepted the FC even after finding out that virtually none of the verifiable information in the FC transcripts was accurate—wrong names, non-existent relatives, non-existent locations, a dead dog raised up and given a new name, a Jewish family issuing Christian warnings about damnation. The court accepted the FC after two totally failed message passing tests done on two different days. Some answers were supplied—just not to the right questions! Moreover, the evil, biased “naysayers” Howard Shane and myself were not allowed to do any validity tests at all. The failed tests were actually done by the prosecutor who talked about how she, like FC advocates, “presumed competence” and claimed to find FC completely credible. Of course, all this led to the girl’s younger brother being interrogated by the police for almost two hours, told repeatedly and falsely that there might be video tapes of him participating in the rape of his own sister. The original facilitator in that case is still promoting FC.

In the midst of all this, testimonials abound—now often in videos and internet postings, although the journal “Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities” retains a soft spot for non-empirical articles about FC. There are plenty of FC Stars for which amazing feats are claimed: college degrees, scripts, awards. But anyone can make claims. And the fact that lots of people, and even universities, have been fooled by FC is not proof. There are supposedly even a few “independent communicators” who are “independent” except for the person sitting there holding the keyboard, standing behind guiding each arm toward the computer, or providing other cues about what to type. There are, however, no objective validations published for what are essentially medical miracles. In fact, as we saw in the target article that started this thread, the FC community has wised-up. To their credit, early on, people doing FC would participate in scientific tests—confident in their methods, but with enough courage to risk disappointment. Now the standard is a huffy refusal to even try to objectively validate—often accompanied by a statement that the tests are explicitly designed to fail or are insulting. Designed to fail? Asking people who can supposedly use FC successfully in school or college to name some pictures or remember some information for a message-passing test is hardly making things difficult. Insulting? Given that FC has completely failed in the scientific arena, why would anyone expect anything but skepticism about it? Reports of children suddenly typing “I love you, Mommy!” in their first facilitation session certainly invite concern about fraud and exploitation. Seeing a girl’s hand used to make obviously false claims about years of rape should bring a note of soberness to the proceedings. The refusals of FC advocates to test their method objectively, especially given the risks involved and the extravagance of the claims made, only raises suspicions that they have something to hide.

If FC worked, it would work. Our journals would not be full of failed attempts to find “hidden literacy.” We would not encounter facilitator control practically every time we looked for it. FC advocates would not have to rely for “proof” on gushing testimonials and the largess of credulous feature reporters looking for a touching disabilities story to feed the current hunger for all things autism. If FC worked, those inclined toward using it could pack the journals with methodologically sound, data-based records of successful implementations, each one with a credible assessment of validity just in case a facilitator was going rogue and controlling the output. But FC doesn’t work. There is no good reason to believe in it, neurodiverse or not. What should be believed is that people who might otherwise learn to speak for themselves and live independently are being led around by others not getting the help they could use. They are not even accorded the simple dignity of being accepted for who they really are, even if that is being an individual who might never communicate as we are doing here or respond to the world in typical ways. Families with autism, often desperate for something or anything to help, are being misled by advocates of technique that has failed every test of science, not really getting to know their own children, convinced that a fantasy of their own unconscious making is the person they love. It is a tragedy that in the 21st century we are still dealing with this.

James T. Todd, Ph.D.
Richard
October 8th, 2009
00:49:55

I personally am able to speak the words before or as I type them. I learnt to write as a child using fc (support) and I now am able to both write and type independently. At the age of five my hands were not strong enough to hit the keys of a child’s typewriter other than with support but at the age of fifteen on a canon communicator I was able to type independently – albeit a gap of ten years of not typing. How many children that were denied
an opportunity to type with support would have been able to type
independently ten years down the line? We will never know before they were denied communication aids and the necessary funding.

As I stated I had the building blocks in place to facilitate my language development due solely to the efforts of my mother who
believed in my ability. This is not a fantasy – it is fact. And
many parents have worked towards the same end – intelligent, caring people.

I was denied an equal education on grounds of disability as a child despite a teacher who have worked on my movement over a
number of years and a top Consultant in the area of autism stating that I was not retarded. I spent ten years in the pure hell of special education – demeaned and humilitated. I stood no chance. The children I was at school with stood no chance. We became dehumanized by a system that did not work. I think the tragedy is that in the 21st century we are still in this dreadful position where people are denied absolute equality. It should be a basic fundermental human right that people have a right to communicate by their means of choice. I understand that there are studies that have proved FC is valid but I have not read them as I do not need to because I have been typing for seventeen years
determined to prove to people who tried to but me into a box
marked ‘disability’ that I have ‘ability’.

Richard
Kowalski
October 8th, 2009
00:58:54

Arthur said:

Although I disagree with some of what farmwife commented, and I also agree with some of it, I think Farmwife’s comment on this blog entry was on topic. I think your claim that it was off topic etc. is completely off topic.
Do you have anything specific to comment that is on topic? (example – in response to farmwife, jypsy wrote ““FC” and “hand over hand” are not the same thing.”)

Farmwife made a claim about Estee Klar, which misrepresents what she’s all about.
There is no chance to ever look at this blog without some lies and misrepresentations by FW2.

Btw, don’t tell me to stay on topic.
This blog is disablist to the core, and as soon as disabled people aren’t treated like shit here, I will maybe bother to join a “debate”.
Richard
October 8th, 2009
01:14:32

Sorry about the typing mistake people – should have read: “humiliated”.

Richard

Contributing author to “Autism and the Myth of the Person Alone”
by New York University Press. Writer, Poet and Artist
Richard
October 8th, 2009
01:32:57

Rose – my apologies for the delay in replying. It was very late in the UK and no I do not have a web site. I am just an ordinary guy who holds a strong belief in social justice.

Richard
Arthur Golden
October 8th, 2009
02:36:54

Professor James Todd wrote:

“What should be believed is that people who might otherwise learn to speak for themselves and live independently are being led around by others not getting the help they could use. They are not even accorded the simple dignity of being accepted for who they really are, even if that is being an individual who might never communicate as we are doing here or respond to the world in typical ways.”

I have never seen any verifiable evidence of the existence of these “people who might otherwise learn to speak for themselves and live independently.” The vast majority of people that were possible candidates for the use of Facilitated Communication over the past 15 years have instead been provided ABA programs designed by behaviorists such as Professor James Todd. While it is true that my then 22 year-old son could not speak then and cannot speak now, I am unaware of any nonverbal adults who achieved speech through ABA even after 15 years. So, could Professor Todd please provide me such verifiable information, with contact information so I can arrange such services for my own now 37 year-old son?

Arthur Golden
Rose
October 8th, 2009
02:45:15

Thank you, Richard. You situation reminds me so much of a student I had that I only began to help. It upsets me I didn’t do more.

I still have a “blogspot” website (free) where I try to put down info to give to her mom some day. I may copy a few things from your posts here, with no discussion on my part, if that’s okay.

Thanks for the book info.

Rose
Arthur Golden
October 8th, 2009
03:15:32

Kowalski wrote: “Farmwife made a claim about Estee Klar[-Wolfond}, which misrepresents what she’s all about.”

which I checked out is a reference to:

farmwifetwo wrote: “NOW… if someone gets handed a keyboard and claims their child is a genius – add Estee Klar[-Wolfond] in this group – is blatantly lying.”

Thanks for providing verifiable information, which I am checking out. I should disclose that I think I am in the same group as Estee Klar-Wolfond (if the statement of farmwifetwo about Estee Klar-Wolfond being in such a group is accurate) and I know I am not blatantly lying. Of course, I could be delusional, which I am also checking out again, after 15 years of thinking that my “child” (now age 37) is a genius. I am not too concerned because over the past 15 years, thousands of people have met my son here in Israel and almost all of them seem to think my son is a genius. My son may not have pursued his career at a major American university – of clearing off trays in the cafeteria – but I think his time is better spent studying Torah and through Facilitated Communication writing philosophical essays printed and distributed to tens of thousands of people throughout Israel, besides being posted on several internet sites and published in several books (now mostly in Hebrew, so I doubt too many of this blog readers have seen them).

But Kowalski, I think your choice of words, which I will not repeat, takes away from the very valid point you just made about Estee Klar-Wolfond. Since it is off-topic, I will not explain further, but I think Kev’s blog is much better in its treatment of persons such as my own son Ben than is Michelle Dawson’s blog and discussion board.

Arthur Golden
Kowalski
October 8th, 2009
06:12:07

I didn’t make “valid points” or provided “verifiable information” about Estee Klar, all I’m saying is that if someone makes a claim about someone they should quote a source. Or else it’s just gossip.
Morgan
October 8th, 2009
06:26:40

“where does a neurodiverse skeptic stand?”

Once again, I stand for checking your facts before posting them.

I guess you don’t.

Morgan
Kev
October 8th, 2009
08:41:15

Morgan – anything constructive to add about the FC debate? No? Then I guess you stand for trolling….?
Richard
October 8th, 2009
12:05:39

Rose,

I expect you did the best you could at the time, and yes that is fine. The book was an international effort with contributions from people who type or write to communicate independently but
began with support.

Richard
Tom Smith
October 8th, 2009
18:47:12

I’m a long time internet advo for autism and Supported Communication (SC) (formerly known as FC) and am a partisan of Art and Ben Golden. I worked in autism treatment for 30 years in residential and with other populations.

Comparing the vaccine controversy with that of the SC controversy is comparing apples and oranges in a scientific sense with vaccines being physical phenomenon and more accessible to science and SC being social and much less accessible.

I used SC in a free and open way for two years in residential in the early Nineties producing the facilitated book “QIM Tunes”...an interview with five severe autistic men. James Todd here is way off base with his concerns about SC getting in he way of any other treatment. In fact SC improves the likelihood of the effectiveness of other treatments, including speech development where it is possible. Neither Todd nor I have scientific proof of this mainly because Todd and his threatened behaviorists have suppressed research and use of SC.

OK, you may ask what is the difference between FC and SC? The official FC people, like the behaviorists, have relied on pseudoscience to support their position. Neither FC or behaviorism has much efficacy scientifically and by promoting either as scientific opens up abuses by both. I could write a book on how behaviorists abuse science and an essay on how the official FC people do. In contrast, SC relies on objective applied treatment modalities and which work better in combination or individually. As a “worker” in this field for many years with a keen eye on science while knowing it’s limitations in an applied way, I know it’s nonsense to rely too heavily on science and these people only do it to appease the clueless, usually parents and administrators. In other words, they do it for money.

The severe autistics are in fact geniuses. Autism will eventually be seen as symptomatic of genius and not retardation. I have no doubt about that. They also have special sensory abilities which effect their communication and make it somewhat different from ours. All we need to do is use SC and learn how to use it FROM THEM. They are perfectly happy and know it serves their interests that in this process SC be “invalid”, meaning used with extreme caution in the “functioning” world until we understand better the method of SC and their natures. In the process caretakers get to know them and have fun doing so while the method itself provides the therapeutic effects on the autistics that eliminate their most difficult behaviors. In the longer run, SC and the auties will provide humanity with the greatest insights and discoveries in history. Oh yeah, these guys are THAT bright.
Laurentius Rex
October 8th, 2009
19:23:07

In other words Tom, you are as woo and out there as the homeopaths, with your invocation of quasi magical explanations, and invocations of

Yes I am aware of Arthur C Clarkes 3 laws, and yes I am often critical of the practice of science, however the fact that something is presently inexplicable does not mean that a sufficiently rigourous methodology could not discover how it works. It is certainly no excuse for not submitting to proper research.

However I fear very much that you are so partisan that you are delusional and therefore committed to your own view contra all reality.
Morgan
October 8th, 2009
20:13:26

Kev,

You can “guess” anything you like.

As an adult, you are capable of doing your homework before writing publicly. To choose otherwise is juvenile and reckless (especially when other people’s professional reputations are at stake).

There is a well-established body of scientific literature on the subject of FC. There is also an enormous body of anecdotal accounts. If I were you, I’d focus on the former.

Morgan
Joseph
October 8th, 2009
21:12:24

however the fact that something is presently inexplicable does not mean that a sufficiently rigourous methodology could not discover how it works. It is certainly no excuse for not submitting to proper research.

Who are you, and what have you done with Larry? :)
Kev
October 9th, 2009
07:59:35

Morgan – please cease the off topic trolling, but thanks for the advice on FC. Can I ask what your interest in the subject is?
stanley seigler
October 9th, 2009
12:02:09

re: But FC doesnt work. There is no good reason to believe in it…It is a tragedy that in the 21st century we are still dealing with this. (James T. Todd, Ph.D.)

The tragedy is: it was not dealt with in the 20th century…todd-etals do a criminal disservice, injustice, to non verbals (and others) on the spectrum…they deny “seeing is believing” science…they deny our children and friends their human/civil rights…they condemn children to Bettelheim’s Empty Fortress…

why deny anecdotal evidence that has been around since at least the mid 60s…when the potential is freedom for so many…to protect their livelihood maybe…

Rimland (1991?) say:

“Several very dramatic cases of QBIs [quantum behavioral improvement] were reported in the NY times and elsewhere, in the mid-1960s, in accounts of the work of pediatrician Mary Goodwin, who used a primitive computerized teaching machine, the talking machine, to instill a bit of language into a number of severely handicapped autistic children.
[...]
“Several years ago renowned physicist Arthur Schawlow reported the remarkable results he and his wife had observed not long after providing their then 27-year-old son with a small hand held Canon communicator [...]
“Other methods should be tried until, hopefully, communication ability and perhaps QBIs can be achieved…You can be sure the editors of ARRI will keep its readers informed of developments in this important field.” http://www.autismwebsite.com/arri/v021/page3.pdf

The hard copy from the goodwins talking typewriter was/is similar to that of FC typing.

The latest of numerous cases of this phenom is Carly.
http://www.youtube. com/watch? v=a1uPf5O- on0&feature=related

seems the todd-etals…the publish or perish crew’s time/energy would be better spend on study/research into this innate ability some (?many, ?most, ?all) on the spectrum seem to have…vice viciously attacking a painfully obvious phenomena…and it’s ironic it would facilitate their ABA livelihood.

call it FC or whatever…a rose is a rose.

stanley seigler
Arthur Golden
October 9th, 2009
13:35:29

I have known Benjamin Ethan since before he began to use Facilitated Communication. Several commenters here belong to a private yahoo!group where they were told much more about the connection between Benjamin Ethan and me, but such private information should not be disclosed in public. Benjamin Ethan just told me through FC:

“Say ‘I am one of his facilitators and no more.’ ”

In the original blog entry, Kev wrote “Or is there another option?”

In May 1994, using his type of Facilitated Communication, then 22 year-old son Benjamin Ethan (“Ben”) made a major life decision. At his request, Ben and I went to Dr. Howard Shane on May 3, 1994 to try to scientifically validate his personal FC. Dr. Howard Shane used his usual procedures and could not validate Ben’s FC, as documented in a 5 page report we received from him several weeks later. Now over 15 years later, FC has still not been scientifically validated.

However, Ben and I decided to proceed to try to implement his major life decision, which I feel was very successful for Ben. Should we have waited until FC was scientifically validated? If we did, we would still be waiting. I know this report is not a peer-reviewed article of a scientific experiment and is only an “anecdote.” But this anecdote is a real human being with a divine soul whose life is not going to sacrificed on the altar of the “Idolatry of Science” (using the expression which originated with Ben – I often follow the lead of this person who does not have an academic high school diploma even though I have a Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School, and Ben felt humiliated this week when Michelle Dawson thought his blog comment was too sophisticated so it might have been from me using his email account and she deleted it).

Benjamin Ethan and/or I hope to comment more in a few days.
Joseph
October 9th, 2009
14:08:50

Benjamin Ethan and/or I hope to comment more in a few days.

Did that sound kind of creepy to anyone else?

I’m sorry, but I’m one of those “seeing is believing” kind of guys.
Arthur Golden
October 9th, 2009
14:49:53

Joseph,

Already several thousand people have personally met with Benjamin Ethan in Jerusalem and you are invited to visit him too. Fortunately for me, he has others assist him as his facilitator when he meets new people, so you may not meet me.

So why does it sound kind of creepy to you?

Despite your nice biblical name, I presume you do not live too close to Jerusalem. Have you ever met an FC user? If you tell me where you live, I will try to find someone closer to you.
Joseph
October 9th, 2009
15:11:20

@Arthur: I doubt I’ll be visiting Israel any time soon, but if I do, I’ll be sure to drop by. The purpose would not be to prove anything. No uncontrolled observation would. What matters is whether you’ve been tested. I’m sure you would’ve mentioned it if you had.

I’m sure you’ll understand that I have absolutely no compelling reason to believe you, whereas there are tons of documented reasons not to believe you.
Arthur Golden
October 9th, 2009
15:38:36

I have to leave my computer right now and I will have to wait 2-1/2 days to get back to you. Have a good weekend.
stanley seigler
October 9th, 2009
19:51:43

re arthur ask joseph: why does it sound kind of creepy to you… and, Have you ever met an FC user

Just wondering if joseph intended to answer and what’s joseph’s interest in FC/autism…on spectrum, parent, family/friend, ABA provider, professional, etc…ie, similar resume to that arthur provided…

Re studies, proof…ie, tons of documentation…

a friend and internationally respected PhD physicist; one of four ASA (when it was NSAC) original presidents; father of twin boys with classic kanner autism (FC users); Bob Frederick’s (died a few years back) comments may help documentation evaluation.

quote:
“I am again jumping in without having followed the complete thread [not current deja vu all over again thread. But two statements got my attention

“Physical scientists are not welcome in the world of the would-be scientists in psychology, psychiatry and medicine, except as naïve clowns who invent or produce all manner of new diagnostic and treatment equipment, nuclear tracers etc., which are then used by MD’s who are given the credit for the advances by the press and public.

“Look at the prescription drug problem. MD’s almost to a man (or woman?PC!!) dole out dangerous poorly tested chemicals hawked by pharmaceutical companies via marketing agents who have no ‘scientific’ credentials and who ‘educate’ the MD with slick brochures and ‘free samples’ to try on unsuspecting patients.

“They give elderly people a panoply of drugs without the slightest knowledge of their interactions, and with minimal follow-up. They push ‘laser’ stuff [bob’s field] without knowing anything about the operation of the basic equipment beyond which buttons to push on the front panel.

“They order lots of xrays without any knowledge of the cummulative damage of even ‘soft’ xrays, and when challenged, will mouth some non sequitir such as ‘you would get more exposure on a flight to New York’ (usually a falsehood.)

“Worst of all are behavioral psychologists and charlatan psychiatrists. The former apply all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings). The latter use powerful drugs to control behavior without proper monitoring, and in institutions to control patients with minimal staff.

“The biosciences in the past four decades have accounted for 99% of the fraudulent research reports. Underpaid chemists, physicists and biologists working in labs run by senior professors, often MD’s but not always, fudged or outright created data sets to publish results and totally unjustified conclusions.

“Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects.

“but don’t expect the pseudoscientists to pay any attention, since many of them do not understand observational science as applied to human beings, who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior.” (end quote)

A little off topic human interest, Bob’s last words to me, “you old fool”...this after I backed out of my garage with the car door open and tore it off…no damage to garage. Bob also a member of the greatest generation…a marine sgt in the pacific…

stanley seigler
Joseph
October 9th, 2009
21:26:21

re arthur ask joseph: why does it sound kind of creepy to you

Do I really have to spell it out? I suspect Benjamin Ethan is basically Arthur Golden, and at this point Mr. Golden can’t apparently even make the distinction in his own head.

I’m not the only one who has noticed this. See the comments in this thread at Autism Crisis.

BTW, anecdotes, testimonials, names, credentials, etc. are not going to convince me in the least. It just won’t work. Even if you show me someone who is an independent communicator who used to do FC, and it is proven all these circumstances are accurately characterized, does this show FC is useful? No, it does not, any more than case reports are sufficient to show that ABA works.
stanley seigler
October 10th, 2009
00:51:25

re: I [joseph] suspect Benjamin Ethan is basically Arthur Golden, and at this point Mr. Golden can’t apparently even make the distinction in his own head.

Surely you dont believe mr golden has multiple personalities…or has taken over his sons personality…

stanley seigler
NightStorm
October 10th, 2009
03:09:39

The severe autistics are in fact geniuses. Autism will eventually be seen as symptomatic of genius and not retardation.

As much as I would love to believe that, and I believe it’s true in some cases, but I am sorry but that is too much of a blanket statement.

Like I said previously, I believe FC can act as a learning method, and hopefully foster independant typing. Which to me is the goal.

I think the reason Neuro-Ds are interested in FC is that it’s a method of communication that allows the autistic person to be themselves without having to be stuffed to the gills with bio-med and force to be something that they are not.
Richard
October 10th, 2009
14:10:56

I think the goal – for myself anyway – was to explore the world
through language. I have had more fun typing and engaging in
conversation that I had trying to converse at the level other
people felt was appropriate for a low functioning person with a ‘disability label’. I decided they could save their sympathy and ‘disability language’ for someone who wishes to be ‘identified by a label’. Grant us the freedom to decide who we wish to be.

I do not identify myself as a person with
autism – which I see as a ‘disability label’ or a person with
cerebral palsy – I see myself as a human being. I do not perceive
myself as part of ‘an autistic community’ – I perceive myself
as part of the world. If one has poor speech skills or no
language one is marginalized by society. One can fight
the establishment to stay out of the box ‘marked’ disability
which I refused to fit into.

Developing language is about self expression and finding
oneself as a person – identifying with society. I will spend my life finding out who I am as a person because life does not stand still it moves on and one grows as a human being with every year that passes. Through language one is able to develop ideas and socialise. One is able to study at any level one wishes to participate at. The children/people who are able to
type with or without support are at an extreme disadvantage – they need all the support they can get not to be penalized
for being different.

Children/adults like myself have been refused the
speech therapy they required on grounds of cost or disability – so one has to ask what option is left for us? One can live the lie of ‘disability’ and become the ‘disability label’ that is pinned on one or one can fight for an equal education and equal rights and an equal place in society – social justice – not just for oneself but for every child that has been denied an equal education and equal opportunities.

I will never be responsible for denying anyone the right to communicate by which ever means they so wish. It is their basic fundamental human right

Richard
Estee Klar-Wolfond
October 10th, 2009
16:39:33

I just received an email from someone about Kowalski stating that I have called Adam a “genius.” That is a misrepresentation and I would like to challenge Kowlaski to cite where I have stated that.

Adam has real difficulties with communication. Some days his typing is independent (in a school context where he has to answer a question, it is easier) and other times he gets very stuck. Yet we hang in there as this modality is useful and we should be using every modality at our disposal.

Last night I watched “Awakenings” for about the 50th time. Everyone can remember the “throwing of the ball” and the idea of “borrowing the will of the ball” for which Dr. Sayer was so criticized. Yet this is what Adam often needs—to borrow my will and the will of others—we all do this through prompts, be it a verbal or a physical one. Let’s just get over it and realize that if we are very honest with ourselves as parents and never delude ourselves (which is the issue, I think, at hand here), all kinds of prompts are needed. “Performance” is inconsistent. This is a part of our experience with autism yet it does not mean that the autistic person is unable or unwilling. Adam is challenged on some days more than others, most definitely.
shanna
October 10th, 2009
17:12:26

I believe if you look at the previous comments you will see that Kowlaski was actually defending you. I believe it was farmwifetwo who insuated that you called Adam a “genius”.
Rose
October 10th, 2009
17:48:05

Estee:

Although I think you want to stay on Kowalskis good side,(hi..,how y’all doin? GREAT BLOG)I also remembered her backing you up.

What is wrong with thinking your child is a genius? Doesn’t everybody??? Hmmm…maybe it’s just me.

What I truly wanted to say is: The similarity I envisioned of Adam to Ben thinking back to working on homework (ie, output).

1) You had to be in the room with him, or he wouldn’t do it.
2) ANYTHING could be a distraction…and his brain was all over the environment, SEARCHING for one!
3) The more you pressured him, the less got done.
4) He was very sensitive to criticism, which could stop him dead in his tracks.
5) He NEVER wanted to talk about school, or read about it,or write about it, or even look at one..

Ben would typically take from 2 to 4 hours to do homework, and there had to be a lot of positive interaction. This must be “common”, as his ADHD psychiatrist was the same way, as well as Fast Eddie, a kid I taught years ago.

These are people who currently understand the English language and are easily able to process and express it. Reticence in output was a common factor. I’m not sure why.
Laurentius Rex
October 10th, 2009
18:21:39

I am not going to insult either Benjamin or Ethan by making presumptions in either direction, I save the rough stuff for Harold Doherty.

What really upsets me sometimes though is the whole debate about a divisible spectrum where LFA and HFA are so so seperate.

Today I had a rather public communication breakdown, there is one reliable blogger here who saw it.

I am not comfortable when that happens, never mind what provoked it.

At one point I had to rely on Mike Stanton to interpret words I had typed onto a screen. Was he going to interpret that properly?

I didn’t have adequate speech, I was back at a very primitive level, tourettic stuff if you understand what goes on.

I’m back now and typing real sentences and words, (h’mm as to what constitutes real words I guess there is always an element of being on the edge with that one upharsinators all :)...)

Perhaps it is even more spectacular when someone who is percieved as highlty articulate, (even if odd) loses it.

Forget this Bollox about genius, all it is is a word after all.
Dwight F
October 10th, 2009
18:40:43

>> Even if you show me someone who is an independent communicator who used to do FC, and it is proven all these circumstances are accurately characterized, does this show FC is useful? No, it does not, any more than case reports are sufficient to show that ABA works.

It is a starting point though, a valid avenue for research. If generally FC produces poor, inconsistant results why do these cases appear different? Was it something within the ASC person? Was it something their facilitator was doing/observing? Is the ASC person right now lying or have tainted recollections? ((Yes, we should seriously consider this.))

At the least this would help sort out if/when/what parts of FC are good for helping with the learning steps of communication (what is the equivalent to hand over hand) and maybe even increasing the reliability/repeatability of the actual messages coming through FC by weeding out the seemingly abundant instances where the message content is dominated by the facilitator rather than the ASC person.
Joseph
October 10th, 2009
19:40:41

It is a starting point though, a valid avenue for research.

Given the state of the evidence, FC proponents have a very high burden of proof, and are also responsible for carrying out research that is clear enough to overturn things, if in fact there’s something to FC. They should not expect science to just carry on normally and eventually validate their views. When a hypothesis fails, as appears to be the case here, science basically abandons that hypothesis. That’s how science works, and that’s the only way it can keep advancing.

If generally FC produces poor, inconsistant results why do these cases appear different?

Suppose these cases represent 1 of every 10,000 persons who’ve ever tried FC. Would that make it a valuable approach with general applicability? I don’t think so.

It also doesn’t matter if testimonials are truthful, either. For example, do you doubt that Victoria Beck’s son actually showed some sudden gains in his speech after he has given secretin? I don’t. It doesn’t prove anything either way.
Clay
October 10th, 2009
23:58:49

Tom Smith said:
“The severe autistics are in fact geniuses. Autism will eventually be seen as symptomatic of genius and not retardation. I have no doubt about that.”

I’m going to second Larry, and suggest you rent a cottage on Lake Woobegone. Especially if you’re still living on the streets!

(Sorry if this if off-topic, but we passed that milepost many posts ago.)
stanley seigler
October 11th, 2009
00:34:54

re: I [richard] will never be responsible for denying anyone the right to communicate by which ever means they so wish. It is their basic fundamental human right …I have had more fun typing and engaging in conversation that I had trying to converse at the level other people felt was appropriate for a low functioning person with a ‘disability label’....Grant us the freedom to decide who we wish to be…The children/people who are able to type with or without support are at an extreme disadvantage – they need all the support they can get not to be penalized for being different.

COMMENT
Richard, thanks and much appreciation for so eloquently saying what i have been trying to say for decades. SADLY and so unfortunately, the fun and hard fought freedom you have, has been…is being…denied many others by the pseudoscientists

those my old fried bob fredericks says: do not understand observational science as applied to human beings, who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior (for his opine see previous post)

it is difficult not to question their (the pseudos) motives…but even if their motives are altruistic…they have/are paved/paving the road to hell with good (maybe) intentions…condemning our children and friends to Bettelheim’s Empty Fortress…committing untold, unforgivable, sins of omission and commission…not sure even their great gawd of science will forgive them.

they deny our children/friends (as richard say) “the right to communicate by which ever means they so wish”...deny inalienable right to happiness… Oh, the Places You’ll (they could) Go!

re:{dwight f] It is a starting point though, a valid avenue for research

there’s been a starting point for decades…see prior post, NYT article, etal…since the mid 60s…untold thousands have died and institutionalized waiting for the pseudo scientists to research the innate ability many on the spectrum have …vise viciously attacking progress, defending/excusing the status quo in the name of the great gawd of science…refusing to believe the science of “seeing is believing”.

re: [Joseph] That’s how science works, and that’s the only way it can keep advancing.

if science works the way J thinks…the sun would still revolve around a flat earth…but hope Jetals dont fall off the edge of the universe…but doubt J-etals would begin to recognize: a valid avenue for research…it takes compassion for the least which they seem to lack.

stanley seigler
Dwight F
October 11th, 2009
06:46:30

@stanley seigler

I don’t get the impression that that Carly video is of the “Facilitated Communication” variety. Not judging from that YouTube link you gave. Although she is using a keyboard, she does seem to be typing quite independantly.

As mentioned before, hand over hand is something different than the FC being discussed. Hand over hand is the relatively brief stepping stone toward independant actions during which time it is understood that the instructor is providing very direct input, with prior knowledge of the outcome. It is a teaching technique with the intention of information flowing from instructor to student.

FC is characterized by ongoing dependence on the facilitator and an assumption that the facilitator isn’t heavily influencing the message. The information flow is assumed to be in the other direction.

The later has had serious false starts, largely abject failure so far. That would be the importance, if valid claims (I don’t know anything about them), of these cases of FC accuracy being confirmed by individuals who are later able to communicate independantly.
Dwight F
October 11th, 2009
06:55:18

Incidentally one thing that really struck me about that video is her dad’s recollection of his realization that all those years he’d spent years talking in front of her like she wasn’t there she had been listening. Not only poinent but also suggests to me that her parents hadn’t been doing “FC”.
NightStorm
October 11th, 2009
14:24:47

@Richard: One can fight
the establishment to stay out of the box ‘marked’ disability
which I refused to fit into.

I think there is a difference of letting social stigma ruling you and facing a real fact. Being disablied isn’t a source of shame. For many like myself it’s a damn fact. However letting the fact of being disabled act as a social taboo, is something you should refuse. I will not let people degrade me make choices for me or be unethical because of my disablity.

The lable of being disabled isn’t a problem, it just a fact of life and you shouldn’t fight it. What you should fight is the lies, the propaganda and the ableistic sheep, that use that fact to force their will upon you. Fight the stigma not the lable.
Richard
October 11th, 2009
14:25:20

Stanley, re “those my old fried bob fredericks says: do not understand observational science as applied to human beings, who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior”

One would question if one can ever rationalize human behaviour.
I try to make sense of a society that denies equality to
human beings – it seems very unrational to me. Surely all
people are born equal or do we not believe in an equal
society. And if we believe in an equal society why would
we deny sections of it an equal education and equal rights.

I expect that is a very idealistic view point.

As a child I was penalized for ‘disability’ and now I hope
that as an adult I can use my experience of 32 years – years
when I struggled with communication and years when I lived
and breathed communication. I know where I would rather be.

We do not have the right to deny another human being the
right of communication as a society.

Richard
Joseph
October 11th, 2009
16:38:38

We do not have the right to deny another human being the
right of communication as a society.

No, we do not. But despite its name, it has yet to be shown that Facilitated Communication is communication at all. At the moment, it’s not just that there’s no evidence that it works; there’s substantial evidence that it’s indistinguishable from fraud.

The first time I saw FC in video I believe it was in “Autism: The Musical.” You can see several other videos in YouTube. What actual FC entails is a facilitator completely controlling the hand of someone who is unable to do so on their own. Then we’re supposed to believe that someone with these physical limitations is able to write perfect adult-like sentences, with perfect grammar and no spelling mistakes at all, and that the facilitator is not really directing the hand where the facilitator thinks it should go. (I’m not saying it’s unbelievable because of the cognitive disability, but because of the physical disability primarily. Even very abled-body people produce typos from time to time.)
Laurentius Rex
October 11th, 2009
17:32:23

“Even very abled-body people produce typos from time to time”

It’s called being drunk in charge of a keyboard.
Dwight F
October 11th, 2009
18:59:57

>> ... of these cases of FC accuracy being confirmed by individuals who are later able to communicate independantly.

That should read “corroborated”, not “confirmed”.

>> It’s called being drunk in charge of a keyboard.

Or being ever so slightly human. I still screw up. See any number of my posts for examples, as I assure you I am quite sobber when posting. :)
stanley seigler
October 11th, 2009
21:41:37

[dwigth f] Incidentally one thing that really struck me about that video is her dad’s recollection of his realization that all those years he’d spent years talking in front of her like she wasn’t there she had been listening. Not only poinent but also suggests to me that her parents hadn’t been doing “FC”.

COMMENT
Incidentally another thing, carly’s mom say: Hello everyone…this is Tammy, Carly*s mom…What Carly is doing is not, and has never been FC or facilitated communication.

Reference to carly was about her ability to communicate after being thought a candidate for an institution…this innate ability seem to be present in some (many, most ,all?) on the spectrum…

this ability is what a true scientist would research…vice wasting time discrediting (viciously attacking) FC…for reasons unknown

FC works (I have put my hand in the spear wound) and is one means to surface this ability…in any event;

[Dwight say] “It is a starting point though, a valid avenue for research. If generally FC produces poor, inconsistant results why do these cases appear different? Was it something within the ASC person? Was it something their facilitator was doing/observing? Is the ASC person right now lying or have tainted recollections? ((Yes, we should seriously consider this.))”

Valid research should have stared in the 60s…

To deny the ability exist is similar to saying mozart was too young, didn’t have the training to write symphonies at 4 (some very young age)...ie, those who don’t believe seeing is believing would say someone else wrote them…some evil genius facilitator…his dad, maybe.

Many (most, all?) do not originally type in grammatically, etc, correct sentences, paragraphs…some progress to this point, some don’t or haven’t yet.

If this ability exist in some (many, most,all?) why couldnt FC produce the results todd-etals deny…

“Empiricism used to mean that the scientist (Galileo, say) believed the evidence of their own observations over the speculations of the textbooks; now it seems to be the other way round.” (quote by I don’t remember)

caveat: the “i dont remember quotes” are from one of many past replays of groundhog day FC discussions…may not be exact.

stanley seigler
Dwight F
October 11th, 2009
22:14:42

>> Valid research should have stared in the 60s…

But researchers were flooded with cases of Facilitated Communications chalatins?
Richard
October 11th, 2009
23:54:57

Re: “Then we’re supposed to believe that someone with these physical limitations is able to write perfect adult-like sentences, with perfect grammar and no spelling mistakes at all, and that the facilitator is not really directing the hand where the facilitator thinks it should go. (I’m not saying it’s unbelievable because of the cognitive disability, but because of the physical disability primarily. Even very abled-body people produce typos from time to time.)”

So you conclude because you saw a short video where no typing
errors were made that the person does not ever make typing errors
and their hand was being moved towards a key!

If you were in a test situation would you endeavour not to
make mistakes – say a job interview or an examination – or would
you think it was important to be professional and make a good
impression?

And if someone types with a childish word structure and makes errors then it is deemed more acceptable. Is that because it
fits in with society’s perceived view of disability?

Christy Brown – a published author – typed with his left foot. Christopher Nolan typed with his head – another published author. (Both deceased). Physical appearance/disability is no indication of intelligence level or ability to communicate.

Richard
stanley seigler
October 12th, 2009
03:05:54

[Dwight] But researchers were flooded with cases of Facilitated Communications charlatans?

charlatans like:

?sue rubin

?those exposed by: behavioral psychologists and charlatan psychiatrists. The former apply all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings). The latter use powerful drugs to control behavior without proper monitoring, and in institutions to control patients with minimal staff.

?those exposed by: psychologists [who] use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects.(see previous post)

hard to tell the charlatans with or w/o a program…

how many charlatans (FC users) do you know personally…oh, would you consider my 44 yo daughter (non verbal, classic kanner autism, spoiled only child) a charlatan…

she does NOT write poetry or screen plays…but when she responds with FC it’s a most moving experience…and she is a great teacher.

she has no formal education…state of art special ed in her day was putting rings on a stick…she must have been bored out of her skull…

since FC: most off the wall behavior eliminated…orders of mag happier…still and always will require 24/7 support…no miracles…but FC works for her…btw;

at 4 she learned to button (ABA at UCLA) at 44 she can no longer button…hard to believe with all the scientific data to prove ABA works…

repeating: hard to tell the charlatans w/, w/o, a program…

stanley seigler
Arthur Golden
October 12th, 2009
04:42:55

Returning to my computer after 2-1/2 days, I find there are 25 new comments to this blog entry that I have not had the opportunity to respond to. In addition, after Michelle Dawson stopped moaning and groaning on her QuickTopic Discussion Board about being put on moderation by Kev for this blog entry, there are now 17 relevant comments over there which I think should be considered (see messages in the 9700s: 39-41,43-48,51-56,60,61). I never expected there would be so much continuing activity on this subject. Even Jonathan Mitchell got into the act with a blog entry on his blog, with several comments over there. Now I need to be away for my computer for several more hours, but I hope to respond to some of these new comments in the coming day.
Richard
October 12th, 2009
11:52:01

At the age of fourteen, at school, before I began to type, I
had to have an assessment with a Psychologist. No one asked if
I wished to do the assessment so I refused to take part in
the assessment and I laughed every time she asked me to participate. I realised that if I did the assessment the result would go on my file and it would record my perceived level of intelligence. Because the level of the assessment was so low I
thought I was in a no win situation. I did not have sufficient
verbal language to even try to explain.

My teacher who had always stated that I was of above level of intelligence asked me why I did not do the assessment. I recall she said to me, “You were able to complete everyone of those tasks”. A few months later when I began to type to communicate and I was then able to communicate to the teacher my reasons for not completing the assessment. Maybe not so articulately as I am able to do so today. The result was that the Psychologist was really put out and stated that although I was highly intelligent I was low functioning. My teacher did not have the position at the school to argue with her although she was Head of Department for children on the spectrum and did not agree with her.

I spent the next two/three year period arguing over the curriculum. I hoped perhaps they would change it for all the children not just myself. In protest I refused to participate in Life Skills and demanded academics. I was told they did not teach academics at the school. The truth is that at the age of fifteen all the children went on to the Life Skills curriculum. So I asked to be allowed to go to another school but my request was refused. I wrote to the Head of the School explaining my reasons
for wishing to study academics nut he ignored me. And made some comment about watching the steam come out of a kettle. Eventually a new Head of Department threw her hands up in the air in sheer exasperation and said they could teach me what they liked. But it was all too little too late as far as I was concerned. The new Head of Department stated in my hearing, “That you would not think I was so intelligent to look at me”. The fact that it was stated that my movement was extremely high functioning seemed to escape her notice. I was in fact condemned for having a physical disability.

I decided I was going to College. I applied to six Colleges
before one would offer me a placement. I was finally accepted
on the merit of a poem I had written at the age of 15, but
instead of being offered a general studies course I was offered
an advanced level course.(Pre degree – at the time only 20% of
mainstream students studied at this level.) At the time the staff at school were trying to place me in a ‘day facility’ for people with learning difficulties. I made a tape and stated on the tape in speech that I would not go to the day facility.

So now I ask myself how many of the people who had their
communication aids and funding taken away would have been
able to achieve what I have achieved.

No one has ever apologised to me for assessing me as ‘learning disabled’over a period of nineteen years. One has to ask the
question how can a person go through the system and the
system fail them to such an extreme. And then one has to ask
the question, “How many other children suffered the same fate”.

By the time I left school ten children were typing to
communicate with support. One went on to study a distant learning
foundation course – pre university.

So FC is not the failure that people seem to believe. However
for every person that types today to communicate it could have
been a hundred or a thousand. And we will never know because
no one is going to admit they condemned people like me to
‘segregation’.

Richard
Richard
October 12th, 2009
13:51:02

Sorry guys that should have read “but he ignored me” not “nut” – still making typing errors.

Richard
Joseph
October 12th, 2009
14:12:42

So you conclude because you saw a short video where no typing errors were made that the person does not ever make typing errors and their hand was being moved towards a key!

No, I primarily conclude that based on multiple studies that show FC to be indistinguishable from fraud. The videos do make the whole thing look like complete bullshit, though, but that’s just my personal opinion.
Rose
October 12th, 2009
16:15:17

ABA is science-certified…hmmm.
stanley seigler
October 12th, 2009
17:42:01

re: No, I [joseph] primarily conclude that based on multiple studies that show FC to be indistinguishable from fraud. The videos do make the whole thing look like complete bullshit, though, but that’s just my personal opinion [Joseph]

COMMENT
certainly your right to, in essence, call people on the spectrum, who communicate to the world with FC, bs-ers…and;

know you are not just bs-ing…but on which specific studies you have read/evaluated do you base your opinion…

for one who worships at the alter of science…it’s a little disconcerting to read its “just” your personal opine…think asked, what is your interest in autism/FC…ie;

are you in a position to inflict your opinion on those with autism, their families and friends…thus condemning them to a life of silent unbearable pain and suffering…denying them possible release from a prison of silence…denying them the same freedom you have.

re: ABA is science-certified…hmmm. [rose]

COMMENT
ditto hmmm…as mentioned: at 4 my daughter learned to button (ABA at UCLA); at 44 she can no longer button…hard to believe with all the scientific data to prove ABA works…

would someone point me to scientific studies that prove long term ABA success…ie, whats the life of those who learned to button at 4, like at 44…note 4 to 44 shorthand for general ABA long term success indicator

btw perhaps some combination of FC by whatever name and some form of ABA would be a most successful program…any reports/articles on such a program…further;

if IDEA and FAPE (fair appropriate public education) are not just a politician’s joke then; above type program should be part of public education…ABA at $40,000 or whatever per year is beyond the reach of many/most families

mo hmmmm-ing…in the $40,000 is there much profit for ABA practitioners who viciously attack FC…provoking some to call FC complete bs…course this would not effect their scientific/just personal opine…

stanley seigler
Dwight F
October 12th, 2009
18:38:38

>> how many charlatans (FC users) do you know personally…oh, would you consider my 44 yo daughter (non verbal, classic kanner autism, spoiled only child) a charlatan…

The ASC person, no. The people claiming that she is communicating maybe, intentionally or not. Exactly how exactly has the communication been verified?

Because I’ve seen a good deal of things surrounding claims of FC, as Kev acknowledges in his post, that have the signs of quackery. People claiming that only a single finger on a shoulder or hand on a back by the facilitator couldn’t possibly be heavily influencing the communication coming out. With training sure it could, as anyone with a good deal of experience riding a horse should be able to tell you.

P.S. You can indeed have meaningful standard deviation calculations from only 10 subjects. The level of certainty isn’t as high but it is quite acceptable, and successful, for exploritory studies looking for potential avenues of investigation. A lot depends on how things are structured.
Laurentius Rex
October 12th, 2009
19:53:56

Richard are you sure you are not confusing facilitated communication and augmented communication here. Augmented communication is about technology I have known many people who used itwith a variety of disabilities, as I have said my mum eventually used a possum microswitch to control a computer and various other devices in her home.

Facilitated communication on the other hand is a method, one open to much abuse.
stanley seigler
October 12th, 2009
20:38:45

the unanswered question: how many charlatans (FC users) do you know personally…assume you will answer…in the meantime/in between time…

re: Exactly how exactly has the communication been verified?

assume you ask re my daughter…she has FCs with several different facilitators…including me; she’s a better speller than i…especially on classical composers names..she does not FC with me consistently, but;

as mentioned when she does it is a most moving experience…there is no way, i influence, unless she reads minds…we do not test her…she does not need to prove anything to you or other todd-etals, pseudo scientists.

re: You can indeed have meaningful standard deviation calculations from only 10 subjects. The level of certainty isn’t as high but it is quite acceptable, and successful, for exploritory studies looking for potential avenues of investigation. A lot depends on how things are structured.

a hell of a lot…maybe to the pseudos…certainly not among the physicists i have known (see quotes by deceased friend in previous post)...and i would not try to market any drugs based on 10 samples…guess psychologists can condemn many on the spectrum to a life of silence based on 10 sample results…

when you respond to the number of FC charlatans you know personally…would/could you advise studies based on 10 subjects you believe confirm joe’s “just opine” FC is bs…or studies you believe confirm scientificly FC bs…

when you confirm FC is bs based on 10…you might want to consider richards comment:

[richard say] “So FC is not the failure that people seem to believe. However for every person that types today to communicate it could have been a hundred or a thousand. And we will never know because no one is going to admit they condemned people like me to segregation”

richards comments reminds of scene from awakenings:

Dr. Sayer: Whats it like to be them? What are they thinking?
Dr. Ingham: Theyre not. The virus didnt spare their higher faculties.
Dr. Sayer: We know that for a fact?
Dr. Ingham: Yes.
Dr. Sayer: Because…?
Dr. Ingham: Because the alternative is unthinkable.

seems the FC alternate is unthinkable to the todd-etals…

stanley seigler
Joseph
October 12th, 2009
20:40:33

certainly your right to, in essence, call people on the spectrum, who communicate to the world with FC, bs-ers…and;

I do not do that. I call the facilitators either bs-ers or deluded. To be clear, when I say FC I don’t mean pseudo-FC and other things people call FC. I refer to the testable claim that a facilitator can facilitate communication for someone who is otherwise 100% or nearly 100% incapable of independent language-based communication (through a keyboard or any other means.)
Dwight F
October 12th, 2009
20:49:34

>> …we do not test her…she does not need to prove anything to you or other todd-etals, pseudo scientists.

Again, it isn’t her that needs verification. It is the man-in-the-middle, the channel of communication that is in doubt.
Dwight F
October 12th, 2009
21:12:51

BTW…

>> and i would not try to market any drugs based on 10 samples

No, not “market” it based on it. But studies with sizes of 10 or 30 patients are an important step in the cycle towards a marketable product, or a new use for an existing product. A step that is used to sift out the pretenders, if not potentially damaging and ethically dubious. A step that FC (rather than the “augmented communication” Laurentius Rex speaks of, what seemed to be happening in that YouTube video of Carly) has failed more than once.

That is why it lacks credibility. Not only because it hasn’t proven itself. It has been tested and failed. That’s more damning than not being tested at all…except in cases where there is a steadfastness to avoid testing. This rejection of rational and methodical verification for some sort of mystical enlightenment.

Yes, I’m speaking directly about you and your posts that ring hard with the rhetoric of “faith healing”.
stanley seigler
October 13th, 2009
00:17:29

re: Yes, I’m [dwight] speaking directly about you and your posts that ring hard with the rhetoric of “faith healing”.

oh my, sigh…name calling has replaced addressing issue…or perhaps i missed the post:

when you respond[ed] to the number of FC charlatans you know personally…and advise[ed] studies based on 10 subjects you believe confirm joe’s “just opine” FC is bs…or studies you believe confirm scientifically FC bs…

as you upped the ante to 10-30 samples vice 10…any study in that range would help to understand your position which does so much harm to many on the spectrum…

lets scientifically evaluate these studies…i promise not to lay on hands…or sprinkle them with holy water…

re: Again, it isn’t her [my daughter] that needs to prove it. It is the man-in-the-middle that is in doubt

ok i’ll take a lie detector test…

re: the “augmented communication” Laurentius Rex speaks of, what seemed to be happening in that YouTube video of Carly

assume you believe carly is not a fraud…and maybe her miraculous innate ability surfaced by “augmented communication” exist…and possible exist in some(many/most/all?) on the spectrum…

OTOH

assume you believe sue rubin (Autism Is A World) is a fraud as she uses FC…and she does not have an innate ability to communicate…or it has not surfaced as yet…

The subject of this film is Sue Rubin, a woman with autism who was considered mentally retarded as a child. At the age of thirteen, she learned to express herself through a computer keyboard, otherwise known as facilitated communication, revealing that she was in fact highly intelligent. She went on to study history, specializing in Latin American History at Whittier College and to write speeches about her life with autism. Director Wurzburg has called Rubin “the Helen Keller of her generation”.

stanley seigler
Richard
October 13th, 2009
01:44:09

Laurentius Rex re “Richard are you sure you are not confusing facilitated communication and augmented communication here”.

*To clarify. No I am speaking about supported typing.(Fc) I have typed independently and then with support (fc). I learnt to write with support and then independently. I would not deny another
person the same opportunity/opportunities that I have had myself
to communicate through the medium of the written/typed word. One has to look a the wider picture and the implications of denying
people the right of communication. I am a believer of ‘absolute
equality’. And because I have the experience of fc I am in a
position to make valid comments. If people such as myself do
not make a stand against social injustice who will speak out?

To come to an informed decision on any subject one has to look
at all data available.

Joseph

Re: “No, I primarily conclude that based on multiple studies that show FC to be indistinguishable from fraud. The videos do make the whole thing look like complete bullshit, though, but that’s just my personal opinion”.

*Perhaps you have read the wrong research data.

I understand that on-going research in the UK (not as yet published) has proved with tracking equipment that the students are looking briefly at the key before they type it. So if this is the case then obviously it is not the facilitator moving anyone’s hand or guiding a hand – an idea which I find would actually prove extremely complex and difficult.

I should have mentioned the ‘ten’ was out of approximately eighty students – nine of which I have never met to my knowledge. I may
have seen them around the school. As I stated it was around the
time I was leaving school. Many of the remaining had good veral communication skills and so therefore would have not needed to type to communicate. And that was not actually the point I was making – I think you have missed it.

Rose: I have just remembered that if you look on line you will
find an interview that I did with Donna Williams. You may find it of interest.

Richard
Dwight F
October 13th, 2009
02:59:03

>> oh my, sigh…name calling has replaced addressing issue…

Perhaps we should ask the “psuedo-scientists”?

>> as you upped the ante to 10-30 samples vice 10

There was no “upping”, 10 falls within the range of 10 to 30. Larger samples are as always prefered but budget, logistics, and availability can be an issue.

As for the rest of your post, you may assume that I am very suspicious of the claims of people that willfully avoid verification of the communication channel, as you do, and make spurious claims of “psuedo-science”, again as you do, and resort to “flag wrapping” emotional plays to avoid relavent facts, yup you again.

So that brings us to Kevin’s initial question, where to stand as a questioning mind? I submit it is very straightforward. To recongnize it for what it is, an ethically bankrupt positions that hurts not only the autistic that is suppositly being helped but also those that truely do use alternate forms of communication, such as keyboard, by tainting all through the reputation of the scam.

That’s right, if your daughter really is communicating then you are only hurting your daughter by not rigerously testing and confirming her channel of communication. You are a fool for thinking otherwise … or deep down fear that the truth mighte be that she isn’t? Which would it be, Stanly?

P.S. It doesn’t matter how many “I know”. That is the reason for striving for objective testing and reporting, so no one person needs to be everywhere and experience everything firsthand. “Seeing is believing” is extremely overrated, as anyone can see that the sun rises and sets everyday, orbiting the earth. The inquisitive mind seeks deeper than just our immediate experiences of the moment.
Richard
October 13th, 2009
12:18:35

Stanly,

You are not a fool and believe me you have nothing to fear other
than discrimination and social injustice and inequality. And no one has to be subjected to rigorous testing and confirming their channel of communication – it their human right to communicate
by which ever means they wish and no one has the right to
force another person into a situation they are uncomfortable with. They would not dare treat children in mainstream in
the same degrading way they have treated children with
‘disability labels’.

And for the general interest of those that have not done their
ground work re the success of fc – I was the only student (that I am aware of – it was a number of
years ago now) at the schools I attended that left to
go on to further education. I believe another student classed
as Asperger went on to study at a lower level. Many went from
school into residential care homes and others the day care
facility – which was the highest expectation for them. And as I mentioned one guy who typed with fc studied a distance course at foundation level as he had not studied at Advanced level. Last I heard he was ill and had been unable to continue his studies. None after being denied an equal education were able to join the work force. None of the local Colleges would give them placements because they were on the spectrum – this applied to those with verbal skills as well as those without. The children
that I had high hopes for because they had fair verbal skills
fared no better than those that had poor verbal skills.

All I can say Stanley from my own view point is that “The past is a foreign country: they do things different there”. They believe behaviour modification will fix a child with a communication difficulty. So instead of addressing the real issues they subject them to treatment that dehumanises them and then when it does not work they blame the individual and
label them low functioning. Of course they do not wish to be
challenged how would they live with such a crime against humanity. Most children do not have the strength
to stand up against the system. At the school I attended there
was one speech therapist for eighty children and when parents
asked for more funding it was denied because it was thought
a waste of money for children on the spectrum. The establishment would rather spend money on fruitless activities which are deemed acceptable for children perceived as ‘disabled’. Perhaps if they
raised they sights from one plus one, the children might have
shown some interest in the curriculum.

Truth is a perception of a person and the truth of fc is
hidden beneath a pile of out dated research data. With November 5th on the horizon because we should burn it and hope that a
wider examination of the truth (of fc) might shed more
light.

But for your daughter and I we are living in that light – and
we are extremely grateful for the people that do believe in
the human right of communication.

Richard
Richard
October 13th, 2009
12:26:35

Sorry still making typing errors – should have read “perhaps
we should burn it” instead of “because”. Sorry I still have
trouble with Scotopic Sensitivity or Irlen (whatever one wishes
to refer to it by). The tinted lenses help beyond expectation but
they are not a cure and black print on a white background is not too good for me.

Richard
Dwight F
October 13th, 2009
14:03:41

>> They would not dare treat children in mainstream in
the same degrading way they have treated children with
‘disability labels’.

Really? Before my yonger typ children could go to preschool/kindergarden they required an eye and hearing exam. Confirmation required for part of the communication channel, blanket applied.

Given the obvious conflict of interest and the long history of non-performance results from FC (as in indistinquishable from fraud) his daughter’s human right of communication demands HE demonstrate authentisity of HIS claims.

Sorry, can’t play the disabled card here. Disability is a PITA some times, requires we go about things in a different manner. That’s inherent in the nature of it.
Arthur Golden
October 13th, 2009
14:07:37

Dwight F wrote about 20 hours ago:

“People claiming that only a single finger on a shoulder or hand on a back by the facilitator couldn’t possibly be heavily influencing the communication coming out. With training sure it could, as anyone with a good deal of experience riding a horse should be able to tell you.”

Being a facilitator for a human being is not the same as being a rider on a horse – your analogy is beyond contempt.

Even if such an insulting perverse analogy was possibly applicable, extensive training in a limited number of specific commands made to a horse every so many seconds or so, is not the same as trying to cue typing of 26 different letters of the alphabet (plus punctuation as often used) at a rate of a number of times a second as I do as a facilitator, where no such “training” is ever done.

Your public apology for demeaning your fellow human beings would be greatly appreciated.
Dwight F
October 13th, 2009
14:16:04

BTW this doesn’t stop at adulthood. Before having a driver’s license you must take an eye test to prove you can see well enough to drive. Fail the test and you are required to wear corrective lenses, it’s stamped right on your license.

Are you suggesting that someone could instead of wearing those glasses/contacts wear a rabbit foot charm aronud their neck and not expect their claim that it cures eyesight to be dismissed without them providing objective efficacy of that method? Rigerous testing?
Dwight F
October 13th, 2009
14:18:12

>> Being a facilitator for a human being is not the same as being a rider on a horse – your analogy is beyond contempt.

Please point to scientific evidence to show that. As a ‘skeptic’ must say, the subject of this thread, show me the data.

Besides, it wouldn’t require 26 letters and however many punctuation points. Thanks to the keyboard it would require simple 2-dimensional directions.
Char Brandl
October 13th, 2009
14:36:20

This is scary, to say the least. I am jumping in here after a quick scan of what’s been posted thus far.
I am not a scientist, and don’t even like talking science. I am a retired teacher who used FC with my students starting in 1992 and have continued to use FC with kids and young adults now that I am retired.
I am not full of BS, am not lying, and for the most part don’t think I am deluded. (I used to scare easily; getting to know my FC users has toughened me a lot – or else I wouldn’t be here writing this today).

Let me just tell a few stories from my very personal perspective – you can take it for what it’s worth to you, and if it’s not scientific enough for your taste, just dismiss what I have to say. Until you have heard enough stories to pique your interest or change your views, of course. I do believe that day is coming.

In all my teaching assignments, I seemed most drawn to those with the most significant challenges – labels of severe/profound cognitive disabilities (mental retardation), Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, autism – and various combinations of these conditions. Most had serious problems with just about everything, including of course commmunication.

We tried all sorts of things, but nothing worked as well as FC, and I will readily admit that I had vastly underestimated the abilities of the kids in my classes – Sorry, Richard, I was one of those who actually tried to get kids to “look at me” or string beads or whatever. We just had no idea!

But I was lucky. I had the opportunity to go back to many of my students years later and apologize. Each and every one was understanding and forgiving. “You didn’t know” was what most of them typed. One even followed that typed comment with a hug – and her severe CP made hugging just about impossible – she did that with NO physical support from me.

My everyday life was full of validation for what was happening. Kids who hadn’t been able to sit and attend AT ALL (or was it the nature of what I was asking them to do that kept them wandering around the room????) sat willingly, even eagerly, at the keyboard for back and forth typed conversations. Sure wish I had thought to tape these experiences – I could now post them on you-tube to share with all of you! Ah, but that was long before the age of digital recordings of daily activities. Guess that wouldn’t have worked after all.

I had the extra good fortune of being the facilitator for many different individuals. I didn’t realize at the time just how important that was. While all the kids typed that they wanted people to know they were smart, and all of them wanted to tell their parents they loved them, what they typed and how they typed was very unique for each one, once we got past those common threads. One wanted to “talk” basketball ALL the time – and I knew next to nothing about the NCAA teams or competition. Another typed about his anger with having Down syndrome and being misunderstood everywhere he went. One typed about problems in his family that we were able to follow up on – confirming what he had typed, and fortunately clearing up some important misunderstandings. Interestingly, this last guy COULD talk, but as he typed about serious concerns on the home front, he was talking about lightswitches and trains. He could only get at the serious emotional matters if I allowed his autistic “chatter” to continue.

Yes, I was holding their hand, or wrist, or forearm, but each one wanted to be supported in a slightly different way – and they often had to remind me of that as I switched from one student to another. Have they become independent? I really don’t know. FC was taken away from them when I left the school (not by my choice). What I do know is that their families believed in these kids and were now determined to never again allow school staff to treat them as unable to learn. From that time on, they were exposed to academic work at grade level and dealt with as young people with ideas, feelings, and knowledge similar to others their age, even if they weren’t able to demonstrate such abilities with any consistency using traditional means.

I could go on and on, and in fact did write a book about my experiences. Most of all, what I experienced has forever changed my life. I have now retired from teaching, but continue to support several individuals who type to communicate. They never cease to amaze me with their patience and tolerance as they wait for the rest of us to finally “get it!”

Char
Arthur Golden
October 13th, 2009
14:55:27

Dwight F:

No one would bother to collect data on such absurd “facts” as you are alleging so I cannot provide such data.

Keyboarding does not require “simple 2-dimenstional directions” – especially with the technique of Facilitated Communication that does require removing the finger from the keyboard to a position above the keyboard.

Please present me your data to support your ridiculous statements. You cannot just keep making more and more absurd claims.

Again, we are discussing the lives of human being with divine souls – not horses. Of course, I suspect you believe that human beings are just more advanced animals. Fortunately for my friends with autism, we live in an ultra-orthodox Jewish community where all human beings are treated with dignity since all human beings are created in the image of God.

Arthur Golden of Jerusalem
Arthur Golden
October 13th, 2009
15:25:01

Joseph,

I don’t mean to ignore you, but I am waiting to see if I get a response to a private email before getting back to you. I hope to directly respond to your comments made specifically to me within the next day or two.

Arthur Golden
Dwight F
October 13th, 2009
15:26:20

>> No one would bother to collect data on such absurd “facts” as you are alleging so I cannot provide such data.

Sure people have. Anyone interested in how that works. Or rationally interested in the right of communication for the autistic.

>> Keyboarding does not require “simple 2-dimenstional directions” – especially with the technique of Facilitated Communication that does require removing the finger from the keyboard to a position above the keyboard.

Move to a position. No more movement? Press and release. Repeat. The very simple Z-axis movement is only an event easily embedded in the 2-D control. Or it could be a separate special event trigger.

>> Please present me your data to support your ridiculous statements. You cannot just keep making more and more absurd claims.

You would like a demonstration of this specific application? LOL. Well it’d take time. At first there would be a good deal of mistyping. Likely start out with more obvious control, then move up to finger or hand on back control. Not that it would be anywhere close to conclusive of course, where-in that’s why it would largely be a waste of time. Much better to focus on the positive, attempting to show that FC works.

But if I and someone else has a month to kill (just a guess) we could take a run at it.

>> Again, we are discussing the lives of human being with divine souls – not horses.

We are discussing two organisms with accute sensory skills with at least basic learning capability.

>> Fortunately for my friends with autism, we live in an ultra-orthodox Jewish community where all human beings are treated with dignity since all human beings are created in the image of God.

You ignore the physiological commonnality? You deny that humans have basic neurological perception abilities? Enchanced perception in some senses having been demonstrated in some ASC individuals.

Because whether or not it is possible has nothing to do with a divine soul. Entirely irrelavent. Another red herring appeal to emotion arguement.

Again, the trappings of faith healers. :/ I’m so done with this thread.
Arthur Golden
October 13th, 2009
15:32:53

Dwight F,

I have respect for skeptics, but I think you are a scorner and a scoffer. King David warns me to stay away from such people in the very first verse in the Book of Psalms.

If you ever acquire faith, please be in touch with me. I hope you find your divine soul soon.
stanley seigler
October 13th, 2009
17:47:33

dwigth f say re:

re: There was no “upping”, 10 falls within the range of 10 to 30. Larger samples are as always preferred but budget, logistics, and availability can be an issue.

yup 10 does fall in the 10-30 range…however originally you did not mention 30 inferred 10 was just fine…then added range 10-30 (a 20 point up) w/o providing studies even in that range…now;

vice providing studies that might help understand your opine you beg the question with buts…why not just provide the studies so we can scientifically evaluate their validity…

re: As for the rest of your post, you may assume that I am very suspicious of the claims of people that willfully avoid verification of the communication channel, as you do, and make spurious claims of “pseudo-science”, again as you do, and resort to “flag wrapping” emotional plays to avoid relevant facts, yup you again.

Asked for what you said were relevant facts such as studies you referred to but didn’t provide…tried to get specific facts re stand on carly and sue rubin…yup, again unsuccessful…

why not just state precisely where you stand on carly and sue rubin…vice resorting to too cute by a half generalizations…

sad you want to ignore (slough off as flag wrapping) emotions…i believe emotions/compassion play most important roles in any ABA or FC or keyboard (whatever that is) process…sad many seem to treat our children and dear friends as Pavlov’s dog and teach them ABA tricks…

yup you prove what my old friend said: [todd-etals] do not understand observational science as applied to human beings, who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior (for his complete opine see previous post)

re: That’s right, if your daughter really is communicating then you are only hurting your daughter by not rigorously testing and confirming her channel of communication. You are a fool for thinking otherwise … or deep down fear that the truth might be that she isn’t? Which would it be, Stanley?

I have lived my daughter for 44 years…know her well…not as weel i would like to…would die to know what’s in her beautiful mind…thanks to FC have some clues…know what unconditional love is…and;

know that rigorous testing as devised by those “who do not understand observational science as applied to human beings, who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior”...would do orders of magnitude damage to her…

I will not treat her as one of Pavlov’s dog as you, in essence, suggest…I have seen what teaching her to button using ABA as devised by UCLA did to her.

I do NOT fear (nor doubt) in the least that she does not have an innate ability to communicate (she does in spades)and expresses herself to the best of her ability thru FC…to submit her to the testing you suggest is criminal…what I fear are todd-etals…they the scare the hell out of me…and you confirm my worst fears

Re: P.S. It doesn’t matter how many “I know”.

You are so wrong…it about all that matters…you should know them…it’s not only about testing the facilator

your it doesn’t matter remarks brings to mind a PhD psychologist (funding agency consultant) who spent 45 minutes with my daughter and said she was not autistic (have to wonder how many he knew)...

his evaluation in the face of psychiatrists from Emory to UCLA and pro bono work of one in Beverly Hills…their evaluations: classic kanner autism no mental retardation… and my, at the time, 30 some years of living with her autism.

re: So that brings us to Kevin’s initial question, where to stand? I submit it is very straightforward. To recognize it for what it is, an ethically bankrupt positions that hurt not only the autistic that is suppositly being helped but also those that truly do use alternate forms of communication, such as keyboard, by tainting all with the reputation of the scam.

we could have avoided these discussions if I had know your true colors…i was naive and believed you really meant what you said:

“It is a starting point though, a valid avenue for research.”

Wait a minute…perhaps you’ve been joking about not believing in FC…putting me on…pulling my leg…busting my whatever…I can think of no other explanation for your statement:

” ’Seeing is believing’ is extremely overrated, as anyone can see that the sun rises and sets everyday, orbiting the earth. The inquisitive mind seeks deeper than just our immediate experiences of the moment.”

If not putting me on you are either confused or a complete idiot…pray you are not in a position to recommend programs for those on the spectrum…you sound like a todd-etals…remins me of the PhD who said my daughter was not autistic..but hope you are just a non sequteior running off at the mouth…

BTW if you are a practicing consultant, teacher, etc., would you please advise where you practice so i can advise people in the area of your compassion for their children…and that you believe the parents are fools if they dont submit their child to rigorous testing…

stanley seigler
Dwight F
October 13th, 2009
18:14:34

>> If you ever acquire faith, please be in touch with me.

If you ever stop using YOUR faith as a blatant excuse to avoid rational discussion, and instead mire yourself in ignorance, wasting your God given gift of reasoned thought, you may contact me at liveoak94 ( a ) hotmail ( dot ) com .

@Stanley

>> BTW if you are a practicing consultant, teacher, etc., would you please advise where you practice so i can advise people in the area of your compassion for their children…and that you believe the parents are fools if they dont submit their child to rigorous testing…

Because any [credible] education or medical institution would eschew rigorous testing?

You are past ‘fool’. You are a loon. Good bye.
Dwight F
October 13th, 2009
18:37:47

P.S. Stanley, your beef with that unnamed funding agency PhD psychologist would seem to be a LACK of rigorous and extended information gathering. Although it could very well be that the state of awareness of ASC 14 years ago and perhaps his conflict of interest were significant contributing factors. Sorry to hear you had to endure that. I feel rather fortunate that I didn’t have to go through those “bad old days” with my son.
Joseph
October 13th, 2009
18:42:40

If you don’t want to get tested, that’s fine, but don’t complain about people not believing you then. Disbelief is absolutely the default and correct position on this, in cases where the disabled individual is entirely unable to communicate independently with a keyboard. Presumption of fraud is not at all unreasonable either.
Arthur Golden
October 13th, 2009
19:17:26

Joseph,

Did you bother to read what I posted to this blog 1-1/2 hours before you wrote to me October 9th, 2009 15:11:20:
“@Arthur: I doubt I’ll be visiting Israel any time soon, but if I do, I’ll be sure to drop by. The purpose would not be to prove anything. No uncontrolled observation would. What matters is whether you’ve been tested. I’m sure you would’ve mentioned it if you had.”

Only 1-1/2 hours before I did mention it! As I wrote October 9th, 2009 13:35:29:

“In May 1994, using his type of Facilitated Communication, then 22 year-old Benjamin Ethan (“Ben”) made a major life decision. At his request, Ben and I went to Dr. Howard Shane on May 3, 1994 to try to scientifically validate his personal FC. Dr. Howard Shane used his usual procedures and could not validate Ben’s FC, as documented in a 5 page report we received from him several weeks later. Now over 15 years later, FC has still not been scientifically validated. However, Ben and I decided to proceed to try to implement his major life decision, which I feel was very successful for Ben. Should we have waited until FC was scientifically validated? If we did, we would still be waiting.”

Do you even know who Dr. Howard Shane is? In the early 1990s he was the leading “tester” of FC, always invalidating it (usually in the pay of a person accused of sexual abuse via FC - wonders of wonders!). Anyway, I now think I understand that Dr. Howard Shane was not really testing FC but at least for Ben was testing his autism. I am not competent to write up a peer-reviewed article to support my thinking and I wish someone else would do so. BTW, Dr. Howard Shane, speech pathologist PhD, still at Children’s Medical Center in Boston after 32 years, had as the very first child he evaluated there then 5 year-old Benjamin Ethan.
Laurentius Rex
October 13th, 2009
19:20:11

Some things are untestable, google Bertrand Russell’s celestial teapot, to get a flavour of that from one of the last centuries finest logicians and contributors to the philosophy of science.

That does not mean of course that invoking the teapot is proof that something does not exist either, as some would evince, merely that science has it’s limits, because human cognition has it’s limits in what we can deduce from symbolic logic given the propensity to allow insoluble paradoxes, qv Russell again and the Barber of Seville.

Empiricism of the here and now is limited. I cannot see microbes, and that is sufficient by that dictum to disbelieve in there existance, however instruments allow my vision to be extended, and experimentally the activity of microbes and viruses has been proven to be a very workable hypothesis with a great deal of predictive validity.

How ever no amount of science is going to convince me that aeroplanes can fly, and that they are not held up by the flyers faith. All it takes is one doubting Thomas like me to board one, and with luck it will never get off the ground. (or in the worst case it will continue during some lapse of consciosness of mine, until I apply my scepticism to the problem thereupon it will promptly fall from the sky.

The seeing is believing argument is what condemned Galileo. It was a case of the evidence of the inquisitors eyes, (backed up by poor historical sources) versus Galileos telescope.
Richard
October 13th, 2009
19:25:21

Dwight F

I was referring to denying children an equal education and
equal rights not an eye test or hearing test.

You are way off course.

Richard
Joseph
October 13th, 2009
20:52:55

No, I think Dwight has a good point. A license is required for you to drive. A license is required of doctors too. Therapists have licenses. A license implies there’s some testing that has been completed successfully. Why isn’t a license required to facilitate? Certainly, if it were a legitimate profession, it probably would require a license, because it’s a non-trivial endeavor and a huge responsibility to be involved in; one where the facilitator could easily make it seem that another person is saying something they are not saying (which apparently occurs almost always.)
Laurentius Rex
October 13th, 2009
21:18:26

Where do they issue a licence to be an A*** hole?
Rose
October 14th, 2009
01:35:35

Thank you Richard, I did.

Here it is, for those who are interested also.

http://blog.donnawilliams.net/.....-attfield/
Estee Klar-Wolfond
October 14th, 2009
02:34:47

I am sorry I have not had enough time to follow this thread due to other matters, but I understand by Kowalski that it was not she who made the accusation that I had called Adam a “genius,” but Farmwife and I would like to formally apologize for not checking the thread thoroughly. Arthur had emailed me and it looks like I misundstood.

Kowalski, my apologies to you and my thanks for coming to my defence.
Arthur Golden
October 14th, 2009
04:10:43

Jospeh,

Benjamin Ethan at about 4:00 a.m. Israel time, just facilitated with me:

“You may disclose everything on this blog but assume I wish to post on other blogs without disclosing anything.”

I realize it is just 3:00 a.m. in the UK so being on moderation, this post may not be approved for some time even though it will appear in the place and time it is initially posted. Note added after I finished typing this comment – it took me an hour, so it is now about 4:00 a.m. in the UK.

I am still waiting to receive a private email about what I consider a very important point you made, but I wish to respond to another point you made October 12th, 2009 20:40:33, over a day ago. Then you wrote:

“...I call the facilitators either bs-ers or deluded. To be clear, when I say FC I don’t mean pseudo-FC and other things people call FC. I refer to the testable claim that a facilitator can facilitate communication for someone who is otherwise 100% or nearly 100% incapable of independent language-based communication (through a keyboard or any other means.)”

Although Benjamin Ethan (“Ben”) wishes to post to blogs without disclosing anything, with his permission I will explicitly disclose on this blog that besides my role as one of his facilitators, Ben is my own 37 year-old son who lives with my wife and me. I have known many facilitators and I sincerely believe that none of them are “bs-ers.” That leaves that all facilitators are called by you “deluded.” Now delusions is a topic I have given much thought to over the past several months, but primarily concerning the diagnosis of autism, a matter I will not discuss further in this post. Getting back to whether facilitators are deluded, it is possible that some are because some people in general are deluded, irrespective of whether they are faciliators or not.

Am I deluded? I realize that if a person is deluded, then that person does not realize it. Close friends do a person a great favor to point out possible delusions because delusions can be dangerous but also delusions can be successfully treated by medication. However, I at least and although not explictly stated, I think almost all facilitators are not deluded, just as almost all people in general are not deluded, because I realize that I am not absolutely certain that the communication I attribute to my son Ben as an FCuser is actually coming from Ben. I realize that it may be coming from the facilitator, who is I. Although Ben’s independent language has improved over the decades, it is not at the level to confirm his Facilitated Communication. As an aside, the independent language of Richard is at the level to confirm his FC. Richard is an FC user because his FC is so much faster than his substantively equivalent independent language.

Now let me get to an aspect of your statement that concerns the FC user, often a “nonverbal autistic” such as my son Ben – you make the statement “someone who is otherwise 100% or nearly 100% incapable of independent language-based communication (through a keyboard or any other means.)” When my son Ben was first evaluated by speech pathologist Dr. Howard Shane 32 years ago at age 5-1/2, Ben at least appeared to be “someone who is otherwise 100% or nearly 100% incapable of independent language-based communication (through a keyboard or any other means.)” But even in those Dark Ages, he received an intensive education under IDEA and FAPE for the next 17 years in excellent school programs. Although Ben never acquired speech, he did acquire “independent language-based communication.” His method of independent communication is very clear and understandable gestures. I think that almost all persons who are “nonverbal” do acquire independent communication and I doubt that too many persons as you describe actually exist. Human beings, with very rare exceptions, are not actually “noncommunicative” (the term more commonly used, such as by skeptic neurologist Dr. Steven Novella a couple years ago about a 14 year-old girl from Michigan where the facilitator testified the girl made charges of sexual abuse against her father through FC and the father was jailed for over 80 days until the FC was discredited by the expert testimony of Professor James Todd and Dr. Howard Shane). If a professional claims to test that a person as “noncommunicative” I think it is more likely the professional is testing that the person is actually autistic, which happened when a psychiatrist (called the leading expert on autism in Israel) observed my son Ben for the first time last week. This psychiatrist really seems to be an expert in autism because he realized that my son being completely “noncommunicative” in his presence was a symptom of Ben’s autism and not a valid test of his communication skills, which he accepted as possibly existing based on written reports from others.

FC has vastly improved the quality of life for my own son Ben for over 15 years and I wish that other potential FC users were given such opportunities. I know many other autistics who are similar to my own son Ben who were not given such opportunities and all of them have a really miserable quality of life. I am still waiting for the response of Professor James Todd of his claim of other such persons who are now speaking and living independently. Joseph – can you provide me such verifiable information? I realize that FC has not been scientifically validated 20 years after Professor Douglas Biklen brought it to the USA, but I am so glad that he publicized FC, starting with the August 1990 Harvard Education Review, and I am so thankful to the late Professor Gunnar Dybwad for sending my a photocopy of that article, in those primitive days before the internet.

Short comment to Estee Klar-Wolfond – I am sorry that I was not clear enough in my email to you. Kowalski did defend you, in rather “strong” terms, and I chose to not mention the “name” of the person who actually made the negative comment, which I now realize led you to misunderstand my reference to Kowalski. You have my good wishes in your efforts to educate your son Adam.
Richard
October 14th, 2009
10:35:28

Guys, I believe the people that ‘condemned’ me to segregation had a ‘qualification to practise’ – quite what they were qualified to
do is questionable.

In fact I was only reading this week that the average child speaks fifty words at the age of 18 months. I spoke two hundred and fifty far more than my mother’s friend’s children. My mother recorded them in a book at the time – which she still has.

However due to the fact that I was denied
speech therapy as an infant my speech never developed sufficiently for me to be able to converse at this level – through typing. The reason I was denied speech therapy because it was deemed it would have cost too much. My mother tried to engage a private speech therapists but the authorities told them I was retarded – which was incorrect – and because the speech therapists worked for the authority they would not put themselves on the line.

I actually learnt to read twelve words in a few minutes at the age of five (out loud). I can still remember some of the words I learnt to read. I passed a state maths test at the age of eight – writing in the answers independently. I believe I had 75% but
had not covered the remainder of the work.

At the age of a year I was said to have low muscle tone and was stated to not have a learning difficulty but cp was not diagnosed. In fact I was eight years of age before a top Consultant diagnosed cp. Doctors actually disagreed over the
‘disability label’ of autism at around the same age. Although
the medical profession could not agree because it was stated
that my language was not that of a child on the spectrum and
other Consultants stated I had a physical disability.

At the age of two the medical profession confused my medical notes – I know because I sent for copies of them and have read them. So I was confined to ‘special education’ because professional ‘people with qualifications’ could not keep track of their patients and thus recorded false information on their files – such as I did not speak even though my mother had made a tape of my speech which they requested her to do.

But you guys are way off base, the first school I attended was put on Special Measures for years, meaning that it was failing. It left a small child (non-verbal) in a forest overnight and did not realise they had left her behind. The School Inspectors were sent in and it was put on Special Measures. Fortunately for me after witnessing an incident at the school my parents had withdrawn me long before this when they recognised the length to which behaviour modification went to. One parent was going to “The
Times” (he telephoned my mother to ask why she had withdrawn me)
because of the treatment of his son. The child was younger than me and was a quiet little boy. However the Head of the school died that weekend so the matter was dropped.

So do I believe in equal rights for all children; do I believe
they deserve better than to be segregated and denied an equal
education on grounds of disability; do I believe they deserve
equal opportunities; and mostly do I believe they have a
right to communicate by the medium of their choise. The
answer is a resounding YES and nothing that you state can
change that. The system failed me and it failed the children
that I was at school with.

Please do not under estimate my intelligence when I support fc unlike the ‘people with qualifications’ as I stated I have 32 years of experience in the area of communication. I stated I
spent half of my life with poor speech skills and I have spent
seventeen years typing. So I am in a position to make a
valid statement regarding fc. I was able to type a page independently before I opted for (support) fc. I had the ability
to read and write because my mother home schooled me for four
years. Unlike the establishment she never gave up on me. When
I typed independently I could not keep up with my thoughts – I was always six sentences behind which was so frustrating And I had lost fifteen years of my life I could not afford to lose more time to develop my language.

You seem to have a very simplistic view of fc that does not take into consideration the whole picture – only little tiny pieces of the whole.

And by the way I took an eye test at the age of five, and
I have an eye test every year with one of the top Professors
world wide. I use a combination of speech and typing to
take the test.

Richard
Richard
October 14th, 2009
10:53:10

Rose, thank you for taking the time to read the article.
There are others on line in the Tap magazine (The Autism
Perspective).

Richard
stanley seigler
October 14th, 2009
10:53:59

dwight f say re

re: your beef with that unnamed funding agency PhD psychologist would seem to be a LACK of rigorous and extended information gathering. Although it could very well be that the state of awareness of ASC 14 years ago and perhaps his conflict of interest were significant contributing factors [...] I feel rather fortunate that I didn’t have to go through those “bad old days” with my son.

COMMENT
OH S—-...thought i was dealing with a tood-etal.. now i have to apologize for the rhetoric tone, not FC position…and damn, i had a few too cute comments re dwight f’s goodbye and comments to arthur golden…

assume your son is on the spectrum…but had i known, discussion may not have gotten to some root issues…still not sure it has…

off FC topic: North LA County Regional Center (NLACRC) the agency…and after a fair hearing they have been fair with my daughter…she has 24/7; 1:1 support…not true for many/most who need it.

re: LACK of rigorous and extended information..

that not the issue…as mentioned my daughter had evaluations of psychiatrists from Emory to UCLA…neither FC an issue…state of classic kanner autism awareness has not changed much…the change is in the spectrum range…w/o doubt the hired gun was more concerned with RC budget than daughter’s needs…

funding was the issue then; and i believe professional’s livelihood is a factor in positions re FC now…ie, ABA is a lucrative source of income for some (many/most?)...

re: didn’t have to go through those “bad old days” with my son

different issues in days of yore…neither harder nor easier than todays issues…just different…had there had been more awareness of FC (innate ability, presumed intelligence) in bad old days and a different attitude today…things would have been easier then…would be easier now…especially for those on the spectrum.

stanley seigler
Harriett
October 14th, 2009
19:10:58

As an SLP, I first heard about FC in 1991. Soon after, I took a position in a special ed school working with youngsters with a variety of severe to profound diagnoses, e.g., autism, mental retardation, rhett syn., Down syn. These children, aged 5-21, lived in group homes and had had lots of therapies over the years. Yet, most did not speak or spoke very little. Some used a few signs; none had picture communication systems or effective communication devices. Most could communicate very little. I believed from early on that these kids were locked in.

I began attending trainings for every intervention I could find that sounded the least bit hopeful. I fell in love with these kids, but didn’t feel that anything I was trying was of much value.

Then one day I had an opportunity to hear Ann Donnellan speak about FC. I was hooked. “Presume competence” (Donnellan’s “Least Dangerous Assumption”)was an exciting concept. I decided to tell my teen-age students what I was learning. As I explained to one at a time, each of them reacted in some significant way. One normally quiet boy laughed and squealed. Another made rare deep eye contact. Another suddenly stopped playing with his spittle and looked at me. It gave me shivers.

I attended several FC trainings, and over time kids began to respond to FC. Yes, many of them had learned to read from exposure to print and were able to spell as well. Interested staff were trained to facilitate. The kids WANTED to do this…(and without tangible reinforcers). They were viewed differently, seemed happier, and behaviors improved significantly.

To make a very long story short, as questions about FC increased, the agency decided to discontinue it. The kids couldn’t understand why. Staff were devastated. Before leaving the agency, I introduced PECS, which was quite new at that time. Students were not satisfied. After 2 years of FC, kids had learned to point, but pointing to pictures chosen by another person doesn’t replace expressing your own thoughts.

In later years, a “semi-skeptical” administrater admitted that there was no doubt that problem behaviors had increased significantly when the facilitated communication was discontinued.
It’s been 15 years. One can’t help but wonder what might have been.
James Todd
October 14th, 2009
21:57:09

All:

What interesting rhetoric.

Rather than dealing with fundamental issues such as the complete lack of scientific evidence in favor of FC and the very substantial body of evidence demonstrating its many and various failings, we find those who question FC accused of venal pecuniary motives, associated with the personal interests of accused sex offenders, and deserving respect only if they care for a person with autism. I am still trying to figure out what “todd-etal” and its variations mean exactly—except for them being obvious attempts to demean by turning a name into a defamatory epithet. The former conditions indicate that those here supporting FC have nothing substantive to turn to and must resort to attacks on character. The latter indicates a desire to deal with these issues in the manner of a petulant third grader.

I wish I knew people getting rich off of doing ABA for autism. Most of our ABA-trained students go into other things where a decent living can be made. Applying the principles of mathematics tells the real story. If ABA costs $40,000/year, then it costs $27.78 per hour (considering 30 hours per week and 48 weeks a year). With overhead, including liability insurance, utilities, rent, and all the rest, the one-on-one therapists can make only about $10-$12 per hour in a medium size, well-established, center-based operation. This is really little different than the cost of any one-on-one supervision situation within a larger organized setting. Try pricing out an alcohol recovery program or head-injury rehabilitation. Most individual services cost many times more—from plumbing to cardiac surgery. Of course, there is nothing wrong with making a living offering a needed service even when, sadly, the need for that service is sometimes forced upon the most innocent among us. Questions of cosmic justice are beyond my understanding.

Obviously, $40,000 per year is unaffordable for most families. Insurance should be covering this or we should make ourselves a better system of health care entirely. In many places, insurance will pay for years of behavior therapy and other interventions for a child who cannot function well due to a brain injury acquired in a car accident. A child with autism, whose behavior might not be that much different than that of the child who has had an accident, often gets nothing at all. Even when behavior therapy does not achieve an optimum outcome of full independence, and it usually fall short of that, it almost always helps. Every little bit of independence is a little bit of dignity added to someone’s life. Every dollar spent teaching a functional independent living skill is paid back many times over by reducing needed care later. I believe that enhancing independence and dignity is ultimately more important than saving some money. Helping a person do even a little bit more on his or her own is worth a few dollars. But reality demands that things be paid for. So the latter concern rises in practical significance when trying to make a case for assistance with these considerable costs.

We should all chafe the sound of a graduate of Harvard Law School casting aspersions on the honest work of someone coming to the aid of accused defendants in an American courtroom. It does not matter if those defendants are accused of littering or of the most heinous sexual crimes. It does not matter if those defendants actually did the thing or not. An adequate defense is not only a right under the U.S. Constitution, but an absolute necessity if we are going to even begin approach a balance between the massive power of the state and often very limited resources of the accused individual. Nothing reminds us of the disparity of power I speak of like seeing a defendant, technically said to be innocent, jailed without bond, transported to hearings in shackles and dressed in embarrassing coveralls, deprived of income, limited in contact with friends, loved ones, and counsel, completely powerless to do anything similar to those who have brought the charges. Such was the case in Michigan FC matter last year. Tyrannies are defined by the weakness of their protections for defendants, their use of secret evidence and closed proceedings—a fact so well known to the framers of the Constitution that the theme of those protections resonates throughout the Bill of Rights. The genius of the system is that any legitimate defense, even one on behalf of the most vicious criminal, protects the rights of all of us and reinforces our bulwark against the authoritarian impulse.

That defendants would desire to marshall all they can to protect themselves against unreliable, manufactured, or otherwise defective evidence is no surprise. It is their not only their right; it is a necessity if they are to obtain genuine justice. That very rational desire and immediate need is not something to be mocked by saying “wonder of wonders”—as if the inclination to protect oneself from false evidence, or aid others in doing so, arises only from baser motives and not from a genuine desire to have justice done with good evidence rationally considered. That FC reliably fails in court has nothing to do with who does the tests, the nature of the charges, or even that an expert might hope for reasonable remuneration for the considerable time and effort often needed to protect the rights of the accused. FC does not work in court because it does not work. The mystery is why FC is in court at all. Its complete lack of empirical support, its muddled theoretical foundations, its repudiation by professional and scientific organizations with recognized standing, and its amply demonstrated history of generating false accusations of rape should have long ago earned it a bright-line exclusion as evidence at any level in any rational justice system. To fight against FC in court, to fight against any sullied evidence, is to fight for quality justice at the most basic levels—not only for the accused, but, in the case of FC, for the all the innocent individuals who have had bizarre false accusations against their own loved ones typed on their behalf by others. For this, I admire Howard Shane and will stand second to none in defense of his efforts.

As for myself, I left the playground behind long ago. I care little about the childish names, demands for apologies, and the electronic stones thrown from afar. These things distract from the sober consideration of a discredited technique that not only enables the exploitation of people with disabilities and their families, but foists on people who cannot defend themselves an identity of someone else’s making.

James T. Todd, Ph.D
Tom Smith
October 14th, 2009
22:26:09

Joseph wrote:

“If you don’t want to get tested, that’s fine, but don’t complain about people not believing you then. Disbelief is absolutely the default and correct position on this, in cases where the disabled individual is entirely unable to communicate independently with a keyboard. Presumption of fraud is not at all unreasonable either.”

One doesn’t have to “believe” or even be interested in what someone FC’s. In the treatment or school environment workers are often forced to do much more intrusive interventions than FC who don’t “believe” in any of it. No one was forced to do FC when we utilized the intervention. Even other facilitators often weren’t interested in what eachother were coming up with. The issue here is the very real possibility that the autistics are communicating using this method though we may not understand why or how and that the intervention itself is a therapeutic bonanza compared to all other interventions.

As for fraud, yes that is possible but thanks to the limited validity or even belief in FC why would one even attempt fraud? The lack of validity is actually the strength of FC in this sense and the autistics prefer it that way. We have a long way to go before we understand autism and they want to take it a step at a time. Those who don’t believe need not apply for the discovery.

Who’s throwing this word “delusional” around in the context of FC? Jeeze, just common workers and some parents believe in it and they are all regular folks. As Siegler pointed out a nobel prize winning physicist, Arthur Schallow, was an early advocate of the method. In fact he coached me on science vis a vis FC before I started this advocacy.

Could we please have censorship of such libelous and insulting comments?
Laurentius Rex
October 14th, 2009
22:53:13

Tom you are a crypto fascist and you probably know it, without a grain of sense, sensibility, science or whatever behind you.

You have effectively destroyed every argument you try to evince by your thorough untrustworthyness.

You are a pirate and you do not stand for autistic rights at all, you are delusional, you are as big an enemy as Autism Speaks.

Get real.

I am not against FC I am against the like of you who belong in the same universe as John Best, you are in the absolute scope of things bosom buddies in abuse.
Arthur Golden
October 15th, 2009
06:53:12

In response to Joseph, when he posted a comment directed to me 5-1/2 days ago (I plan to respond to Professor James Todd after this message is actually posted on the blog), I immediately posted that I would soon be away from my computer for 2-1/2 days and any response would have to wait. Soon thereafter, Joseph posted October 9th, 2009
21:26:21:

“re arthur ask joseph: why does it sound kind of creepy to you

Do I really have to spell it out? I suspect Benjamin Ethan is basically Arthur Golden, and at this point Mr. Golden can’t apparently even make the distinction in his own head.

I’m not the only one who has noticed this. See the comments in this thread at Autism Crisis.

BTW, anecdotes, testimonials, names, credentials, etc. are not going to convince me in the least. It just won’t work. Even if you show me someone who is an independent communicator who used to do FC, and it is proven all these circumstances are accurately characterized, does this show FC is useful? No, it does not, any more than case reports are sufficient to show that ABA works.”

Then a day later, although not directly to me, but along the same lines so I would like to comment, Joseph wrote October 10th, 2009 19:40:41:

“It is a starting point though, a valid avenue for research.

Given the state of the evidence, FC proponents have a very high burden of proof, and are also responsible for carrying out research that is clear enough to overturn things, if in fact there’s something to FC. They should not expect science to just carry on normally and eventually validate their views. When a hypothesis fails, as appears to be the case here, science basically abandons that hypothesis. That’s how science works, and that’s the only way it can keep advancing.

If generally FC produces poor, inconsistant results why do these cases appear different?

Suppose these cases represent 1 of every 10,000 persons who’ve ever tried FC. Would that make it a valuable approach with general applicability? I don’t think so.

It also doesn’t matter if testimonials are truthful, either. For example, do you doubt that Victoria Beck’s son actually showed some sudden gains in his speech after he has given secretin? I don’t. It doesn’t prove anything either way.”

My response:

Joseph writes: “Suppose these cases represent 1 of every 10,000 persons who’ve ever tried FC.” Even for independent typists, I think the rate is much better than 1 of every 10,000. But I feel the real success is a significant improvement in the quality of life for the FC user, such as the 44 year-old daughter of Stanley Seigler or my own son 37 year-old Ben. For “Jay Nolan” the agency providing services for the daughter of Stanley Seigler and several dozen others with similar needs, it is my understanding that there is real success for nearly everyone of them. For “Pisgat Yehuda” the program my son helped create 15 years ago based on the use of FC, there is real success for nearly everyone of the dozen persons involved. I think this real success for so many people who had the opportunity to try FC does prove something.

Now let’s discuss these anti-FC scientific experiments designed primarily by behaviorists. When it comes to science by behaviorists done on autistics, Ms. Michelle Dawson has amply shown the world what that is worth. I publicly laud such efforts by Ms. Michelle Dawson Unfortunately, my extensive research of Ms. Michelle Dawson, starting nearly 2 years ago when I became aware of her position on FC, has uncovered that she has a few extremely strong biases, one of which is against FC. Then the high standards for research that she preaches is not practiced by her when it comes to being critical of the anti-FC research, if she ever bothered to actually read it, which she refuses to reveal despite the very polite inquiries of “ChrisB” on her own discussion board. She may be right about the quality of the research by the FC promoters, but it looks to me like the research is a problem on both sides and I will make my decision based on real life experiences of real persons, now over 10, 15 and 20 years or more.

Joseph also states “I suspect Benjamin Ethan is basically Arthur Golden, and at this point Mr. Golden can’t apparently even make the distinction in his own head.” As I have clearly disclosed, Benjamin Ethan is my own son. I already stated “I realize that I am not absolutely certain that the communication I attribute to my son Ben as an FC user is actually coming from Ben. I realize that it may be coming from the facilitator, who is I.” I am aware that for all facilitators the distinction can be a problem to make, but I believe I am as careful as I can be, as are almost all other facilitators. In the same comment, Joseph then continues with “I’m not the only one who has noticed this. See the comments in this thread at Autism Crisis.” Autism Crisis is the blog of Ms. Michelle Dawson. Although she is subject to actual persecution by people such as John Best, I am concerned that she has persecutory delusions against me and others, such as ASAN (see her link within this thread at Autism Crisis) and is showing such problems with this blog. Since Joseph brought in the Autism Crisis blog, where I am banned from posting by Ms. Michelle Dawson, I think it is germane that I post here the comment that she deleted from there:

Posted at 2:50 p.m. Tue 6 Oct 09 by “Benjamin Ethan” to the Autism Crisis blog but deleted:

“Dear Ms. Dawson,

This comment is being sent at the suggestion of Jypsy, although I am very reticent to do so. As Jypsy can provide verifiable information after our discussion on a private yahoogroup, I am a 37 year old person who is completely nonverbal and I have an official diagnosis of autism at age 5 from a leading neurologist expert in autism. I disclosed my connection to Arthur Golden on the private yahoogroup but I have chosen to not do so on this blog nor on Interval’s blog 6 months ago.

As I wrote on the blog, I am greatly alarmed at the disagreement between you – Ms. Michelle Dawson – and ASAN, headed by Ari Ne’eman. My real concern is the well-being of you Ms. Dawson, a matter I will only discuss in real privacy. I still have not seen any verifiable information about this disagreement.

I know Arthur Golden had no thoughts of posting on this blog by creating a different account. benjamin.ethan72@gmail.com is my existing account and I used it to post comments on this blog through google. Those comments are my thoughts, I take full ownership of them and the copyright is mine. My writing style has changed in 15 years and I doubt Jypsy is an expert on such matters.

I know John Best has actually persecuted you but you are mistaken about Arthur Golden. I do not know about ASAN but I do wish to help you. From now I will not initiate further contact with you on this matter.”
Richard
October 15th, 2009
09:14:44

I can only re-iterate the points I have raised. I have never
suffered at the hands of typing or fc but I certainly suffered
at the hands of behaviour modification and segregation. As I stated none/or very few of the children at either schools I attended went on to higher things.

As for typing/fc being discredited – I do not think that the
hundreds of people typing with support or independently world
wide would agree with you. No one knows the exact number but
there was an estimation that 1000 people are typing independently.

If society does not feel they owe us an apology for ‘segregation’ – denial of an equal education, equal rights and equal opportunities then it is a very sad world we live in.
Perhaps only those of us that went through the experience can
ever truly understand the humiliation of being labelled and
discarded by society.

This week ME has been stated to be due to a virus – how many
hundreds of thousands of people over a forty year period have
been told they have ‘yuppie flu’ or were faking. How many
people’s lives were destroyed because they were denied the
medical help they required. The ‘yuppie flu’ theory has finally
been discredited.

One day the same will be the case for fc. The case will be proven. And for those of us that continue to type we will live with dignity and freedom and will continue the fight for social justice not just for ourselves but for every child with a
‘disability label’.

And of course parents are angry – why would they not be when
they have seen the most precious thing in their lives put
through the system and denied equality.

Richard
Richard
October 15th, 2009
12:48:07

Re this comment: “but foists on people who cannot defend themselves an identity of someone else’s making”.

Perhaps someone could enlighten me how being able to communicate ‘foists on people’ an identity that is not their own.
I would think the exact opposite would be the case – unless one has good communication skills one is unable to express one’s true
identity.

I have given this matter deep consideration over the years. I
found myself – after years of segregation – in mainstream College. For the first time I was able to communicate at a
higher level. I stagnated in special education. One can only grow and develop as a person if one has the liberty to be able to do so and this covers the area of communication.

But if one considers this view point from an intelligent perceptive then one could state that segregation, denying people access to communication and equal opportunities foists on children/people who are the most vulnerable in society an identity that is of someone’s else’s making. The identity of
‘disability’. In denying us equal rights we become the ‘disability label’ that has been foisted on to us.

That is unless we stand and fight for the equality we have been denied. I personally would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

Richard
stanley seigler
October 15th, 2009
13:22:24

Todd say re

re: What interesting rhetoric.

Veeery interesting indeed…an “unpaid” expert anti FC witness, PhD (assume psychology) living on food stamps (hard to make it on $40,000 ABA fees and as an unpaid witness) ... lurks on a FC discussion group without engaging for years… finally shows up on this blog to call a parent (who has lived with autism for 40 years) a “petulant third grader”...and;

to complain about inference he has “venal pecuniary motives”...ie, puts his livelihood above rights of those on the spectrum to communicate by FC.

The inference based on lack of other apparent reasons for out of hand dismissal of FC by todd-etals (JT Todd and his ilk)...

guess there are other reasons…eg, todd-etals lack of compassion; disdain for empirical data (amazing feats abounding testimonials); poor eye sight (none so blind as those who will not see); the alternate FC works is unthinkable (thought from awakenings), as it invalidates much behavioral science

re: those here supporting FC have nothing substantive to turn to and must resort to attacks on character. [perhaps well deserved]

FC supporters turn to todd-etals for support. todd-etals acknowledge “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials”... (see previous todd post to this blog)

Of course they then dismissed amazing feats as tricks of FCers…ie, they (Todd) say anyone can make claims and lots of people, universities have been fooled…

lots of people and universities are such stupid fools…so easily tricked by the likes of a petulant third grader.

BTW A nobel prize physicist confirmed FC worked for his son…rimland (1991) say: Several years ago renowned physicist Arthur Schawlow reported the remarkable results he and his wife had observed not long after providing their then 27-year-old son with a small hand held Canon communicator…(he probably just fooled us too)

Rather than dealing with: amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials…Todd-etals base vicious attack on FC users and facilators (who in many instances get no pay) on tests that in the opine of some are not valid…perhaps as IQ test may not be valid for many minority kids…re testing a PhD physicist say:

Worst of all are behavioral psychologists and charlatan psychiatrists. The former apply all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings)...Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects…many of them do not understand observational science as applied to human beings, who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior. (see a previous post for context)

re: If ABA costs $40,000/year, then it costs $27.78 per hour (considering 30 hours per week and 48 weeks a year). With overhead, including liability insurance, utilities, rent, and all the rest, the one-on-one therapists can make only about $10-$12 per hour in a medium size, well-established, center-based operation.

Having played the contractor game in another life (prior to petulant third grader job) i could make (considering all the rest) a 200 percent profit contract look like a loser…and oh, how much does the owner/director of a medium size, well-established, center-based operation make.

The average regional center funding for community support is around $15,000…and many facilators are just part of an indiviuals support staff…

Your categorical assertion FC doesn’t work is categorically not true…

re: As for myself, I left the playground behind long ago.

You left an open mind behind as well…perhaps you should return…oppenheimer say: “there are children playing in the streets who could solve some of my top problems in physics because they have modes of sensory perception that I lost long ago”...and;

you seem to have lost your power to see the painfully obvious…many on the spectrum have an innate ability that can be surfaced by FC and other means…time better spent researching this ability vice trying to discredit FC.

Perhaps if you stay engaged in discussions here, FCWorld, and in general…terms like “todd-etals” and “petulant third grader” can be eliminated …and combinations of ABA and FC type programs can be devised…and maybe one day be FAPE SOP…hope springs

stanley seigler
stanley seigler
October 15th, 2009
17:17:27

tom smith, pls dont refer to me in any of your posts here or else where…
thanks, stanley seigler
Clay
October 15th, 2009
17:58:20

I happened to check a dictionary, and found this:

mi·sog·y·nist (m?-s?j’?-n?st)
n. One who hates women. A Tom Smith.
adj. Of or characterized by a hatred of women.
Tom Smith
October 15th, 2009
21:07:53

Richard, excellent posts. James Todd, my apologies for some of our misguided and cruel FC advocates. We have them on all sides of the issue.

Clay, here’s another definition of misogyny…

The Disciple asked: What is a misogynist?

The Master replied: I do not know; but it is used by cowards as a term of abuse for those who say what everybody thinks.

August Strindberg circa 1900

The more things change the more they stay the same. The truth is misogyny is rare while misandry, not even in most dictionaries, is probably genetic. Talk about “double standards”. The power of women is awesome. Men who abuse other men in defense of all powerful women are oppressors.
Joseph
October 15th, 2009
23:45:08

rimland (1991) say: Several years ago renowned physicist Arthur Schawlow reported the remarkable results he and his wife had observed not long after providing their then 27-year-old son with a small hand held Canon communicator…(he probably just fooled us too)

Is there more in the reference to suggest the communication was facilitated in some way? It sounds like the individual in this case simply communicated independently after being handed the Canon communicator.

Let’s not confuse things. This is like a bait and switch tactic. “See, this thing superficially similar to FC did work, so FC must be a good thing in general!”

Plus it goes without saying that anecdotal evidence is the lowest form of evidence.
Richard
October 16th, 2009
01:47:25

Joseph,

I think the point is that Arthus Schawlow’s son typed to
communicate be it with or without support. A very similar
situation to myself – I first typed on a canon communicator.
Paul Shattock from the Autism Research Unit suggested a
canon communicator to my mother. How many others with
‘disability labels’ would have been able to type if they had been handed a canon communicator?

Richard
stanley seigler
October 16th, 2009
02:31:42

joseph say re

re: Is there more in the reference to suggest the communication was facilitated in some way? It sounds like the individual in this case simply communicated independently after being handed the Canon communicator.

sigh, bet cha $100 it was FC…why should i provide free research for you…what is your interest in attempting to prove FC snake oil…thus criminally denying many on the spectrum the right/opportunity to communicate with FC if they choose…

Oh well what the heck…
“In addition to his dedication to physics, Art Schawlow was a devoted husband and father of three children; Artie, Helen and Edie. Art and his late wife Aurelia devoted considerable time and energy caring for their son Artie, who has autism. Their efforts included organizing a nonprofit corporation to provide a group home for autistic people and the championing of ‘facilitated communication,’ a means of enhancing communication with autistic individuals.” http://www.stanford.edu/dept/p.....ibute.html

Both parents worked intensively toward finding ways for communicating with autistic individuals. One somewhat controversial method on which Arthur Sr. did research and became well known was for the autistic individual to spell words with a small handheld machine. Arthur and Aurelia wrote a chapter in a book Integrating Moderate and Severely Handicapped Learners under the title “Our Son: The Endless Search for Help.” http://www.nap.edu/html/biomems/aschawlow.pdf

BTW my friend (PhD physicist, twin autistic boys who FCed) who opined psychologists didn’t have a clue to statistics re human behavior (see previous post) worked w/ Schawlow on laser projects…

mo on Schawlow

Typically, when Schawlow won the Nobel Prize, his first thought for the prize money was to help people with autism. When I apologised for calling him early in the morning the day the prize was announced, he said it didn’t bother him because he’d been woken earlier and was too excited to go back to sleep. Many people had assumed he had shared the 1964 prize with Townes, and he joked that the 1981 prize saved him the trouble of explaining that he did not have a Nobel

I [richard] think the point is that Arthus Schawlow’s son typed to communicate be it with or without support

wish that were the point…the point is there are those who are hell bent on denying the right to communicate using FC…reasonably sure i know todd-etals’ motives…not sure of J’s.

stanley seigler
No Psychics
October 16th, 2009
22:23:54

Perhaps someone could enlighten me how being able to communicate ‘foists on people’ an identity that is not their own.

Richard, you ARE aware of the experiments primarily responsible for discrediting FC in the first place, aren’t you?

Autistic individuals who were claimed to be able to communicate, but only through FC, were asked to identify the picture that was displayed to them.

The facilitator didn’t know that THEY were seeing a DIFFERENT picture than the one which was being displayed to the autistic individual.

And the autistic individual did not know what picture was being shown to the facilitator.

If FC had ACTUALLY been letting these autistic individuals communicate, then what they would have communicated is what THEY saw.

Instead – without exception – it was what the FACILITATOR saw that was reported. You cannot believe that that was the autistic individual communicating with the mere assistance of the facilitator unless you claim that the autistic individual was in each of these tested cases psychic, able to report what was in a picture they weren’t able to see.

If you can’t see that these autistic individuals were having someone else’s identity foisted on them by the facilitators who made what THEY were seeing come out through the FC and claimed “that’s what this autistic person is saying!” then I have to assume you aren’t even trying to approach this matter as a rational person.
Richard
October 17th, 2009
01:04:53

You may make any assumption that you wish. Your perception of
truth is not my perception of truth. You perceive the situation
from one view point and I perceive the situation from another.
My experience is not based on ‘an assumption’.

But people have made assumptions about me all my life. In fact
twenty years of assumptions because they did not actually take
the time to ask or listen. They assumpted that I was
‘retarded’ because I had ataxic cerebral palsy. People today
still assume that I am ‘retarded’ – strangers in the street -because I do not fit into their picture of normality.

Well in actual fact I have proved the establishment wrong. So
if they were wrong about me then the likelihood is that were
wrong about other children.

The difference between us is not about being rational or irrational. The difference between us is about being open minded or closed minded.

Is it rational – to deny children and adults the means by which to
communicate because ‘a few research studies’ failed to produce
sufficient answers. You consider this rational? Even though
many people now type independently. It seems very irrational to me. You feel it is rational to deny human beings equality on
grounds of disability. Sounds very much irrational to me.

And that does not foister an identity on to a person. To ‘foist’
something on to someone is to ‘inflict something unwanted on to
them’ or to palm off something inferior on to them.

Segregation has been foisted on to countless children; an inferior education has been foisted on to countless children. Inequality has been foisted on to countless children. Social injustice has been foisted on to countless children. Disability labels have been foisted on to countless children.

And are we talking about recent research here or are we talking
about research that is how many years old? Like I stated much
the same as the case for ME - people were closed minded and
would not listen and now the case has been proven.

Richard
stanley seigler
October 17th, 2009
19:38:11

No Psychics (NPs) say re

re: it was what the FACILITATOR saw that was reported.

tood-etals base denying many on the spectrum on this and similar test results…how do they explain, eg, sue rubin completing college…do they deny the innate ability of carly…how do they explain a nobel prize physicist championing FC…do they believe them psychics

NPs, would you provide details of test which lead you to incorrectly believe Richard is irrational…

BTW there are days my daughter will not FC…screams and throws the machine at me…then there are days (infrequent) she type so rapidly i cant keep up…

FC works…those on the spectrum cant wait for the normal rationals to believe…”perhaps they never will”, vincent…not even on a starry starry nite…

much research is needed…look forward to reviewing details of test to which NPs refers…assume testers knew FCers well…

there is no way any one day, one week of testing, would be valid in testing my daughter…or any on the spectrum i have know over 40 years…

it would be almost like proving general relativity in a day…90 years later and there are still unanswered questions…

re: then I have to assume you aren’t even trying to approach this matter as a rational person.

would NPs and tood-etals condemn many on the spectrum to another 90 years of silence and pain…there may be a seat in ring at the bottom of the fiery pit for them.

in the world of odd balls, einstein, lenny bruce, diogenes, many on the spectrum: NPs, tood-etals are irrational…get out of the normal, rational, greed, ego, box…join the world of beautiful odd balls…

in the meantime if you provide me with details of the TEST we will play rational, todd-etal, games with it…but once out of the box…”oh the places we will go”

in between time you may want to rationally explain elizebeth: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religi.....poet/4595/

stanley seigler
Tom Smith
October 17th, 2009
20:52:40

Nobel Prize winning Arthur Schalow and his wife supported the communication of their son simply by standing next to him with their hand on his shoulder. Many communicators can type that way but many more need full support…hand in hand.

As for the double blinds and the source of the communication, while it may appear the communication is unconsciously coming from the facilitator there are many other explanations. Science isn’t supposed to be about “appearances” but in the social sciences it often is.

The important point here is in the context of science and autism treatment. Behaviorism has little validity in the treatment of autism but it does function well as a caretaker management tool. It helps structure the environment in a positive way when it works at it’s best. It is also a “command” intervention meaning it is very assertive towards directing the autistic and since autism is a motor disorder it gives the behaviorist an appearance of being able to help and control the autistic. In reality is just aggravates the autistic and does little or no good in helping him function.

FC actually has some of the same components of behaviorism and behaviorists make good facilitators as a result. It requires some assertiveness on the part of the facilitator but not nearly as much as in other behavioral methods and for a much higher and positive goal…communication, which the autistics are motivated for.

If you were to compare behavioral outcomes of FC to any other behavioral intervention, FC wins hands down. Negative behaviors melt away and are gone after a year of a decent FC program. The clients I worked with were adults and had been on meds most of their lives. After a year of FC, ALL of them were off their meds.

Another benefit to FC is that NOT everyone has to do it in lockstep like with behavioral programs. If you don’t believe it or think it unethical you don’t have to do it. It’s much less unethical than behaviorism and caretaking workers were forced to do that.

Anyone with extensive experience in treating autism who was exposed to both methods, FC or behaviorism, would come away supporting FC.

Historically behaviorism has been ridiculed and abolished in many other fields where treatment is done, particularly with mental health clients in the Eighties. In autism it has some efficacy, as I said, as a management tool for caretakers and workers but it is pure pseudoscience to claim it cures or helps autistics in any meaningful or measurable way.
Richard
October 18th, 2009
00:39:52

I am wondering why one picture was shown to the facilitator and
another to the typist – if this was the case – why bother to
show a picture to the facilitator? And were the typists shown the
picture at the same time as the facilitator or beforehand? And were the typists screened before the study for Scotopic Sensitivity – because they would have possibly seen parts of a picture rather than the whole or the picture could have broken
up. And typing withor without support to communicate is not the same as looking at a picture and typing to identify it. One would have to question the light in the room – was it natural light or artifical – if it was artificial it would have added
extreme stress to someone with SS and also was there a machine to deaden white noise? Was the room carpeted to deaden sound or was
it in a room where sound would echo.

How many typists were included in the study and was it
explained to them before hand that they would have to
identify a picture. Were the typists children or adults?

Personally I have never used typing with or without support at this level. I covered word and picture matching pre school with pictures and word cards.

Richard
Richard
October 18th, 2009
01:05:01

Tom the ‘behaviour modification’ program in special education in the UK for children would have been different to your experience.

Richard
Tom Smith
October 20th, 2009
18:24:56

Good points Richard about the double blinds. We’ve talked about them ad nauseum on forums I own, or have been on with scientists present, and none of them raised those issues. Most of this has very little to do with science but more to do with people’s agendas. One of the legitimate problems with FC was how it was promoted as “valid” and making a quick goal of independence. The valid part resulted in false accusations and people going to jail unjustly and for pushing people into college before we understood better what was happening with autism and the FC method. As for independence, most auties just can’t or won’t do it.

As for behaviorism… I worked long enough doing it to know both it’s limitations and more importantly the huge potential for abuse and unethical treatment. It’s a truly nasty treatment modality and should be banned in autism, or at least heavily regulated, which was the case where I worked. But even then it caused major problems both in ethics and staff dynamics. When I first started working in a behavioral program for autistics called “The Intensive Treatment Center” (ITC) in 1979 I almost quit over the unethical nature of the whole thing. I probably should have but rationalized at the time that the auties needed me and it would be better me doing that stupid stuff than someone meaner.
Richard
October 21st, 2009
10:01:21

As I said Tom it would be hard to identify a picture or even
a word if it is dancing around, jumping out of sight, or
one experiences total wipe out. But that does not mean that one cannot type to communicate. That does not mean that one
cannot keep going and develop language. It just makes it
harder.

My typed language changed dramatically in the space
of a week after I was diagnosed with Scotopic Sensity Syndrome
and prescribed tinted lenses. They calm the whole environment.
In the UK we use a different system to Irlen lenses – Cerium
Technology developed by Professor Arnold Wilkins.

As to behaviour modification I agree with you in the hands
of the wrong people it is open to unethical treatment and
should be banned. It has no place in modern day society.

Richard
Richard
October 21st, 2009
13:36:44

Tom,

re: ‘As for independence, most auties just can’t or won’t do it’.

‘Autism’ is a disability label. Some people are happy with
wearing ‘labels’ because it gives them a sense of identity others
like myself prefer to be seen as human beings.

And we will never know how many people would have typed independently because they were denied access to communication.

If a child has been denied an education how can they possibly
make up for that lost time in a short period? The goal of
independence was a goal that was set but how realistic was it
given that each person was an individual and would have had
different educational needs? It was a goal that was achievable
for some given the time for it to be implemented fairly. Now
we have lost all that information.

And people lie and make false statements verbally in mainstream but we do not take away the communication of other people or deny them access to communication because of it.

Richard
stanley seigler
October 21st, 2009
17:58:29

richard say re

re: As to behaviour modification I agree with you in the hands
of the wrong people it is open to unethical treatment and
should be banned. It has no place in modern day society.

COMMENT
probably getting off FC topic…but perchance worthwhile to reminds parent/stakeholders of the ultimate ABA program and it only cost $240,000 per year…no greed here just proven ABA techniques.

read all about it…School of Schock:
http://www.motherjones.com/pol.....hool-shock

[MJ article clip]
Every time he woke from this dream, it took him a few moments to remember that he was in his own bed, that there weren’t electrodes locked to his skin, that he wasn’t about to be shocked. It was no mystery where this recurring nightmare came from—not A Clockwork Orange or 1984, but the years he spent confined in America’s most controversial “behavior modification” facility.

stanley seigler
Tom Smith
October 21st, 2009
20:39:03

Good points Richard…I agree. I would add that the best foundation for developing independent typing or teaching any skills would be a good FC program. Communication first everything else later.

As for behaviorism, I and others warned parents on these internet forums back in the Nineties some of the blowback they could expect if they went the ABA route. They are experiencing it now yet the new parents keep getting sucked in. Not to mention the horror to the autistics. I use labels as short hand Richard but agree that individuals hate them.
Richard
October 21st, 2009
23:15:25

Tom, each person is an individual and what meets the needs of one person would not necessarily meet the needs of another. I feel that my communication developed along side main stream College studies because it was where I felt intellectually challenged. But then I had learnt all the basics at a small child. I think any FC program would have to consider the educational needs of the individual.

Unfortunately my parents were not even aware that the school had a behaviour modification program at the time of my entry to
the school. And once they realised they removed me from the
school.

I always try to make the point when using the word ‘autistic’
that I perceive it as a ‘disability label’. I also make it
clear that I do not identify with the word and do not consider
myself to be part of a disability concept. And I adhere to
the same rule for others in that I consider they deserve the
same respect. I feel the only way forward for people under the umbrella of disability is to challenge the concepts and the labels.

Richard
Laurentius Rex
October 21st, 2009
23:41:07

I am not afraid of the lable “disabled” because I refuse to see it through the same spectacles (Irlen lenses or not, mine are not Irlen they are “Larry”) as the arschlochischtischen artztlichkeit of the medical fraternity who think they “own” us all.

I own Autism, the word does not belong to one side at all and those of us who run from it are those who are internally oppressed by others ideologies not our own.

Ever hear the term “temprorarily able bodied” that is the true human condition as you get older you wear out, some of us faster than others, some of us depending on what we started out with.

So What

To Deny the disability concept is actually to buy into the negative less than perspective.
Richard
October 22nd, 2009
09:41:03

Laurentius Rex,

I do not buy into the ‘disability’ theory I spent
too many years in special education and witnessed the destruction caused by ‘disability labels’ to wish to be part of it. I refuse to be ‘labelled’. If other people wish to use the term ‘autistic’ to refer to themselves that is their choice
but I crushed everything I saw as ‘autistic’ into the ground.
As I said I do not identify with it.

Richard
stanley seigler
November 1st, 2009
19:17:27

Richard say re

re: I can only re-iterate the points I have raised. I have never suffered at the hands of typing or fc but I certainly suffered at the hands of behaviour modification and segregation. As I stated none/or very few of the children at either schools I attended went on to higher things.

COMMENT
the todd-etals (FC doesn’t work behaviorists who call it snake oil) are on the wrong side of history…in company with the flat-earthers, the lobotomisters, bettelheimers…and;

for behaviorists who only make $10-$12 per hr (per todd) to maintain these rates (or maintain a lucrative livelihood) it would behoove them to incorporate a form of FC into their programs…the behaviorists with open minds and some vision have…

as a minimum, todd-etals should consider the approach of a respected PhD psychologist: “I adore Doug Biklen. I’m not very sure of FC, but if parents want to assist their child that way and it is not harmful, who am I to decide differently? Best of all, FC has gotten more interest in things like language devices and computer use – and that’s great!”

and/oh/btw, JRC’s Israel, the ultimate behaviorist, makes around $400,000 per (see MJ article)...no “venal pecuniary motives” here…wonder if israel’s wife (JRC’s sister, tobinworld in CA) works for $10/hr.

Perhaps with more open minded attitudes and research re the innate ability some/many (most/all?) on the spectrum have to learn w/o formal education, as mentioned: terms like “todd-etals” and “petulant third grader” will be eliminated …and then;

combinations of behavioral and FC type programs can be devised…and maybe one day FAPE will be SOP…hope springs

stanley seigler
Tom Smith
November 2nd, 2009
22:00:28

That the behaviorists haven’t incorporated FC is not only a travesty to science but to their own approach…”Applied Behavioral Analysis”. They can’t even do behaviorism right! The only explanation is bias, political, and money grubbing. None are very scientific motivations.
stanley seigler
November 2nd, 2009
23:10:59

the travesty is the untold thousands on the spectrum imprisoned in bettelheim’s empty fortress due to “bias, political, and money grubbing” motives of the todd-etals…

not all behaviorists…some are FCers at heart…the ones todd says have been tricked by “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials”... (see previous todd post to this blog)...ie;

the stupid fools, so easily tricked by the likes of a petulant third grader.

stanley seigler
stanley seigler
November 7th, 2009
00:54:17

Todd say re:

re: What interesting rhetoric.

Indeed interesting

re: We should all chafe the sound of a graduate of Harvard Law School casting aspersions on the honest work of someone [a paid expert witness] coming to the aid of accused defendants in an American courtroom. It does not matter if those defendants are accused of littering or of the most heinous sexual crimes. It does not matter if those defendants actually did the thing or not. An adequate defense is not only a right under the U.S. Constitution, but an absolute necessity if we are going to even begin approach a balance between the massive power of the state and often very limited resources of the accused individual. Nothing reminds us of the disparity of power I speak of like seeing a defendant, technically said to be innocent, jailed without bond, transported to hearings in shackles and dressed in embarrassing coveralls, deprived of income, limited in contact with friends, loved ones, and counsel, completely powerless to do anything similar to those who have brought the charges. Such was the case in Michigan FC matter last year. [for context see todd post]

COMMENT

OTOH perhaps…

We should all chafe the sound of an arrogant PhD behaviorist casting aspersions on the honest work of parents (what do they know compared to todd-etals) coming to the aid of those condemned lifetimes of silence in bettelheims empty fortress.

It does matter untold thousands are condemned to life times of silence by tood-etals.

An adequate means of communications is not only a right under the U.S. Constitution, but an absolute necessity if we are going to even begin approach a balance between the massive power of the state and often very limited resources of the individual with special needs…ie, freedom and justice for all.

Nothing reminds us of the disparity of power I speak of like seeing those on the spectrum (and all w/ special needs) being, by myopic behaviorist, denied their right to communicate…transported to hearings (tests) in mental shackles and dressed in embarrassing coverall labels, deprived of income, limited in contact with friends, loved ones, and counsel, completely powerless to do anything similar to those who deny them a means to communicate…charged with incompetence, disability, retarded.

Such was/is the case of untold thousands on the spectrum over the decades.

And/oh/btw…speaking of the range of crimes from littering to the most heinous sexual crimes…wonder whats tood-etals position is on the torture performed by the arch behaviorist at JRC…do they condemn torture with the same vitriol (it does not work) as they do FC…

There is a ring at the bottom…hope there is justice…

stanley seigler
Jason S.
May 1st, 2010
17:59:06

There’s a couple hundred studies on FC validation out in the peer-reviewed literature. Those with scientifically sound controls overwhelmingly show that at least the vast majority of those communicating via FC are unwittingly having the communication produced by the facilitator, likely via the ideomotor effect. How that is not foisting one’s own thoughts upon another person is beyond me. And anyone even with a cursory familiarity with the state of research of FC, supporter or no, should at least be aware that this is the state of the peer-reviewed literature.

The type of picture study referenced above is just one example of research design. There are a variety of ways to attack the problem, each resulting in confirmation FC not being valid for the subjects being tested. Indeed, the few papers that show some evidence of FC validation invariably suffer from poor research methodology that should be apparent to an intro research methods student.

It is worth noting that when you give conflicting answers to a question (say a message passing test) to the facilitator and the facilitatee, what the facilitator heard or saw is invariably the answer produced. When you give the information just to the facilitatee and leave the facilitator in the dark, what you get is either incorrect (or only right at the level of guessing), gibberish, or a refusal to answer the question. What’s going on in those studies alone is pretty obvious, but it isn’t the only way sound validation procedures are done.
Jason S.
May 1st, 2010
18:12:36

Linus Pauling is the only person to ever have two unshared Nobel Prizes. He was one of the greatest scientists to ever live. Yet, he spent his latter years evangelizing the health benefits of taking superdoses of Vitamin C. It was successful enough that even to this day you can see the residual effects of those efforts in US culture. The sad thing about that is the research pretty conclusively showed that Pauling’s views were, at first, simply unwarranted by the evidence and later just flat wrong.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Qu.....uling.html

Even people with Nobel prizes are subject to human foibles and biases that leave us wrong or given to pseudoscientific pursuits. As in the case of Pauling, when commenting outside of their native area of expertise the chances that they will be no better than your average educated person go up significantly.
Jason S.
May 1st, 2010
18:35:22

Assuming FC is valid to argue that those who oppose it (because they think it is invalid) are deserving of contempt for desiring to suppress people’s communication is about as transparent of an example of begging the question as you could hope for.

If a support team was executing life-alerting decisions for a person with autism by consulting a Ouija board or a crystal ball to read their thoughts, those who opposed that team’s efforts wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to the person making decisions for themselves. The problem is what’s in dispute is whether the Ouija board or the crystal ball is a reliable way for the person with autism to communicate their thoughts. And if you point out that they consented to use the crystal ball via the crystal ball, then you are just engaging in circular reasoning so bad that you deserve to be pitied and ignored.
stanley seigler
May 1st, 2010
21:45:58

Jason S say re:

Re: He [Pauling] was one of the greatest scientists to ever live…The sad thing about that [vit c] is the research pretty conclusively showed that Pauling’s views were, at first, simply unwarranted by the evidence and later just flat wrong.

That a greatest scientist to ever live was just flat wrong…makes one ponder the validity of “a couple hundred studies [by pseudo scientists] on FC validation”...and;

another great scientist, bettelheim, was also flat-a wrong re refrigerator moms…and we all know based on scientific testing by the tobacco companies nicotine is not addictive…andand;

as there are serious questions re IQ tests providing a true indication of kids from the hood’s intelligence…the tests used to invalidate FC are questionable based on observational science…

a PhD physicist (with twin autistic sons who FC) say: “Worst of all are behavioral psychologists and charlatan psychiatrists. The former apply all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings)...Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects…many of them do not understand observational science as applied to human beings, who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior.” (see a previous post for context)

would you please provide links to a couple of the hundreds to which you refer…and any details you feel might help someone who “deserve[s] to be pitied and ignored”...(oh, why didn’t you ignore)

and/oh, have you met anyone (names please) who uses FC…eg, sue rubin…seeing is the believing…except for the case of the flat earth scientists.

jason and the toad-etals deserve to be ignored and pitied… would be ignored if they didnt condemn many on the spectrum to a silent prison…they are pitied and on the wrong side of history…

stanley seigler
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 2nd, 2010
05:32:04

“another great scientist, bettelheim,”

are you kidding? he was a bloody lying git! he lied his arse off about having graduated at all, let alone ‘summa cum laude’!

“many of them do not understand observational science as applied to human beings, who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior.”

indeed, but ‘many’ does not mean ‘all’!

“bettelheim’s empty fortress”

you a fan of that lying turd, then?

Stanley Seigler… wtf is wrong with you? you seem to be anti-EVERYthing that could possibly be used well to empower people and prepared to believe complete and utter bullshit. You love Bettelheim… and sure love Biklen.

hardly surprising… both are/were total frauds!
Tom Smith
May 2nd, 2010
20:25:10

As mentioned before Dr Schalows, a nobel prize winner in physics who also had a son he FC’d with, supported FC. I talked with him about this science vs FC problem. He said that most scientists in this arena of autism are not scientists at all and there is nothing unscientific about the use and study of FC.

The criticism that the facilitators are speaking for autistics through FC and the ethics of that is totally bogus. We are always doing that in autism, FC or no FC. It can’t be helped most of the time due to the nature of autism. We also don’t know for sure if that is what we are doing in FC. The facilitators certainly aren’t doing it consciously either. Maybe there are other explanations for what is happening though I agree it appears that it is the facilitator unconsciously talking for the client. But appearances aren’t science.

As I also said before, vaccines and FC are apples and oranges scientifically speaking. Little or no comparison. Vaccines is physical and much more accessible to science and FC is social and very unaccessible to science.
Jason S.
May 2nd, 2010
23:36:53

Tony –
The standard explanation for what’s happening during FC primarily is unconscious prompting from the facilitator via the ideomotor effect. It’s the same effect that allows people to write on a Ouija board and genuinely feel like it’s not coming from them. It’s sometimes known as “automatic writing.” When confronted with decisive evidence that information produced during FC should only have been known by the facilitator, some FC advocates argued that telepathy explained it. (See Dr. Anne Donnellan for a famous example.) I don’t understand why one would posit a heretofore unjustified cognitive ability that defies our theoretical framework for brain/mental function when we have a perfectly well supported and understood phenomenon that fits the observational data like a glove.

I really don’t understand how you can argue that people speak through autistics anyway, so there’s nothing wrong with using a method where you write communication and misattribute it to them. It’s about as slam dunk unethical as it gets.

Stanley –
One scientist commenting outside his area of expertise with little to no sound research backing him up is much, much more likely to be wrong than dozens of them commenting inside their area of expertise backed up by hundreds of sound, repeatable experiments. One authority isn’t a particularly reliable source while the other is.

That said, the mere fact that scientists were wrong before can’t be used to distrust the product of any scientific inquiry. The problem of induction doesn’t allow you to believe whatever you want. That Mendel was at first ignored doesn’t mean whatever pseudoscience du jour you believe is going to be vindicated. The only way to know what will be vindicated by the evidence in the future is to actually vindicate it. So, to use an example you brought up, flat earthers shouldn’t expect to be vindicated simply because Linus Pauling was wrong about Vitamin C. Or more broadly, they shouldn’t expect vindication because the scientific community initially didn’t except plate tectonics when there was already conclusive evidence for it. Linus Pauling’s foray into bad health science is more a cautionary tale about how biases that lead to pseudoscience can effect even the brightest and best among us.
Jason S.
May 2nd, 2010
23:57:01

Arthur Shawlow got a Nobel for his work in optics, which has essentially nothing to do with the science behind the validity of FC. His Nobel is almost no more meaningful for conferring expertise or authority on that subject than it would be for making him a reliable expert on Russian literature in the 12th century. His Nobel also does not indicate that he was a good judge of the demarcation criteria of science, as it has very little to do with philosophy of science. And his quotes can be judged by anyone who does have some background in phil of science and psychology. His naked assertions come off as quite naive, and there’s not much to say beyond the fact that he’s wrong (or more specifically, has a strawman understanding of the research he’s criticizing). At least Micheal Behe has a Ph.D. in a biology related field when he makes awful arguments for the design of life.

Since Shawlow is just being cited for the authority that his Nobel is supposed to offer, there’s not much more to say beyond the fact that his Nobel doesn’t make him an authority on every scientific subject ever. If there are any evidence based arguments or specific critiques of studies to address from him, they aren’t being offered. Instead we get demeaning statements about experimental psychologists and psychiatrists and a false assertion that behavioral experiments must presume people are robots and are flawed due to that assumption being false.
Laurentius Rex
May 3rd, 2010
00:06:30

Indeed it is increasingly the case as specialisation proceeds apace that expertise in ones field means total ignorance in 99% of anything else.

The age of the renaissance man has long gone, and the polymath is almost an extinct species.

I say almost because I am one of the last of the line :)

How did that rhyme about Jowett go now?
Jason S.
May 3rd, 2010
01:54:15

Further, it’s worth noting that if human behavior is so impenetrable by empirical research and thus disconfirming results cannot be held against FC, then how does one come off saying observation has confirmed FC as a valid tool to tap into hidden literacy skills? That seems like special pleading. Even if it were true that something like message passing tests somehow are bad science, that does not make uncritical anecdotal observation any more a reasonable basis for validating FC than it already is. And it isn’t.

Moreoever, if you can’t say FC has been vindicated as a legtimate means of communication by sound analysis of observational data (i.e. science), then how exactly are you warranted to believe in it as legtimate? And if you are not warranted to believe in it, then why on earth would you recommend or implement it as a communication tool for public consumption? It seems that if to rescue FC you must make it untouchable by science, it’s unclear how FC is any better off than the person who reads fortunes in the stars or communicates with an autistic via a Ouija board. Advocates of those phenomena have an intersting habit of not being amenable to carefully controlled experiments due to an unweildly and implausible house of ad hocs too.

At least your traditional advocates of FC are more circumspect about validation methodolgy and just given to poorly constructed experiment design rather than being hostile to behavioral science in general.
stanley seigler
May 3rd, 2010
03:10:38

Jason S say re

re: The standard explanation for what’s happening during FC primarily is unconscious prompting from the facilitator via the ideomotor effect. It’s the same effect that allows people to write on a Ouija board and genuinely feel like it’s not coming from them.

Sigh oh my, bless yo lil old heart, you got it wrong…the standard explanation is observational science…ie, seeing is believing… do you know anyone who uses FC…

Re Linus Pauling’s foray into bad health science is more a cautionary tale about how biases that lead to pseudoscience can effect even the brightest and best among us.

then be warned re your FC bias…Ditto re seeing believing…except for those who will not see…none so blind as those who will not see…

Repeating: “would you please provide links to a couple of the hundreds to which you refer (studies disproving FC)...and any details you feel might help someone who deserve[s] to be pitied and ignored”...hope some are post 1994…

I know the todd-etals motive in trashing FC is greed (paid experts); whats yours…or are you a toad-etal (jim todd and his ilk)...

stanley seigler
Jason S.
May 3rd, 2010
04:29:28

Stanley –
Yes, I know people who “use” FC. Two to be exact. It is overwhelmingly likely in their cases that the communication produced via FC is the result of unconscious prompting by the facilitators. How do you recommend we test and control for that explanation with your ahem “seeing is believing” method?

Dr. James Todd already mentioned two of the most relevant meta-analysis studies. I don’t think I can find public access to Gina Green’s paper, but if you want a link to one:

http://kslinker.site.aplus.net.....e-1995.pdf

I said the people who deserve to be pitied and ignored are those who engage in a type of circular reasoning I outlined.
Jason S.
May 3rd, 2010
15:32:19

Stanley –
Yes I know two people who use facilitated communication. I’m perfectly comfortable saying that it is extremely likely that the communication they produce during FC is a byproduct of unconscious prompting by the facilitators. How do you suggest we test and control for that possiblity with your “seeing is believing” method?

Dr. James Todd already referenced to the the most important meta-analysis studies. I don’t think there is online public access to Gina Green’s paper, but you can look up Mostert’s easily enough:

http://kslinker.com/facilitate.....e-1995.pdf

The people I said who deserve to be pitied and ignored are those who engage in a type of circular reasoning I outlined.
Jason S.
May 3rd, 2010
16:28:21

——
I apologize. A typo snuck in there. That should’ve read, “Dr. James Todd already referenced to of the most important meta-analysis studies.”
Tom Smith
May 3rd, 2010
19:08:58

We are always putting words in auties mouths! Get real.

As for Schalow’s critique, it was of the “soft” sciences and many have made the same critique. That’s not to say we shouldn’t do “soft” science or that it doesn’t have value, but it should be approached much more carefully and kept in perspective…something many behaviorists don’t do though the best do it.

Listen, you fool skeptics don’t have to do FC or believe a word of it but you do have to allow and encourage others to do it if for no other reason than freedom and the fact it is so obviously therapeutic. The same goes for any other autism intervention, most of which have very low levels of utility or scientific validation.

If you guys worked in patient care and treatment for auties like I did for thirty years and did all the most scientific interventions like I and many others did all those years you would think this discussion laughable. If you did FC too, this discussion is a horror.
Sullivan
May 3rd, 2010
21:53:25

Jason S.,

one of your comments got caught by the spam trap. I don’t know if I caught everything that might have been caught there—in other words, I apologize if I deleted anything you (or anyone else) wrote recently.
Jason S.
May 3rd, 2010
22:01:04

Tom –
There are some physicists (and chemists, geologists, etc.) here and there who make critiques of the “soft” sciences, some going as far as to not call them science, that don’t really show a good grasp of those fields. Often there is a parallel misplaced confidence in how scientific inference works in the “hard” sciences. The upshot is that physicists aren’t necessarily philosophers of science or informed on the subject, so we shoudn’t fret about taking their views on the matter as the authoritative position of academia. We can examine their arguments, of course, but when they amount to a strawman understanding of what they are criticizing, there’s not much to do but point that out.

I don’t have to “allow” or especially encourage others to do FC, especially when I think it is at least almost always an example of misattribution of thoughts to the person being facilitated. That is a harm being visited upon them. There are few things more fundamentally harmful than replacing someone’s personality and choices with another’s. It’s abusive.

If the therapeutic benefits of FC could attributed to FC simpliciter rather than things like working closely with someone with attentiveness, often using hand over hand techniques, then it would be nice to see evidence of that. Just because you do X,Y, and Z and there is some benefit, it doesn’t not follow that X,Y, and Z are responsible for the benefit. Z might be what helps and X and Y might be pointless ritual or, as in this case, harmful. That’s what careful scientific examination is for.

That you continue to argue that people always put words in the mouths of people with autism, therefore there’s nothing wrong with a technique that puts words in their proverbial mouth is disturbing. If that were true, which it’s not, that should be an argument to overhaul everything about how we treat people with autism, not an argument to continue the abuse. Unfortunately, interventions for people with autism spectrum disorders used by caretakers do have a history of being rife with pointless rituals, dubious theories, and pseudoscientific crazes. That’s not an argument to continue fanning that flame.
Jason S.
May 3rd, 2010
22:09:28

Sullivan –
I ended up double posting it. Well, sort of. If you could erase the second version and correction, I’d appreciate it.

Thanks.
stanley seigler
May 3rd, 2010
22:23:38

David Andrews say re:

Re: “bettelheim’s empty fortress

The sarcasm in “another great scientist” was missed…Apologies for my poor communicative skills (make that unskills)...

As a victim (a refrigerator parent) of “the great scientist/PhD psychologist” (NOTE THIS SARCASM); I am very familiar with BB… read the “empty fortress” in late 1964…my non verbal daughter with classic kanner autism was born in 1965, when BB still had some credibility…actually held in high regard by his peers (psychologists, scientists)

So I have little regard for most psychologists (unless they also happen to be on the spectrum…ie, been there done that)...tho, do have much difficulty understaning the position of those on the spectrum who deny others on the spectrum the FC opportunity …

those who provide misleading opines …like BBs refrigaratror parents and FC is snake oil…thus, young parents do not pursue FC as a possibility.

Ditto (kinda) scientific studies by the greedy and paid expert witnesses…

As said in a post to this blog: as a minimum, todd-etals should consider the approach of a respected PhD psychologist: “I adore Doug Biklen. I’m not very sure of FC, but if parents want to assist their child that way and it is not harmful, who am I to decide differently? Best of all, FC has gotten more interest in things like language devices and computer use – and that’s great!”

it would behoove them…the flat earth society (scientists/psychologists who will NOT see; none so blind)...to consider/apply American Speech Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) guidelines and study recommendations…

ASHS discredits FC in a 1994, position paper (ref A and B). But do say: Given the flurry of activity in this area, it is reasonable to assume that significant new findings that challenge statements made in this document may appear in the near future. Clinicians and others are encouraged to keep apprised of the latest findings concerning facilitated communication.

ASHS’ 1994, position contradicts their 1990 position re augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). FC is a form of AAC and is highly successful with quite a few…toad say there are:

“amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials”... Of course he then dismissed amazing feats and abounding testimonials as tricks of FCers…, “they can make claims and lots of people, universities have been fooled” (for context, see previous todd post to this blog)...and of course lots of people, universities all just idiots…unlike the brilliant toad-etals…(note more sarcasm)

Tho, ASHA does not mention FC, refs: 1. guidelines; 2. skills and knowledge; 3. position 1990; provide excellent reasons to include FC in all programs…ASHA should have followed them when publishing their 1994 FC Position Paper…and followed their advice “to keep appraised”...in 2010 the todd-etals still quote 1994 studies…

ASHA, clips:

[CLIP]All persons, regardless of the extent or severity of their disabilities, have a basic right to affect, through communication, the conditions of their own existence [AKA life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]. Beyond this general right, a number of specific communication rights should be ensured in all daily interactions and interventions involving persons who have severe disabilities. These basic communication rights are as follows [goto link]

[CLIP] The most effective means to establish functional communication is through the coordinated efforts of all team members…Each team member will bring unique knowledge, experience, and skills to the process of assessment and management of intervention programs…The knowledge, skills, and competencies needed within the interdisciplinary team, if optimal attention is to be given to the communication needs of persons with a severe disability, are listed below: [goto link]

stanley seigler

ref A, B, ASHA CLIPS
A Position Statement (1994)ASHA
http://www.asha.org/docs/html/PS1995-00089.html
[CLIP] When information available to facilitators is controlled and objective evaluation methods are used, peer-reviewed studies and clinical assessments find no conclusive evidence that facilitated messages can be reliably attributed to people with disabilities. Rather, most messages originate with the facilitator. Moreover, facilitated communication may have negative consequences if it precludes the use of effective and appropriate treatment, supplants other forms of communication, and/or leads to false or unsubstantiated allegations of abuse or mistreatment.

B. ASHA Subcommittee on Facilitated Communication
http://www.asha.org/docs/html/.....ml#sec1.12
[CLIP] It is important to note that this technical report is based on published and in press research that was available to the committee through April 1994. Given the flurry of activity in this area, it is reasonable to assume that significant new findings that challenge statements made in this document may appear in the near future. Clinicians and others are encouraged to keep apprised of the latest findings concerning facilitated communication.

Ref 1,2,3, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
1. AHSA Guidelines (1991)
ASHA.AAC.Natl Jt Comm.pdf
[CLIP]All persons, regardless of the extent or severity of their disabilities, have a basic right to affect, through communication, the conditions of their own existence [AKA life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness]. Beyond this general right, a number of specific communication rights should be ensured in all daily interactions and interventions involving persons who have severe disabilities. These basic communication rights are as follows [goto link]

[CLIP] The most effective means to establish functional communication is through the coordinated efforts of all team members engaged in the development and implementation of education and treatment programs for persons with severe disabilities. Traditionally, this would involve the speech-language pathologist, audiologist, special educator, occupational therapist, and physical therapist working in concert with individuals and family members. The skills of professionals from other disciplines also may be required.

Each team member will bring unique knowledge, experience, and skills to the process of assessment and management of intervention programs. There may be variations in the interdisciplinary resources and functions in different service delivery settings. The knowledge, skills, and competencies needed within the interdisciplinary team, if optimal attention is to be given to the communication needs of persons with a severe disability, are listed below: [goto link]

[CLIP] The level of interpersonal, interdisciplinary, and interagency cooperation required to create such facilitating and enabling communication environments and to meet personnel needs may seem, at first, to present overwhelming logistical obstacles. However, without such a commitment, there can be no true quality of life for persons with severe disabilities. This is a challenge worthy of our best efforts.

2. Knowledge and Skills (2001): Augmentative and Alternative Communication: Knowledge and Skills for Service Delivery
ASHA.AAC.K&S.pdf

3. Position Statement (1990) Augmentative and Alternative Communication
ASHA.AAC.Position.pdf
[CLIP] It is the position of the American Speech Language-Hearing Association that communication is the essence of human life and that all people have the right to communicate to the fullest extent possible. Furthermore, provision of augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) services is within the scope of practice of speech-language pathologists and audiologists (ASHA, 1990).
stanley seigler
May 3rd, 2010
22:51:55

Jason say re:

Re: Yes I know two people who use facilitated communication. I’m perfectly comfortable saying that it is extremely likely that the communication they produce during FC is a byproduct of unconscious prompting by the facilitators. How do you suggest we test and control for that possibility with your “seeing is believing” method?

Thanks for the FC nay sayer links…past historical naysers say: the sun revolves around a flat earth

and appreciate fact you are not among the toad-etals who have never met a person who uses FC…

How do we test…well I dunno…most all tests (including those you provided, some already read) leave me a little less than comfortable…eg IQ test for the boys in the hood…and 90 year later they are still proving parts of general relativity…

many with special needs will die waiting for the toal-etal…many who have agendas other than freeing those with special needs from a silent prison…to stop categorically denying FC…

Having been around a few more than two who use FC…I am just as comfortable as you with view much of the communication is not unconscious prompting…so guess we will just have to be comfortable in our comfort zones…

but like my zone best…I have not denied (condemned them to a silent prison, BBs “empty fortress”) anyone the right to express their feelings by whatever means they choose…

of 30 some in my daughter’s peer group, the majority have shown improvement in behaviors and general well being, as a result of FC…the numbers increase as I consider all I have met through wapadh (whittier ca), elsewhere and on the Internet…

tho, not about jason s/my comfort zone; perhaps ASHS has a solution with which we both would be comfortable. if interest see my response to David Andrews on this blog.

stanley seigler
Jason S.
May 3rd, 2010
23:04:14

“Given the flurry of activity in this area, it is reasonable to assume that significant new findings that challenge statements made in this document may appear in the near future. Clinicians and others are encouraged to keep apprised of the latest findings concerning facilitated communication.”

Well, sure. The research pool slowly evaporated after 1995ish as more and more papers added to the disconfirmation of FC, but even given that clinicians should always stay open to the latest findings concerning FC or anything else. They should keep appraised of the latest findings concerning the “refrigerator mom” theory as well. Of course this is all bearing in mind that a research community’s time and intellectual resources are limited and attention should be directed given in proportion towards the ideas that are most likely to be useful/correct. I wouldn’t expect any vindication at this point, but if sound evidence were to turn up, then it would be appropriate to reevaluate our views. That’s not an argument to treat every idea as equally valid. As I said above, the problem of induction doesn’t allow you to believe whatever you want. Scientists should keep an open mind to flat earthers, but that doesn’t mean anyone should expect they’re just as likely to be right tomorrow as wrong. There’s lots of reason at this point to not expect any vindication coming. And we sure as heck shouldn’t act as though it is valid today because compelling evidence might turn up on Tuesday.
Jason S.
May 3rd, 2010
23:08:09

Stanley –

“Having been around a few more than two who use FC…I am just as comfortable as you with view much of the communication is not unconscious prompting…so guess we will just have to be comfortable in our comfort zones…”

The difference is that my view is the one amply backed up by the research, while yours appears to be an assertion based on, what?, your personal impression? You could substitute “Using dowsing rods to find water” for “FC” and your statement would be as meaningful.
Patrick
May 3rd, 2010
23:22:42

The end goal needs to teach independent communication.

Discussing how to test is wonderful, but serious attempts at validation of FC have met with failure.

Scienceblogs.com/Insolence has a few references, including the man who was in the news last year. (Houten?)
Sullivan
May 4th, 2010
00:31:33

Patrick,

Much depends on the definition of “independent”. If one needs some support, but is communicating his/her own thoughts, that is a success.
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 4th, 2010
01:02:38

“So I have little regard for most psychologists (unless they also happen to be on the spectrum…ie, been there done that)...tho, do have much difficulty understaning the position of those on the spectrum who deny others on the spectrum the FC opportunity …”

Well, Stanley…. you’re gonna fucking LOVE me. I’m a psychologist who is autistic as well. So I can say – been there, done that, lived it, seen the shit that happens, found out why and how to go some way to making it stop!

There was nothing in your comment to indicate sarcasm, and many (especially in Finland, where I live) do still think that Bettelheim was great.

Regarding this “FC opportunity” you mention… as Jason says, you base your evaluation on what? I am an autistic psychologist, who also has training in mathematics and physics (and archaeology, if that matters), and I still take the scientific view: any claims of efficacy must be put to a test by those making the claim. None of them are putting their claims to the test. So scientists are doing it for them. And the results are not pleasing the proponents/”twue-bewievers” so they are all up in bloody arms about it (notwithstanding that the scientists are actually doing their work for them!) ... wtf?!

When I was working in medical physics, we had a client whose brain – through a horrible sequence of events related to menningitis and a subsequent herpes infection – had much of his cortical brain tissue scraped out because the virus had literally “turned it to much” (as I had been told by other hospital staff dealing with his case). He had been taught one code system for the day activity centre where he was during the day (this was the code he used at home). Us physicists… being sceptical (and rightly so… note, not dismissive, but sceptical)... we decided to use a different code from that one. The guy was observed to simultaneously use the signs for “yes” and for “no” from both codes if people from the hospital physics department were there along with people from the day activity centre. Sadly, these were only informal observations and we cannot say that there was much reliability in them: my placement ended before we got chance to devise the sort of experimental protocol that would have allowed us to get to know more reliably whether his communications to us were chance events or actual affirmatives/negatives.

Such a protocol would have involved a lot of direct observation of behaviour, with some visits being done with a 2nd observer (to ascertain the inter-rater reliability of these observations). It would have needed a lot of statistical analysis of the observations, which would have had to be made in a number of settings, with some control for who was present at the time of any observed responses on his part to questions offering binary choices. The whole thing would have needed to be operationalised properly in order to be clear on what would count as a response. It would have taken some time to find out what his communicative skills using these codes were.

This guy’s case was the one that got me seriously into psychology as a scientific enterprise, collecting data based on observations made according to a replicatable protocol.

Don’t ask me to accept that I am “denying people on the spectrum the FC opportunity” based on your very poor-grade observations of not many people with no describable methodology. I see it as my duty as an autistic psychologist to protect/defend my fellow autistics from shite “interventions” such as FC (at least, as Biklen is trying to market it). I have issues with the way that the more strict behaviourists in the ABA camp have tried to turn autistic children into normal ones (such as normal actually exists), but I agree whole-heartedly with their objections to the hyping of FC as a viable method for working with autistic people who have difficulties in initiating any communication.

“As said in a post to this blog: as a minimum, todd-etals should consider the approach of a respected PhD psychologist: “I adore Doug Biklen. I’m not very sure of FC…”

Questions:
1- what ‘respected PhD psychologist?
2- why would a PhD in psychology make someone automatically relevant as a commentator here? (essential professional skills in psychology are learned at the Master’s degree stage; doctoral stage work is geared towards advanced professional and research skills)
3- why should the ‘todd-et-als’ consider that PhD psychologist’s approach?

From what I’ve seen and read of Biklen – including on video and in his own text – I can’t help but conclude that he’s a bloody arse-hole!

Stanley – you’re crap at science… don’t try to blind us real scientists with science when you don’t have the expertise. Not a put-down. Advice. Because you’re making yourself look foolish.
Jason S.
May 4th, 2010
01:15:52

Exactly. Indepence is best defined in this context by independent communication. Independent typing absent any physical prompting or body language cueing is just a very strong indication of independent communication.

Japansese researchers are making interesting strides in exoskeleton research. If FC were valid, it’s not difficult to imagine a scenario where needed physical support was taken over by a properly programmed exoskeleton. That’s a bit sci-fi, but given the underpinnings of FC, it sounds like a potentially fruitful research avenue to explore. If that were to happen, the person communciating would still be physically dependent in a sense, but it’d be easy to observe independence in the desired sense here provided there were no programing shenanigans or distal cueing.

It’s also worth noting that while the evidence pretty conclusively demonstrates that at least in the vast majority of cases, facilitated communication is a byproduct of facilitator control, I don’t think the evidence can rule out outliers who learn to type independently by using FC as a sort of game where literacy skills are aquired. It would be a roundabout way to teach literacy in this case, but it’s not theoretically implausible. Just because we find facilitator control of unexpected literacy skills pratically, if not every time it is looked for with sound validation procedures, I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on finding one or a handful of magic bullet cases.
stanley seigler
May 4th, 2010
04:59:08

Jason say re:

re: Well, sure. The research pool slowly evaporated after 1995ish [...] bearing in mind that a research community’s time and intellectual resources are limited and attention should be directed given in proportion towards the ideas that are most likely to be useful/correct.

COMMENT
Well sure, a research community’s time and intellectual resources are limited and attention should be directed given in proportion towards the ideas that are most likely to be useful/correct.

sad the FC research was biased, misdirected and unlikely to be useful or correct (more likely harmful)...motivated by todd-etals who annually make $40,000 plus per client (for now we will ignore the archABAer, JRC’s Israel who makes $400000)...and would have their careers invalided (“awakenings” unthinkable syndrome) if they acknowledged FC works…

some/most, (many/all?) on the spectrum have an innate ability to learn without formal education (institutions recommended for many)...apologies for repeat comment…but they dont get it…perhaps they never will, vincent…not even on a starry nite…

this ability was evidenced in the mid 60s (goodwins talking typewriter, no facilitator)...and current examples like sue rubin, carley, elizabeth, those who now type w/o a facilator, etc…others I have witnessed (including my daughter)...vice researching this ability the publish or perish crew directed their time and questionable intellect at calling FC snake oil…perhaps to protect their livelihood.

what are the positives outcomes (for those on the spectrum, not for the ABAer greed) of the research to discredit FC…what are the positive outcomes of your position FC is snake oil

re my [jason] view is one amply backed up by [biased] research…

as was BBs refrigerator mom view…and the view of Catholic church scholars that the sun revolved around the earth…

my view is based on living with autism for 40 plus years…and knowing more than two FC users…seeing FC improve behavior and quality of life…

jasons view denies the innate ability exist…in essence denies they have the ability to express themselves…treats them like pavlov dogs…my view expresses belief in their ability

oh but jason is too cute (by a half), dowsing rod, heha

stanley seigler
Arthur Golden
May 4th, 2010
05:24:25

Jason S. wrote to Stanley Seigler:

“The difference is that my view is the one amply backed up by the research, while yours appears to be an assertion based on, what?, your personal impression? You could substitute “Using dowsing rods to find water” for “FC” and your statement would be as meaningful.”

Jason S. previously wrote:

“Dr. James Todd already referenced to the the most important meta-analysis studies. I don’t think there is online public access to Gina Green’s paper, but you can look up Mostert’s easily enough:

http://kslinker.com/facilitate.....e-1995.pdf ”

Let’s look at Mostert’s 2001 article, which I actually have in my hands. It cites 29 English language peer-reviewed articles on FC published between 1994 to 1998 (a five year period). Do you know how many refute FC - do you think it is 27, 26 or 25? The answer is 19. The number supportive of FC is 10 – over one-third. While more than one-third is less than the majority, it is a respectful minority opinion, hardly just based on the personal impression of Stanley Seigler.

Please note it is now 2010, nearly a decade into the Twenty-First Century. Since this blog entry started in October 2009, and Professor James Todd’s original comment about meta-analysis studies, have any new meta-analysis studies been published? If Jason S. was on the ball, he would have discovered that Mostert did a follow-up study, with an online publication date of 13 January 2010, citation Mostert, Mark (2010) “Facilitated Communication and Its Legitimacy—Twenty-First Century Developments”, Exceptionality, 18: 1. 31-41. After paying $30, I actually have this 2010 article in my hands. From the period covered by this updated article of January 1999 to May 2008, Mostert found just 3 English language peer-reviewed articles on FC. Two out of three were supportive of FC - so even though the number is much smaller, it has rversed to two-thirds supportive.

Most importantly, please note that Mostert excluded peer-reviewed articles not published in English. Guess what – in the past decade numerous (sorry, I cannot read any foreign languages, so I do not know how numerous) peer-reviewed articles supportive of FC have been published in several foreign languages. I am not familiar about the scientific literature supportive of “Using dowsing rods to find water” but I do not think one can find similar results.

So to Jason S, – please check your facts and do not rely on the unreliable biased statements of skeptics.

By the way, as I will try to discuss when I have the time (after I sign a lease so my family continues to have a roof over our heads, including my 38 year-old son Ben ~~nonverbal autistic who chooses to use FC - not just through FC but through his self~~initiated completely independent primary means of communication – GESTURING), I have accepted the challenge from Professor James Todd to again scienitifically test my son’s FC - when I plan to challenge the validity of the so-called scientific tests that Jason S. and all other skeptics rely on for claiming that FC has been invalidated. Good science takes time, so please be patient for the results of this planned case study by Professor James Todd.

Arthur Golden
Arthur Golden
May 4th, 2010
05:34:11

Please note that on my computer screen a line appears through a phrase in my last message, but there should not be such a line – the phrase should be:

my 38 year-old son Ben – nonverbal autistic who chooses to use FC - not just through FC but through his self-initiated completely independent primary means of communication – GESTURING

Arthur Golden
Jason S.
May 4th, 2010
06:43:12

Mostert’s paper divides the studies up into 3 groups. Those with that try to control for internal validity and alternative explanations of FC one with or more control procedures that show positive results, those that show refuting results, and those with no controls. Among those with good controls, he counts studies as 19 to 6 in favor of refutation. He then goes to the address flaws in drawing a positive conclusion from the supportive studies given their methods. Since you are holding the paper in your hand, should be relatively clear. What that indicates is that sound research design tends preclude validation of communication from the person being facilitated. Unsurprisingly, anecdotal studies with no attempt to control for rival explanations published by people predisposed to supporting FC ended up showing positive results for FC. That you cite this as a boon is telling.

Research in academia has trickled because people don’t take it seriously anymore. I think you’ll find papers related to the mercury poisoning hypothesis of autism are going to vanish too.
Arthur Golden
May 4th, 2010
07:32:30

To: Jason S.
From: Arthur Golden of Jerusalem Israel (1996 to date; Boston, Massachusetts USA 1968-96)

First, I wouild prefer to know who I am writing to and I request you provide adequate identifying information, as did Stanley Seigler. and Tom Smith, both from California for many decades (besides me, Arthur Golden). The three of us involved in the use of FC have nothing to hide. I should note Professor James Todd provided adequate identifying information.

You write “Research in academia has trickled because people don’t take it seriously anymore.” I agree about the sorry state of research in English-speaking countries, but at least for supportive FC research in several countries in Europe, besides Argentina and Japan, it seems many scientists do take it seriously and us English-speakers should not ignore over 90% of the rest of the world.

Would you please reply on point to my accurate factual statements about foreign language research supportive of FC (even mentioned by Mostert 2010 but then arbitrarily excluded) and please do not bring up the irrelevant nonsense (also brought up by Ms. Kim Wombles on her blog) that you “think you’ll find papers related to the mercury poisoning hypothesis of autism are going to vanish too.”
Jason S.
May 4th, 2010
14:34:31

I don’t feel the need to fully identify myself in an anonymous format. If you do not wish to interact without it, that’s your prerogative.

My comments on mercury poisoning weren’t irrelevant. I responded to you pointing out the recent dearth of research to look at. I replied that this is a consequence of FC not being taken seriously enough to be worth the time and effort. The mercury poisoning hypothesis is a great analogy because there recently was a flurry of research on it that is widely perceived to be conclusive, so one can anticipate a similar trickle effect. The analogy is even stronger because the initial idea had implausible theoretical foundations to begin with and never had sufficient evidence in its favor to warrant anything but a skeptical attitude.

It’s difficult for me to comment on foreign papers that are published in untranslated journals. For one, I don’t know what the methods of the studies are, nor do I know the journal standards. I do know we just you positively cite uncontrolled anecdotal reports in FC’s favor as if they were on par with studies that attempt to control for internal validity – either because you didn’t read Mostert’s 2001 paper closely enough or do not care. So that isn’t encouraging. FC advocates tend to argue that descriptive, non-experimental research methods yield qualitative evidence FC, but those efforts invariably do not properly control for authorship by FC users rather than facilitators in the analysis. Deeply problematic validation procedures like looking for word-use patterns or combing for information thought to be unknown by the facilitator are opted for. Citing those efforts alongside properly controlled studies is highly questionable since the question at hand is causal attribution of the communication. I suppose that’s at least better than trying to leverage Schawlow’s Nobel.

One of the downsides to the reduction in research is that the embers of FC has continued to burn since the mid 90’s. Just because scientists, as a whole, aren’t taking the matter seriously that does not mean we can say the same of families, caretakers, and occasionally courts. Sometimes there’s use in continuing research to address those practical realities.

I am familiar with Mostert’s 2010 paper, but I have not read it. It’s published in a relatively obscure journal that my university stopped getting access to in 2008. What three studies does it cite? I more likely than not have access to those assuming they were published in respectable journals.
Sullivan
May 4th, 2010
14:51:05

Arthur Golden,

You may request identifying information if you wish. Jason S. is under no obligation to provide that information.
Tom Smith
May 4th, 2010
19:09:57

Behaviorism is a multi billion dollar industry and Jason is here defending it. You bet he should identify himself. FC on the other hand has been banned in most places thanks to the behaviorists who run most programs.

This huge and powerful behavioral industry in autism was built on the claim that it is more scientific than other autism interventions and that autistics are as dumb as a doorknob. Early intervention, ie ABA, added billions to their coffers based on one obvious pseudoscientific study…the Lovass 1987 study. I saw the pitch to parents to support orgs like FEAT that promoted ABA using the Lovass study. Some pros were there and raised questions and were immediately silenced. This sort of thing happened all over the country. ABA was sold to the parents as a cure for autism. What charlatanism.

Other than the autism field in disabilities, the rest of the mental health communities ejected the behaviorists in the 1980’s. The only other major foothold of the behaviorists is with the government in developing effective torture and interrogation techniques.

Now to the issue of people speaking for autistics. People are ALWAYS guessing about what they need, what is wrong with them and what is best for them. This is talking for autistics and it occurs many times an hour. FC on the other hand knows it’s limitations and is careful in functional areas, especially compared to hourly judgments that are made for autistics with impunity by what is essentially guesses. FC is best for casual get-to-know-you interactions. Harmless stuff but critical in reproducing the best of communication in treatment terms.

Yes, the treatment value of FC should be studied but it’s a no brainer for anyone who has done extensive treatment that FC would be VERY beneficial. My personal experience in using FC in a highly scientific ICF program and based on the data from that program is that it worked miracles. All our clients, who were adults and been on meds for most of their lives, were taken off meds and disruptive behavior became non existent. Not bad for sitting there and holding an autistics hand and communicating. What we usually did was teach the same old skills using the same old methods for decade after decade. What did that do? It aggravated the hell out of the auties and we spent most of our time “containing” them.

One last thing…about auties being best on autie treatment. I haven’t seen that. For one thing people on the high functioning part of the spectrum aren’t really much different in most ways than NT’s except they are stronger in both creative and linear ways. The linear ones will be extreme skeptics while the creative ones will tend to be more open and flexible. So it comes out the same in the wash. Severe auties have a totally different existence and all NT’s and high functioning auties have much to learn about that existence.
Sullivan
May 4th, 2010
20:14:46

Tom Smith,

I did not write this piece. However, I write many pieces for this blog. I do so under a pseudonym. There are many reasons why people use pseudonyms on the internet, including privacy.
Arthur Golden
May 5th, 2010
03:14:10

Thank G-d, after an intensive week of trying to keep a roof over our heads, about 12 hours ago I signed a new lease through August 31, 2011 and received the keys to an apartment.

Although I personally find it hard to read anything laced with four letter words, I believe the comments from Jason S. may serve a useful purpose. I would prefer to know who is Jason S. but I understand the right to use a pseudonym (although this right can be abused) and I intend to reply to the comments of Jason S. (who reactivated this blog entry on FC 3-1/2 days ago). Meanwhile, my replies will involve my recent discussions with Professor James Todd over the past month and therefore I am posting here the email I just sent him:

Jim,

E.8. As I wrote to you over 2 weeks ago (E.7.d.):

“I look forward to receiving another email from you soon, showing that you are proceeding to arrange these tests, as you publicly offered to me by my name to do on the blog of Ms. Liz Ditz over two weeks ago (E.1.b.) [now over a month ago].”

[blog of Liz Ditz can be accessed at:

http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_s.....tion-.html ]

E.9. This week I mentioned your name in comments to a blog entry at LBRB (as did Stanley Seigler), including as follows:

...Jason S. previously wrote:

“Dr. James Todd already referenced to the the most important meta-analysis studies. I don’t think there is online public access to Gina Green’s paper, but you can look up Mostert’s easily enough:

http://kslinker.com/facilitate.....e-1995.pdf ”

...”By the way, as I will try to discuss when I have the time (after I sign a lease so my family continues to have a roof over our heads, including my 38 year-old son Ben – nonverbal autistic who chooses to use FC - not just through FC but through his self-initiated completely independent primary means of communication – GESTURING), I have accepted the challenge from Professor James Todd to again scienitifically test my son’s FC - when I plan
to challenge the validity of the so-called scientific tests that Jason S. and all other skeptics rely on for claiming that FC has been invalidated. Good science takes time, so please be patient for the results of this planned case study by Professor James Todd.”

E.10. I signed the lease about 12 hours ago, so I plan to discuss these proposed scientific tests on the LBRB blog soon. If you believe that there is anything in your 2 recent emails to me that should be kept confidential, please let me know at your earliest convenience. I believe that there is nothing of a confidential nature in your 2 emails and there are compelling reasons to make the information contained in them available to the public. If I do not receive an email from you within 96 hours from now, I will assume you agree with me that the information can be made public.

Sincerely,

Art
stanley seigler
May 5th, 2010
03:53:55

Tom Smith say re:

re : Behaviorism is a multi billion dollar industry and Jason is here defending it…etc, etc, etc…

didn’t want to get into any discussions with tom (in which most seemed to end) re feminist conspiracy theories…so

asked tom not to refer to me in any of his posts…apologies to tom and thanks for his spot-on defense of those who, thanks to FC, have been freed from BB’s empty fortress…

sad feminist conspiracy theories (tom/anyone pls dont bring it up here) did much to destroy toms credibility among some in the autism community…but

give the devil his due: tom, as said, is spot-on re FC, autism, and Behaviorism (ABA)....OF COURSE;

this only the opine of one who is crap at science (per andrews)...

i’ll take my crap science (does no harm) over the science (does much harm) practiced by those who discredit FC to enhance their livelihood and lead the suck up aba sheep to support them…ie;

sustain a billion (whatever) dollar industry…run by those (quoting a friend) who “apply all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings)”...for quote context see stanley seigler post to this subj, dtd 10/9/09.

stanley seigler
Arthur Golden
May 5th, 2010
14:29:36

comment #210

Before getting into my discussion with Professor James Todd over the past month, I have decided to post here a comment I posted nearly 2 years ago to the blog of Dr. Steven Novella:

NeuroLogica Blog » Deconstructing the Cranks on 01 Jul 2008 at 8:10 am

[...] recently received this comment in response to my blog on facilitated communication. Gigi Jordon (writing as “Holly [...]

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=324

Comment from arthurgolden on 03 Jul 2008 at 7:13 am
1. Dr. Steven Novella writes:

“FC [Facilitated Communication] makes a specific claim – that the non-verbal client has hidden language ability that can be tapped into with help. I have nothing a priori against this claim – I just recognize that it is important to find out if it is really true, in general and in specific cases. This is especially important if allegations of sexual abuse are going to be based upon this assumption.

The claim of FC, (again – in general and in specific cases) can easily be tested – simply give specific information to the client while the facilitator is out of the room, then allow the facilitator to use FC in whatever way they feel comfortable to convey that information back. No walls are necessary, no artificial controlled environment. The only thing that needs to be controlled is the access of the facilitator to the information you are testing for. When tested in this simple way, FC completely fails. A rational response to this utter failure is to question the assumptions underlying FC. An irrational, ideological, arrogant response is to rant about “cold and adversarial testing.””

2. The above statement from Dr. Novella is very logical, but does that make it really true? At least with severe autism, is Dr. Novella correct when he states that “The claim of FC … can easily be tested?” Or, as I wrote over three months ago, but did not attempt to explain then, is the proposed test of FC instead really a test of autism? I wish I had a peer-reviewed scientific study to support my explanation, but I will attempt to give the information I have and leave it to qualified scientists to do the scientific study if they are willing to do so.

3. As I did disclose before, my now 36 year-old son Ben, who is non-verbal with severe autism, did have a reliable physically independent point response sometime before he was 11 years old. If given one row of several objects or pictures and asked to point to a named object or picture, he could reliably physically independently point with his index finger. However, I believe that if Ben was shown an object or picture by Person A in one room and then was asked by Person B (who did not know what was shown to Ben) in another room to point to the object or picture which was included in one row of several objects, I believe (but I do not have actual scientific data) that he could not do so. But such a conclusion is consistent with my actual experience with my son. Of course, if my son Ben could not do so with his reliable physically independent point response, neither could he do so when asked to spell out the name of the object he was shown in one room by Dr. Howard Shane on May 3, 1994 (at age 22) when I was the facilitator and did not know the object he was shown. So, can the claim of FC be so easily tested, or did Dr. Shane, definitely an expert in the language skills of persons with autism, design a test that any person with severe autism would fail, as did Augustus at an earlier time when Dr. Shane used this same test because of allegations of sexual abuse?

4. Before this comment gets too long, if any qualified scientist wishes to pursue this matter, I will be glad to dsiclose more information.

Arthur Golden of Jerusalem Israel
Tom Smith
May 5th, 2010
20:41:06

Stan, what a back handed compliment. It’s you who are obsessed with your role in feminism as well you should be. It is a political issue of great importance not only to the society as a whole but in autism as well. The mistakes made with FC can be traced directly to that ugly and cruel ideology of feminism. Even the skeptics are so in large part because they oppose the political dynamics of FC’s promoters…as well they should.

That said, we both know the value of FC and we should be here extolling it and not taking pot shots at eachother. I will continue to say the truth irregardless of folks like you.
Jason S.
May 5th, 2010
20:46:41

I don’t particularly appreciate efforts to uncover my identity so that my position can be dismissed as a matter of crude financial motives. For people who bristle at the comparison to anti-vaxers, this sure seems an awful lot like their habit of attributing skepticism of their unfounded views as a matter of pharmaceutical greed. If it’s any comfort, I stand to profit in no way from facilitated communication being a dead intervention. Moreover, suggesting that someone must be a strong supporter of ABA if they think FC has been largely disconfirmed is a clear false dichotomy.

If FC is an example of misattribution of communication to the facitliated subject, then FC presents a major source of harm being done to them. That aside, how odd of someone to assert there is no harm when FC is famous for being associated with dubious rape accusations. Talk about a bright-line example of harm.

To the actual issue, I’d to look at the recent citations. For all I know, they could be anecdotal case studies in pay to publish journals. I have no clue what is being referred to. I do know that my interactions led to someone positively citing studies that made no meaningful effort to control for internal validity as confirmation of internal validity.
Sullivan
May 5th, 2010
20:53:27

I also do not approve of attempts to “out” commenters on this blog.
stanley seigler
May 5th, 2010
22:11:36

David N. Andrews say re:

Re: Questions:
1- what ‘respected PhD psychologist?
2- why would a PhD in psychology make someone automatically relevant as a commentator here? (essential professional skills in psychology are learned at the Master’s degree stage; doctoral stage work is geared towards advanced professional and research skills)
3- why should the ‘todd-et-als’ consider that PhD psychologist’s approach?

If you are asking for a name…comments made in private email exchange…I will have to ask permission…the respected psychologist was also director of developmental disabilities service for a US state…and teaches autism issues to MDs (interns) at a prestigious US hospital.

essential professional skills learned at masters level…believe a masters is awarded prior to phd.

very few PhDs or masters have learned essential skills to improve the quality of life for those on the spectrum…they are too involved in publish or perish activities and becoming professors…eg, papers/tests to discredit FC in order to protect their livelihood and to prevent their lives from being invalidated (“awakenings” unthinkable syndrome)...

to repeat a PhD physicist’s (father of twin autistic boys who use FC) opined: Physical scientists are not welcome in the world of the would-be scientists in psychology, psychiatry and medicine…Worst of all are behavioral psychologists …who apply all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings)... The biosciences in the past four decades have accounted for 99% of the fraudulent research reports. Underpaid chemists, physicists and biologists working in labs run by senior professors, often MD’s but not always, fudged or outright created data sets to publish results and totally unjustified conclusions…Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects…“but don’t expect the pseudoscientists to pay any attention, since many of them do not understand observational science as applied to human beings, who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior. (for context see stanley seigler post to this blog subject dtd 10/9/09)

why should the ‘todd-et-als’ consider that PhD psychologist’s approach…maybe: because its gives the indivual choice…because its consistence with ASHS guidelines in determining effective programs for our special needs children/friends…because its consistence with CA-USA requirement that needs be determined by an interdisciplinary team…

re: you’re crap at science…

thanks for the compliment…practical, results, oriented people make good things happen…science is for the publish or perish academia…who tho needed and have contributed much…sometimes do much harm…eg, science that proved nicotine was not addictive…science that gave us lobotomies…that denies choice of FC to the spectrum…

as asked (not answered) in another post: what are the positive outcomes of toad-etals scientific FC position…positive outcomes for many FC users are reduced behavior issues, improved general well being…freedom from BBs empty fortress.

A foolish crap scientist,
stanley seigler
stanley seigler
May 6th, 2010
01:45:53

to blog owner

pls delete my (stanley seigler; 5 may 21:41:26) post…my crap, foolish, computer science and petulant 3rd grade mentality are the blame for the duplicate post…apologies to the blog…

stanley seigler
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 6th, 2010
02:58:03

“believe a masters is awarded prior to phd.”

And that is relevant because…?

FYI, where I trained, the M. Ed. I took was a terminal degree in my specialty, and I completed mine by original practitioner research. Additional to this, I took a specialism certification by original research.

“If you are asking for a name…comments made in private email exchange…I will have to ask permission.”

If the person who made them were serious about that remark, well… that person would stand by it. I’m betting that this person daren’t admit to saying that.

“very few PhDs or masters have learned essential skills to improve the quality of life for those on the spectrum…they are too involved in publish or perish activities and becoming professors…eg, papers/tests to discredit FC in order to protect their livelihood and to prevent their lives from being invalidated…”

OMFG! Talk about anti-academia paranoia! FYI, I actually learned a shit.load of autism-specialist professional skills on my training course. As did my ex-eife, and a shit-load of other people who took the course: this definitely invalidates your pathetic and woefully unsupported paranoid claim. Way to look stupid, man!

“Physical scientists are not welcome in the world of the would-be scientists in psychology,”

Um… to stupid a remark to be even wrong. Basically an induction proof (at its braodest definition!)... so if i can find a single case, then your ‘induction proof’ is basically fucked. Ready for this, eh?

Daryl Bem: BS (physics), MA,PhD (social psychology)
Patrick Meredith BSc (physics), MSc (physics – specialist area), MEd (educational psychology)
Raymond Cattell BSc (chemistry), PhD (psychological statistics and psychometrics)
George Kelly BA (mathematics & physics), MS (educational sociology), BEd (educational psychology), PhD (clinical psychology)
David N. Andrews BA-equvalence (applicable psychology, with mathematical sciences & archaeology; Finnish as ab initio language), MEd (applied psychology of special education), CPSE (educational & organisational ethno-psychology/psycho-anthropology)... launched into psychology from an internship in medical physics
Alfred Binet French undergraduate studies in law and natural sciences (includes physical sciences), no formal psychological training!
Jean Piaget undergraduate studies in natural sciences, including physics…
Louis Leon Thurlstone MS (mechanical engineering), PhD (psychology)
Kurt Lewin PhD psychologist from Prussia, who incorporated many physical-scientific concepts into psychology, such as force field analysis, topological fields and the importance of space-time issues in shaping behaviour
Wolfgang Köhler PhD (physics & psychology)
Sigmund Freud MD (medicine, neurologist initially) – used many physical science concepts in delineating his theory of psychoanalysis (notions suchs as the dynamics of systems, for example)
Godfrey H. Thomson BSc (mathematics & physics), PhD (psychology) – used many principles from mathematical physics in developing his model of educational psychology (was Kelly’s supervisor at the University of Edinburgh)

So, that’s twelve counters to your very specious claim, and I only needed one to invalidate it. And all of us used ideas – especially when it comes/came to measurement – from the physical sciences that we studied as undergraduates.The physical sciences and scientists are indeed welcome in psychological science, contrary to your very errant belief.

Pretty clear here is that you have a problem with being demonstrated to be wrong. I have a feeling you don’t actually research the bollocks that you spew on blogs like this one.

“Worst of all are behavioral psychologists …who apply all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings)”

Think again. You haven’t even started to back up that claim. True, Lovaas’ work was basically flawed – the flaws went through it like lettering though Blackpool rock. But not all behaviourists are Lovaas (indeed – he was a psychoanalyst who understood very little of behaviourist theory… had he understood it he would have been aware that the ‘aversives’ used in his famous ‘49%’ study were contrary to the proposals put forward by both men who developed behaviourist theory in psychology: B F Skinner and J B Watson (both of whom eschewed punishment strongly). Much in behaviour modification is done in collaboration with the people whose behaviour is being modified, especially in its organisational context of O-BMod).

“Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects…”

Shitting Jesus – Stanley – where do you dig up these nuggets of stupidity? No intellectual ability test with any sort of reputation is normed on a sample of size less than 1500 participants. Every psychologist who has trained properly knows that the size of your sample affects the sort of error margin you get in your results and that this error margin is reduced by having a larger sample. Pilot projects may use as few as 50 participants in order to obtain preliminary results, and this is a reasonable number. Statistical analysis can be conducted on data from fewer participants but we know that the results will not be very reliable, for generalisation. They may give basis for valid inferences within the specific type of context in which they were obtained.

“since many of them do not understand observational science as applied to human being”

Actually – I agree – some don’t. But most do, especially those trained under the Boulder Model of training in psychology (scientist-practitioner). Observation of behaviour is taught as a matter of course in any behavioural science… and it is taught very thoroughly.

“who are not robots and do not obey fixed laws of behavior”

(my italics)

Are you kidding? I mean – seriously – are you kidding? People do follow some basic laws determines statistically in behavioural science. One such law is Thorndyke’s Law of Effect (without which law, by the way, all teaching would be fucking useless!).

“what are the positive outcomes of toad-etals scientific FC position”

Better reliability and validity coefficients for the results and inferences that could be made on their basis. Better knowledge is likely regarding the situations and circumstances in which FC might actually be producing valid results… isn’t that something that FC proponents would actively want? If so, then why get all fucking anti-science? Answer: given what we already (having seen of many instances of people having communications incorrectly attributed to them, in various critical situations), it is very likely that Biklen is shit-scared that his huge business empire will fold when it turns out that FC is not the panacaea that it has been claimed to be.

“A foolish crap scientist,
stanley seigler”

Yeh – you fucking said it, man.

You are not even a scientist. It is clear that you understand so little about what a scientific approach is and why it should be used in the evaluation of any sort of intervention, and it just fucks with my mind as to why you would want to demonstrate (in such an obvious way) how little you ‘get’ science. I’d want to be as certain as I possibly could before spouting anything. You – on the other hand – are prepared to talk absolute bollocks, without backing a single thing up. And the fucked up thing is this – you expect us scientifically literate people to say “Oh, well, if Stanley says it – it must be true!” Bugger off Tell me you’re joking!

I’m going to let Professor Brian Cox have the last word… substitute your anti-scientific FC crap where he’s talking about the unscientific belief in the ‘End of the World’ thing and you’ll see what any reasonably scientifically literate person would think you are!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw9K0tI9mxc

Thanks to Brian Cox, BSc, PhD – both in physics… Professor of Physics (University of Manchester)
stanley seigler
May 6th, 2010
03:24:39

Jason S say re:

re: I don’t particularly appreciate efforts to uncover my identity so that my position can be dismissed as a matter of crude financial motives.

you are too particular…your ID is a nit… as reasonably sure my daughter will not exposed to any of your programs…but am concerned with your (toad-etals) motives…you mislead those on the spectrum and young parents much as I was mislead by BB…

tho not religious…Father forgive them (toad-etal) for they know not what they do…comes to mind…what motivates you to bad mouth FC and deny the spectrum the right to express their feelings by whatever means they choose…

re: FC is famous for being associated with dubious rape accusations. Talk about a bright-line example of harm.

FC made famous for dubious rape accusation by the toad-etals…and rightly so…however false charges are a criminal justice issue not a FC validity issue…

there are a zillion false charges by NTs…eg, Mcmartin school in Pasadena CA…witch hunt in bakersfield CA…do you want to blame them on FC…FC a very small percentage of false charges…probably consistent with population ratios…

and/oh those accused of rape were found not guilty by a legal system that also found OJ not guilty…are you sure the charges were false…

why not just follow ASHS guideline and CA Lanterman Act and let an interdisciplinary team determine need and appropriate programs…why bad mouth FC…care to provide your motives, hidden agenda maybe…

stanley seigler
Arthur Golden
May 6th, 2010
05:09:12

comment #218 (I think) – written before reading the last 2 comments were posted to the blog (and I do not have the time now to read them)

For a skeptic, Jason S. is rather gullible to believe the “blood libel” that “FC is famous for being associated with dubious rape accusations.” As I think about it, I realize that skeptics as a group have been rather gullbile on this whole issue of Facilitated Communication. It is my gut feeling, without any actual proof on my part, that influential people who had a financial interest in discrediting FC, such as behaviorist Gina Green, intentionally manipulated others in the early 1990s, by associating FC with known dubious practices such as “recovered memories” (false memory syndrome) which by the early 1990s was legitimately “famous for being associated with dubious rape accusations.”

I am not trying to “out” Jason S. but I believe he stated he is Finnish and I presume he lives in Finland. I do not know if he understands what I mean be a “blood libel” so I would like to state that I have a high opinion of the Finnish people for their excellent treatment of Jews during World War II even though Finland was allied with Nazi Germany because Finland was defending itself from being taken over by the Soviet Union. I assume that Jason S. is a well-meaning person who has been taken in by intentional manipulations and that Jason S. is completely sincere in his beliefs about FC, even though I am trying to participate in Good Science to show that his beliefs are false. As I will try to discuss in 3 days (realizing that LBRB has put me on moderation and that there may be a delay in the posting of my comments), I have accepted the public challenge from Professor James Todd and I am trying to work with him to arrange further testing of FC.

I wish to note that I have not yet specifically replied to several other comments of Jason S. and when I have the time, I do hope to do so. Even though I do not know who Jason S. is, his comments do reflect the generally-held beliefs of many people about FC and do deserve a carefully considered serious reply. At the moment I am preoccupied coming up with the money to actually move to a new apartment, so please understand my delay in preparing appropriate replies.

Arthur Golden
Arthur Golden
May 6th, 2010
05:13:54

My comment #218 was posted immediately and was not subject to moderation (unlike my comment #210). Although I think I do not need to be on moderation – after LBRB read my latest comment, I do not know how they will view the matter!

Arthur Golden
Arthur Golden
May 6th, 2010
05:16:16

Oops! Now I am back on moderation. Was the apparent posting of comment #218 a computer glitch or is someone awake at 5 a.m. in the UK?
Sullivan
May 6th, 2010
05:30:57

Arthur Golden,

I don’t know why your last comment was caught in the moderation queue. I’ve released it.

Not being in the UK, it is easy for me to do so at this hour.

That said, I am not really participating in this discussion. I got left behind somewhere around comment 2.
stanley seigler
May 6th, 2010
05:58:17

David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E say re:

Re : whatever

seems you are more interested in letting us know how brilliant you are vice improving the quality of life for those on the spectrum…have difficulty following your scientific fuckin language…so you win the nits argument: I am a fool and you are a brilliant a-hole…

hope one day you realize this not about you and me and the harm you have done/do to those on the spectrum…sadly, evident by your post you never will…as one on the spectrum you should know better and live in shame…

oh/btw oh brilliant one…your scientific foul mouth does nothing to invalidated FC…actually discredits your position…but tend to cut you some slack as you are on the spectrum…

re: Shitting Jesus – Stanley – where do you dig up these nuggets of stupidity? No intellectual ability test with any sort of reputation is normed on a sample of size less than 1500 participants

what is the sample size of the test you (toad-etals) refer to that invalidate FC…1500???...and/oh

what are the positive outcomes of your position…you are in a hole…keep digging and you will validate FC…

stanley seigler

ps. andrews say: And that is relevant because…? none, why did you bring it up…do you have a short term memory problem…
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 6th, 2010
07:06:54

“seems you are more interested in letting us know how brilliant you are vice improving the quality of life for those on the spectrum…have difficulty following your scientific fuckin language…so you win the nits argument: I am a fool and you are a brilliant a-hole…”

Why would I waste eloquence on someone not intelligent enough to appreciate it?

“hope one day you realize this not about you and me and the harm you have done/do to those on the spectrum…sadly, evident by your post you never will…as one on the spectrum you should know better and live in shame…”

‘Scuse me? You’ve already validated FC without a single proper study, despite the fact that many proper studies have said it’s basically bollocks? Jesus Christ – look at yourself, man! In that one remark there, you’ve basically aligned yourself with Prof. Cox’s definition of a twat! OMFG!

“oh/btw oh brilliant one…your scientific foul mouth does nothing to invalidated FC…actually discredits your position…but tend to cut you some slack as you are on the spectrum…”

I didn’t think swearing would discredit FC… that’s not the purpose. It is to let you know how contemptable your stance on it (as a ‘twue-bewiever’) is!

“re: Shitting Jesus – Stanley – where do you dig up these nuggets of stupidity? No intellectual ability test with any sort of reputation is normed on a sample of size less than 1500 participants”

“what is the sample size of the test you (toad-etals) refer to that invalidate FC…1500???...and/oh”

Irrelevant question -. we’re not norming an IQ test.

Just figured out your qualification: Stanley Seigel Dip. Shit.

“what are the positive outcomes of your position…you are in a hole…keep digging and you will validate FC…”

No we’re not. And if you’ve already got FC validated a priori, then maybe your scientific literacy is well below what it should be to be able to engage in a serious debate with. Now, Stanley, old chum… bugger off!
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 6th, 2010
07:10:53

Stanley Seigler Dip. Shit.said:

“ps. andrews say: And that is relevant because…? none, why did you bring it up…do you have a short term memory problem…”

Yes. but nowhere near as bad as your intellectual one! Um – YOU brought up the thing to which i posed the question of relevance…. seems your memory’s fucked as well.
Laurentius Rex
May 6th, 2010
09:33:02

I think it is about time, that time was called on what is becoming a very silly pantomime argument. “oh no it is” “oh no it isn’t”

It’s even being conducted in a laughable pantomime language “Todd-etals” indeed, why not bring Thetans and Drakonians into the argument, it would make as much sense.

We have a true believer who believes by the seat of his pants (not science) and we have dyed in the wool skeptics, this show will run and run until sense prevails and everybody realises that nobody is convincing anybody.

BTW an award of a masters or even a bachelors degree is not always necessary for an award of a PhD, there are some exceptions out there, I am one of them, I came ready equipped with the research credentials by virtue of having carried out social research before in a real world context, not an academic one. But if I don’t stop wasting my time on Punch and Judy blogs, I will never get any work done.
Laurentius Rex
May 6th, 2010
09:33:18

I think it is about time, that time was called on what is becoming a very silly pantomime argument. “oh no it is” “oh no it isn’t”

It’s even being conducted in a laughable pantomime language “Todd-etals” indeed, why not bring Thetans and Drakonians into the argument, it would make as much sense.

We have a true believer who believes by the seat of his pants (not science) and we have dyed in the wool skeptics, this show will run and run until sense prevails and everybody realises that nobody is convincing anybody.
Arthur Golden
May 6th, 2010
10:27:46

comment #225 (I think)

David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. recently wrote:

“...I’d want to be as certain as I possibly could before spouting anything.”

Such a statement is an example of what I call a “very pious statement made in public” which I consciously try to avoid making.

Just a few lines earlier, David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. wrote the factual statement which is capable of being ascertained with verifiable information:

“...it is very likely that Biklen is shit-scared that his huge business empire will fold when it turns out that FC is not the panacaea that it has been claimed to be.”

Although I only recently came out as an autistic on LBRB, as an autistic (but not Asperger’s, given my language delays as a young child) I have some strong obsessions which include internet research on anything connected with Facilitated Communication since I first had access to the internet in May 1997, 13 years ago. My internet research on FC includes Biklen, and my real world contact with Professor Douglas Biklen on FC goes back to September 1990 and on his other humanitarian activities (such as the Jawonio Preschool) to well before 1990. I have never ascertained any verifiable information about Biklen’s “huge business empire” of FC, where he might be “shit-scared” it “will fold when it turns out that FC is not the panacaea that it has been claimed to be.” Indeed, my verifiable information has shown a distinct lack of financial success. But since David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. states “I’d want to be as certain as I possibly could before spouting anything” it seems I must have missed something despite my obsessive behavior. I look forward to receiving this verifiable information.

I have no obsession about researching the huge business empires of Behaviorists, but I am pretty certain that JRC in Massachusetts has over 200 clients at over $200,000 each per year, which comes out to over $40,000,000 (forty million dollars) annually. Someone in these comments stated the director of JRC has an annual salary of $400,000. Could it be that it is the Behaviorists that are “shit-scared” about Facilitated Communication and one could question if they used some unethical behavior to protect their huge business empires? I am willing to put aside such negative thoughts and try to work with any Behaviorist who is willing to put in the hard work to do good scientific research, whether it is Professor James Todd, Jason S. or David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. or others. I prefer to be open about such scientific research and we can discuss it here in public on this blog. I am waiting 4 days to receive a reply to my latest email to Professor James Todd (see comment #208) but he made public statements up to a month ago that I may try to post here and comment on before then. Although I have compelling reasons to post here after waiting these 4 days the 2 emails that I have received from Professor James Todd in the past month and there is absolutely nothing confidential in his 2 emails, I commit to keeping strictly confidential any emails I receive from any other Behaviorists in reply to this offer. Emails can to sent to me at golden.arthur at gmail.com

Arthur Golden
Jason S.
May 6th, 2010
14:18:54

If a false sex abuse allegation is a byproduct of unconscious prompting from a facilitator, then it is an FC issue. That is an obvious source of harm that belies the notion that even if FC isn’t real, its harmless. FC isn’t homeopathy and even that has an opportunity cost. FC did historically result in sex allegations and FC does have a strong case that it is unconscious physical prompting from facilitators in at least the vast majority of cases. The Oakland, MI case mentioned in this conversation thread is an example. Someone was jailed for months over it. Really though, it’s much more of a fundamental harm to replace someone’s thoughts with another’s.
Jason S.
May 6th, 2010
14:33:03

Dr. Green’s paper “The Quality of Evidence” is probably the best paper to read on FC if you were only allowed to read one. Even if it were true that she was taking her position to defend the filthy lucre of her field, the paper still stands on its own merits. Her arguments don’t cease to be cogent no matter her motives. That is, unless you are accusing her of misrepresenting sources and results, intentionally no less. In addition to that being a serious accusation, it is false.
stanley seigler
May 7th, 2010
04:29:40

L Rex say re:

Re: a laughable pantomime language “Todd-etals” indeed, why not bring Thetans and Drakonians into the argument, it would make as much sense.

Enjoy the too cute humor…it deserves a segment on colbert/daily/maher…however not sure it contributes to freeing non verbals (they may not see it as laughable) on the spectrum from BB’s empty fortress…open to any discussion as to how it (too cute remarks) helps the nonverbals on the spectrum…

Re: believes by the seat of his pants (not science)

wrong anatomy end…try 20/20 vision…seeing is believing…a “doting grandfather” of a non verbal dear child would have more insight…more compassion…would not joke about child’s pain and suffering.

stanley seigler
Arthur Golden
May 7th, 2010
05:10:02

comment #228 (I think)

The following comment was originally submitted over 18 hours ago but is being held in moderation. One reason apparently is that I quoted from the message of David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. that included an 11 letter compound word where the first four letters are a four letter word, which I have been told are banned on this blog, even though the message being quoted was allowed without moderation. So I have substituted s—t (putting in dashes instead of the 2nd and 3rd letters hi). Within the next 11 hours I hope to respond to a recent message from Jason S. about Gina Green. Then, I will be away from my computer and not trying to post messages here for about 36 hours.

David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. recently wrote:

“...I’d want to be as certain as I possibly could before spouting anything.”

Such a statement is an example of what I call a “very pious statement made in public” which I consciously try to avoid making.

Just a few lines earlier, David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. wrote the factual statement which is capable of being ascertained with verifiable information:

“...it is very likely that Biklen is s—t-scared that his huge business empire will fold when it turns out that FC is not the panacaea that it has been claimed to be.”

Although I only recently came out as an autistic on LBRB, as an autistic (but not Asperger’s, given my language delays as a young child) I have some strong obsessions which include internet research on anything connected with Facilitated Communication since I first had access to the internet in May 1997, 13 years ago. My internet research on FC includes Biklen, and my real world contact with Professor Douglas Biklen on FC goes back to September 1990 and on his other humanitarian activities (such as the Jawonio Preschool) to well before 1990. I have never ascertained any verifiable information about Biklen’s “huge business empire” of FC, where he might be “s—t-scared” it “will fold when it turns out that FC is not the panacaea that it has been claimed to be.” Indeed, my verifiable information has shown a distinct lack of financial success. But since David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. states “I’d want to be as certain as I possibly could before spouting anything” it seems I must have missed something despite my obsessive behavior. I look forward to receiving this verifiable information.

I have no obsession about researching the huge business empires of Behaviorists, but I am pretty certain that JRC in Massachusetts has over 200 clients at over $200,000 each per year, which comes out to over $40,000,000 (forty million dollars) annually. Someone in these comments stated the director of JRC has an annual salary of $400,000. Could it be that it is the Behaviorists that are “s—t-scared” about Facilitated Communication and one could question if they used some unethical behavior to protect their huge business empires? I am willing to put aside such negative thoughts and try to work with any Behaviorist who is willing to put in the hard work to do good scientific research, whether it is Professor James Todd, Jason S. or David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. or others. I prefer to be open about such scientific research and we can discuss it here in public on this blog. I am waiting 4 days to receive a reply to my latest email to Professor James Todd (see comment #208) but he made public statements up to a month ago that I may try to post here and comment on before then. Although I have compelling reasons to post here after waiting these 4 days the 2 emails that I have received from Professor James Todd in the past month and there is absolutely nothing confidential in his 2 emails, I commit to keeping strictly confidential any emails I receive from any other Behaviorists in reply to this offer. Emails can to sent to me at golden.arthur at gmail.com

Arthur Golden
stanley seigler
May 7th, 2010
19:54:35

Jason S say re:

Re: Dr. Green’s paper “The Quality of Evidence” is probably the best paper to read on FC if you were only allowed to read one.

COMMENT
Is there a link to this paper…

In the meantime wondering, recalling some of ms dawsons opines, why aba promoters (scientists) should be taken seriously…she say:

“Promotion first, science later, if ever. This pattern is near universal when it comes to autism interventions. In the absence of good quality research, autism interventions are loudly claimed to be effective…For those promoting ABA-based autism interventions, claims of effectiveness unfounded in good quality research were only the first step. The real triumph has been widespread agreement that fair tests of ABA-based interventions are unethical and bad for autistics. As a result, any experimental design carrying the risk of being informative about the benefits and harms of ABA-based interventions has, for a long time now, been considered unethical.

http://autismcrisis.blogspot.c.....results=23

have not read much of ms dawson’s stuff… but what I have seems fact based and should be much to liking of those who worship the golden calf of science…and seems consistent with my foolish crap science and that of some more scientific friends…eg:

“Worst of all are behavioral psychologists …who apply all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings… Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects”

I have seen little scientific proof of the long term ABA positive outcomes…anecdotally…at 4 my daughter learned to button with lovaas student at UCLA…at 44 she cant button..

POINT:why should toads-etals promotion of ABA by quoting the lack of scientific FC proof when the test/studies that supposedly prove (promote) ABA are in question…

ANOTHER: to prevent going around this bush ad nauseam, accept ASHA guidelines. Let an interdisciplinary team determine needs and appropriate programs…ABAers, why the crusade to rid the world of FC if not for “venal pecuniary motives”...todd’s scientific for greed.

As in all walks there are the good, bad, and ugly…there are many good ABAers…those non crusaders who say:

“I’m not very sure of FC, but if parents want to assist their child that way and it is not harmful, who am I to decide differently? Best of all, FC has gotten more interest in things like language devices and computer use – and that’s great!”

stanley seigler
Tom Smith
May 7th, 2010
21:47:35

Stan’s testimony on behaviorism in autism as a parent is the same as mine as a direct care worker. The difference is I had to be a behaviorist in order to work in the field. I had to separate the wheat from the chaffe in what we were doing behaviorally. I loved good data collection because at least then we had some ground to stand on to move on to other interventions, behavioral or otherwise. Even then there was great resistance to moving on because most of the non working interventions were skill training and that’s what parents wanted and they have a great deal of power these days in treatment decisions. The other good thing about behaviorism were the structured positive interventions. At least with behaviorism we had a way to manage staff to keep their interventions somewhat positive instead of saying “no” or “don’t do that” all of the time. Behaviorism gave us some logical ways to structure and hone programming.

About the sexual allegations vis a vis FC. They should have never happened, and the few times it was justified there needed to be a procedure in place before going to law enforcement. Reporting about abuse is now a very serious matter so many errored in favor of being overly careful. That’s one thing with verbal clients but with non verbals using a communication method like FC it’s insanity. Two months into FCing I told my supervisor that there was no way the method could be used for serious functional or accusatory statements. There was one sexual allegation in the two intensive years of my using FC, par for the course even with verbals, and we took care of it quietly and carefully. We set up a system to restrict use of FC for anything accusatory…even casual joking between staff with an autie using FC. In that way we avoided hurt feelings and gave skeptics we worked with the space and respect they needed.
stanley seigler
May 8th, 2010
03:29:37

CORRECTION
re: POINT:why should toads-etals promotion of ABA by quoting the lack of scientific FC proof when the test/studies that supposedly prove (promote) ABA are in question…

should read:

POINT: why should toads-etals promotion of ABA by quoting the lack of scientific FC proof…be taken seriously…when the test/studies that supposedly prove (promote) ABA are in question…

ADDED COMMENT
vice scientific proof…the focus should be the positive on the positive outcomes of FC v positive outcomes of FC naysayers…

stanley seigler
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 11th, 2010
19:58:39

Holy bollocks… he’s here again!

“POINT: why should toads-etals promotion of ABA by quoting the lack of scientific FC proof…be taken seriously…when the test/studies that supposedly prove (promote) ABA are in question…”

Actually, a fair bit of ABA-validated research demonstrated the very limited usefulness of the approach. It remains a useful approach, since it seeks to ascertain the reliability of the results of assessments conducted before, during and after a programme of behavioural intervention. As such, it is by far the most scientific form of assessment-diagnosis-intervention we have. I am not a behaviourist myself but I do see the value of a lot of what behaviourist psychology has given us, especially in the field of learning… which is what the acquisition of skills (such as those involved in communication) essentially is.

The methods themselves are not under question. Some of the claimed outcomes and research-based rationales are. But the science itself is not.

Deal with being wrong.

“ADDED COMMENT
vice scientific proof…the focus should be the positive on the positive outcomes of FC v positive outcomes of FC naysayers…”

Ah – so Stanley Seigler the ‘great scientist’ (/deeeeeeeep sarcasm) gets to define the outcomes as a ratio. Wrong. You are making a claim and you have still not backed it up with any empirical science.

I refer you to what Prof. Cox says of people such as yourself.
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 11th, 2010
20:03:12

AG: “Could it be that it is the Behaviorists that are “s—t-scared” about Facilitated Communication and one could question if they used some unethical behavior to protect their huge business empires?”

Are you joking me? Business empires? And you can’t see what Biklen’s built himself??

Arhur… get a grip!
stanley seigler
May 11th, 2010
21:06:58

David N. Andrews M. Ed., C.P.S.E say re:

re: Why would I waste eloquence on someone not intelligent enough to appreciate it?

you first have to have it before you can waste it…but

oh my sigh bless yo lil heart and foul mouth…why waste;

weel perhaps because wasted eloquence is better than wasted crap language and yo oh so “scientific name calling”...which proves “what” in the beloved scientific world you worship…maybe…

proves that you are an irrelevant, not to be taken seriously, foul mouth, cutie.

but would like to understand your scientific proof FC doesn’t work…as a start address sample size of test to which CPSE refers:

CPSE say: Irrelevant question -. we’re not informing an IQ test.

remember blog sequence leading to irrelevant question

1. dip say: [quoting a PhD physicist] “Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects…”

2. in response to, “error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects”...CPSE say: Shitting Jesus [scientific for what], Stanley where do you dig up these nuggets of stupidity? No intellectual ability test with any sort of reputation is normed on a sample of size less than 1500 participants… Pilot projects may use as few as 50 participants

3. dip say: what is the sample size of the test you (toad-etals) refer to that invalidate FC…1500???...

4. CRAP say: Irrelevant question…we’re not informing an IQ test…

since CSPS first stated less than 1500 or 50 not valid, question: why did CRAP bring it up if not relevant to ability of nonverbals…as CSPS is a brilliant “weal” scientist (hee-haaaaaaa), dip assumed there was some relevance…in any event what are the sample sizes of test to which CSPS refers…

the all important (root) question is the intelligence of non verbals…their ability to communicate…their innate ability to communicate (w/o formal education)...thru whatever means…mid 60s talking typewriter, FC, RP, etc…

re: I didn’t think swearing would discredit FC… that’s not the purpose. It is to let you know how contemptable your stance on it (as a ‘twue-bewiever’) is!

your contempt and weal science foul mouth is misdirected as is much of your crap (scientific) language…it should be directed at the “weal” scientists who deny the choice of FC to those on the spectrum…who refuse to practice observable science and bring up study sample size (50 to 1500) then calls it irrelevant, when asked the size of test/studies weal scientist use to bad mouth FC…

tho mainly a medical profession creed…all weal/pseudo scientists should take a page from the hippocratic oath: DO NO HARM. CSPS does much harm and sentences many on the spectrum to BB’s empty (silent) fortress…

well maybe not many as he is probably ignored by most …except for dips who believe one person condemned to BB’s silent fortress is unacceptable…

and…

CSPS does precious little (if any) good…as mentioned:
why the crusade to rid the world of FC if not for “venal pecuniary motives”...todd’s weal scientific for greed.

As in all walks there are the good, the bad, and the ugly…there are many good ABAers…eg, those non crusaders who say:

“I’m not very sure of FC, but if parents want to assist their child that way and it is not harmful, who am I to decide differently? Best of all, FC has gotten more interest in things like language devices and computer use – and that’s great!”

BTW if yo foul mouth is a retts issue…my apologies for comments…if not clean up your act…it does nothing to improve your “do harm” FC position…au contra…

in any event you are too cute (by 1/2)...sad you waste time on being cute vice improving the quality of life for your friends on the spectrum…

re: Are you [art] joking me? Business empires? And you can’t see what Biklen’s built himself??

dip cant see…tell oh CSPSer what do you see…financial statements…private clients, SU salary…etc… sound like just another wild-a comment by a weal scientist…

doubt Biklen financial worth approaches the ABAers who charge $40,000 plus per client annually…and certainly does not begin to approach the arch ABAer matt israel’s JRC/TobinWorld business empire…

keep digging

stanley seigler

ps if you really want to contribute to a quality life for non verbals on the spectrum you might look at the innate ability to communicate…and promotional (mad ave) science of the behaviorists…”Promotion first, science later, if ever.” [dawson say]
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 11th, 2010
23:59:58

Stanley…

You really are looking stupid here. And very condescending. You demean your FC users like you’re trying to with me? And you try (not very soundly) to call me on ethics? And this ‘do no harm’ thing: FC has done a great deal of harm to the families of many who have used it. And you – very callously – cast it off as being propaganda, basically.

What do you think people are thinking of you just now?

I know what I think of you. I know what a good few others think of you.

“if you really want to contribute to a quality life for non verbals on the spectrum you might look at the innate ability to communicate”

And if you want to contribute to a serious discussion on this issue (rather than just carry on being an idiot – and a very repetitive one at that!), you might look at the actual science behind autism instead of the crap you have immersed yourself in.

“doubt Biklen financial worth approaches the ABAers who charge $40,000 plus per client annually…”

Think again. His department is the only one at Syracuse that wasn’t attacked under the penny-pinch they had there… it was sacrosanct when every other department was having to either make cuts or go completely.

His ‘conferences/training-events’ gross about 900,000 dollars a time. Losing one – just one – would lose him a lot of money. So don’t come here defending that fraudulent arse and calling the ABA lot on the 40,000 dollars per year! You need to learn some research skills, before you make yourself look an even bigger pillock than you’re looking already.

“in any event you are too cute (by 1/2)...sad you waste time on being cute vice improving the quality of life for your friends on the spectrum…”

Smarmy git. As for helping other autistics… yes, I’ve been instrumental in some interventions for them (and others) but we didn’t use a bogus idea like FC in any of it. We used a very scientific approach and that worked very very well. Deal with being wrong.

“your contempt and weal science foul mouth is misdirected as is much of your crap (scientific) language…it should be directed at the “weal” scientists who deny the choice of FC to those on the spectrum…who refuse to practice observable science and bring up study sample size (50 to 1500) then calls it irrelevant, when asked the size of test/studies weal scientist use to bad mouth FC…”

The contempt is well-deserved, I can guarantee that. And if you can’t handle scientific language – what the hell are you doing trying to even talk to scientists? How arrogant and stupid does one have to be to be you?

Sample sizes can vary. With an IQ test, the larger sample size is about getting more of a cross-section of society represented so that the results can be checked for any biases according to – e. g., socio-economic status. For a study on FC somewhere between 30 and 50 is a reasonable pilot study sample size… percentile scores can be worked out to a 2 %-points accuracy, and that is good for a pilot. For many validation studies it is also quite reasonable. You being the scientist that you seem to think you are … how the hell could you not know that? Maybe you know less than you think. And maybe you understand even less than that.

“Promotion first, science later, if ever.”
That is exactly what Biklen is saying and has been doing since the mid-late 80s.

“the all important (root) question is the intelligence of non verbals…their ability to communicate…their innate ability to communicate (w/o formal education)...thru whatever means…mid 60s talking typewriter, FC, RP, etc…”

Yes, and this is an appeal to vanity by proxy (i. e., attacking the parents by appealing to their vanity about their children). Not everybody can be in the middle of the bell curve let alone at the top end of it. Some are down there at the bottom of it. Sure, it is for psychologists to find ways to assess intellectual ability in people who have severe communication issues going on, and there have been major strides in that area (e. g., one of the tests I am in a position to use – the Test Of Non-verbal Intelligence, 3rd edition – is administered using pantomime in that sort of situation and, since it has two forms, two independent testers can administer it, and effectively obtain an estimate of inter-rater reeliability).

You’re talking about this whole thing of ‘promotion first and science later’ but that’s your whole defence against anything levelled at you by Jason or Dwight or James… or me. And you avoid the issue – as does just aobut every other proponent of FC - of proper validation of the technique, using all manner of logical fallacies to justify not engaging in the scientific validation process. Why? If FC is that good, why not submit it to proper scientific validation? What would there be to lose? Nothing. And there’d be everything to gain.

Which is why I’m seriously suspicious of anyone who tries to find ways to avoid their ‘product’ being validated by scientific evaluation. Including – and especially – you.

I have a feeling you have a lot to lose personally if FC doesn’t get validated by a scientific evaluation process. And I think it’s of a financial nature. You in Dougie Biklen’s amazing Ponzi scheme, then, eh?

“1. dip say: [quoting a PhD physicist] ‘Psychologists use statistical methods that require large samples to calculate standard deviations and error bars from sets of as few as ten subjects…’”

So what if the physicist has a PhD in physics. That is very highly irrelevant (unless it was in something extremely statistical and that dealt with behaviour of particles that act ‘lawfully’, but only on a statistical basis – as happens in statistical mechanics). Laws in StatMech are derived from statistical data in exactly the same way that laws regarding human behaviour are. How do I know? Because I have studied both disciplines and the methods of analysis employed in each. Incidentally, your PhD physicist might do well to examine the statistic used in psychological data analysis (psychological statistics): there are many tests involved in that type of statistics that do not exists in the statistical methods used in physics. Why? Because they have been developed to attempt to evaluate errors that might creep in because of the nature ot the subjects of study: human beings. So – basically – stuff what your PhD physicist says, unless that person has actually read and understood a psychological statistics manual… unless s/he has, s/he doesn’t have the first clue about the nature of the statistical analysis used in psychology.

You intent on making more of an arse of yourself?

Be my guest. But next time – try and come up with something new, rather than spewing out the usual ‘anti-science’, ‘anti-establishment’ bollocks that is all you seem to have the ability to do. You’re getting boring.
Arthur Golden
May 12th, 2010
04:43:57

comment # 239 (I think)

Laurentius Rex wrote in comment #7 on October 6th, 2009 15:09:48 [UK time]

“With regards to FC, there is no doubt that there is evidence of massive fraud (or delusion).
On the other hand there are examples of people who have gone on to type independently, however I have to say seeing the ‘magical’ explanations from some advocates of FC, (who certainly do the cause no good whatever by their rejection of science) they are way out there with the homeopaths and pixies.”

Now, over 7 months later, I wish to add the comment that I do not reject science and I believe that science is a useful tool that should always be taken into consideration, but major life decisions require going beyond science. I believe my long-held position on science more properly expresses the actual position of “some advocates of FC” including Stanley Seigler and Tom Smith.

Replying to a more recent comments of David Andrews, if he provides me verifiable information (with links on the internet) to his claim of $900,000 conferences by Professor Douglas Biklen, then I will take seriously his statement about Biklen’s business empire. However, on this issue I am confident that I have a grip on reality and I am concerned about the grip on reality of David Andrews. I am also willing to read the very best paper on FC by Gina Green mentioned by Jason S. and give it serious consideration, but I cannot find any reference to it on the internet so a link would be appreciated.

With that stated, I believe that blog entries such as LBRB are not the appropriate place for long-term serious discussions and I intend to continue any discussions about FC on my own yahoo!group “autismfc” with some messages also placed on alt.support.autism of usenet to assure a permanent record. I do wish to express my appreciation to Kev Leitch the original writer of this blog entry for providing a forum about FC that did generate much interesting information about the views of skeptics and others.

Currently, I am busy moving to a new apartment, but I have decided to start a new thread on “autismfc” yahoo!group, where I will discuss my actual recent cooperation with Professor James Todd on arranging good scientific research involving my own son Ben, with the subject and initial paragraph of:

facilitated communication and autistics – good scientific research

Whatever I may or may not have done in the past, I am now fully committed to good scientific research about facilitated communication (FC), especially for autistics including my own completely nonverbal son “Ben” (Benjamin Ethan) Golden, born January 30, 1972 in Boston, Massachusetts USA and living in Israel since August 16, 1994.

Arthur Golden
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 12th, 2010
06:25:52

“Replying to a more recent comments of David Andrews, if he provides me verifiable information (with links on the internet) to his claim of $900,000 conferences by Professor Douglas Biklen, then I will take seriously his statement about Biklen’s business empire.”

I’ll find you an actual text reference. I’m surprised you can’t see it yourself though. Mind you, if you keep deluding yourself that Biklen is a ‘saviour’ then – no surprise that you don’t see it!

“However, on this issue I am confident that I have a grip on reality and I am concerned about the grip on reality of David Andrews.”

I shouldn’t worry about that if I were you. I go where the science goes on this. And I know where the science goes on this. Because I have read the science… a great many papers (my ex-wife and I are working on a book about this very topic). And – yes – we were both trained in rigorous scientific method… and we both see nothing of scientific method in the way that the proponents of FC are going about promoting it. She was researching a topic in genetic engineering when we first met, and I was researching a social psychological aspect of being Asperger-autistic (having previously been a research technician in a medical physics department).

When you see a pattern in the research where less control in the study is paired up with a greater validity coefficient (and where greater control in a study is paired with a lower validity coefficient … you can tell straight up that there is no science validating the efficacy (or even utility) of FC… and that establishes the reality of what’s happening in FC. Like I say, you needn’t worry about my grip on reality. You need to worry about yours.
Sullivan
May 12th, 2010
06:40:05

I’ll point out that I think there hasn’t been much new information transmitted in the comments for a while. Is this discussion valuable?
stanley seigler
May 12th, 2010
12:10:54

Sullivan say re:

re: I’ll point out that I think there hasn’t been much new information

new information, bilken’s $900,000 conferences…cant wait to see proof…also looking forward to link to green’s great paper…and

insights into the mentality of great scientific minds like andrews are invaluable…cant wait to read his and xwife’s book…hehaaaa…keep digging andrews…

stanley seigler
stanley seigler
May 12th, 2010
13:15:29

David N. Andrews M. Ed., C.P.S.E. say re:

re: For a study on FC somewhere between 30 and 50 is a reasonable pilot study sample size

thanks for the info…and to the original Q…what is the sample size of test/studies you and toad-etals use to put down FC…

re: The contempt is well-deserved, I can guarantee [really] that. And if you can’t handle scientific language [such as shitting jesus] – what the hell are you doing trying to even talk to scientists

didn’t know i was trying to talk to a shitting jesus, weal, scientist…

real scientist say you are full of it…keep digging cute kid …what does any of your “scientific” name calling and put down of a dip (never a scientist) have to do with science…see nothing of real or weal science in your too cute bs (rave on oh brilliant one, dig yo hole)

re: What do yo His [bilken] department is the only one at Syracuse that wasn’t attacked under the penny-pinch they had there… it was sacrosanct when every other department was having to either make u think people are thinking of you just now…

say what (Smarmy git)...is CRAP putting SU in the same category as his dip put downs…thanks for the company…seems SU saw the importance of bilken’s work…sadly CPSE and toad-etals do not…keep digging cute kid…

think mentioned, i could give a scientific crap less what people (especially CPSE) think of me…”To be a person of truth, be swayed neither by approval nor disapproval. Work at not needing approval from anyone and you will be free to be who you really are” (Rebbe Nachman)...seems CRAP needs others…but back to specifics:

re: His ‘conferences/training-events’ gross about 900,000 dollars a time…

the source of your data is and bilken received how much of this…seems like another wild-a, weal, scientist comment…

re: As for helping other autistics… yes, I’ve been instrumental in some interventions for them (and others)

name/describe one…may want to use it…i have observed my daughter’s peers (30 some) behaviors issues reduced as a result of FC….

re: I’m seriously suspicious of anyone who tries to find ways to avoid their ‘product’ being validated by scientific evaluation. Including – and especially – you.

as well yo should be …take a validation look at ABA scientific programs…oh/and, do you know anyone who uses FC

too much cute-kid ,scientific, bs to respond to now …CPSE do go on and on and on and on…maybe mo later…tho, nice/refreshing to see lack of his foul mouth in recent post…perhaps CPSE is learning…but will miss his 7th grade, scientific, shittin jesus, mouth…

stanley seigler

ps. pls correct CSPS in any/all my post to read CPSE (whatever that is)...
stanley seigler
May 13th, 2010
03:34:01

[CPSE say] FC has done a great deal of harm

CPSE knows this how…personal experience, scientific papers…whatever.

been around FC users since 1992…seen it work and not work…have never heard any special needs person or family say they were harmed by FC…with major exception of false rape/abuse charges…see rape charge comments on this blog…(eg, tom smith, 7 may; jason s 6 may and 5 may)...

what’s the harm CPSE has seen…something like the harm done by arch behaviorist, JRC’s Israel…

from observation and conversations the following three examples sum what i’ve seen/heard:

1) Best of all, FC has gotten more interest in things like language devices and computer use – and that’s great!” [PhD psychologist, not sure of FC]

2) I can only re-iterate the points I have raised. I have never suffered at the hands of typing or fc but I certainly suffered at the hands of behavior modification and segregation. [richard FC user]

3) “voices I [believe kevleith] trust implicitly within the neurodiversity movement speak out in favour of FC. Amanda Baggs, Kathleen Seidel”...and there are others…

If CPSE really wanted to protect his friends on the spectrum his time better spent crusading against the JRCs of the world…vice questionable scientific (see dawson re science) put downs of FC…denying those on the spectrum the right to communicate by whatever means they choose…

ask/not answered: why not follow ASHS guidelines and let an interdisciplinary team determine needs and appropriate programs…stop all the scientific crap…sounds more logical than anything I’ve heard on LBRB and elsewhere by the ABA promotional “scientists”...

BTW it’s not personal…CSPE, todd, are just the poster boys for those who scientificly deny many on the spectrum choice…tho, todd is on a higher promotional science level than foul mouth…but put more faith in foul mouth than todd…foul mouth has been there, done that…

maybe both are nice people…and it would blow their minds to talk/FC with sue rubin…

in the mean time…keep digging CSPE…

stanley seigler
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 13th, 2010
09:11:14

“stop all the scientific crap”

Says it all, really. Seigler is anti-science.

“CSPE, todd, are just the poster boys for those who scientificly deny many on the spectrum choice”

Wrong entirely. What we want is scientifically validated options for those on the spectrum. Evidently you don’t, given your ‘stop the scientific crap’ call.

What a ridiculous pair of statements you’ve made. I don’t need to dig anything, by the way. Everything you regurgitate on here give plenty rich pickings.

I’ve explained my reasons for choosing to require scientific validation over anecdotal recommendation, and I’ve backed it up with an example from professional practice dating back to when I was a research technician in medical physics, working under the supervision of a PhD physicist (whose job was to ensure scientific integrity).

I’m very certain of one thing, as a result of my training – in both psychology and physics (and, actually, in archaeology as well) – that those who do not want the involvement of anything scientific to provide an accurate evaluation of their pet ‘idea’ are the ones who are most aware of the problems associated with their ‘idea’ and have reason to fear that these problems will ensure that their ‘idea’ will not be validated by the science: they already know this and they don’t want it to be brought out.

The point of the science is to systematically evaluate any mode of support or intervention put forward to see if the evaluation will provide evidence to support claims made regarding efficacy and utility: basically, trying to answer two questions – ‘does it work?’ and ‘is it useful?’. If it fails to answer the first question, it cannot possibly answer the second one.

So, in response to the likes of Arthur Golden and Stanley Seigler, I make no apologies for insisting on science as the way to answer those questions. If we didn’t insist on science asking those questions of all pharmaco-therapeutic interventions (including the humble pain-killer), we would end up with a flooded market in which we would be purchasing untested medications, whose efficacies were(at best) questionable and whose utilities really could not be guaranteed to any significant degree.

I am very certain that Arthur and Stanley would be appalled if such a medication came out… as well they (and we) should be. So, what I find incomprehensible to the point of being practically stupid is the stance that Stanley so clearly takes on the FC question; namely that of ‘stop the scientific crap’.

If a method is sound, the evidence from scientific evaluation will come forward to support it. So, without that evidence, anyone saying that something will work and is useful is making a claim that is (at best) untested and (at worst) absolutely false. Pity that Arthur and Stanley and others like them do not wish to give people the chance to know this about FC, since the denial to people of that knowledge effectively denies the same people the right to an informed choice in the matter of whether to use FC.

And there is nothing that either Arthur or Stanley (nor, for that matter, their beloved Dougie Biklen!) can say that is going to shift me from being committed to evidence-based practice.
Clay
May 13th, 2010
20:28:49

Aww, David, you left out the renowned FC expert and street panhandler, Tom Smith!
Tom Smith
May 13th, 2010
21:19:19

You’re so compassionate Clay. It’s fun to kick people when they are down eh? Especially if they disagree with you politically. I’m being facetious of course. You’re a sick boy. Get help.

Dave, like patriotism is often the refuge of scoundrels, proclaiming “evidence based interventions” in autism is such too. I don’t mean to say we don’t need evidence to inform our decisions, we certainly do, but to evoke that as the only solution is to be clueless about the vagaries of our evidence based interventions.

I’m not here to put down science, I used it all the time in my work and it’s why I’m here supporting FC. While the evidence may suggest that FC is unconsciously coming from the facilitator, there are other explanations for what is happening. The fact remains that both parties, the facilitator and communicator, are motivated by this communication and it at least mimics, or has the same components, as the best of communication. This is powerful therapy because it normalizes human relations. That can be proved. As for what is really happening in FC I think we can use the communication carefully and study it. This is not a reason to ban the method and none of the professional orgs suggest that but recommend it be used carefully.
Clay
May 13th, 2010
21:42:44

Tom whined:

“You’re so compassionate Clay. It’s fun to kick people when they are down, eh? Especially if they disagree with you politically.”

I can be compassionate, but when it comes to you, I remember what you did to Juli. So how long you been down, 7 years, isn’t it? I guess that’s what happens when your karma runs over your dogma. You can call your women-hating a political thing, but I think your problem is just psychological. You probably love dogs and hate cats, because cats “don’t know their place”, and won’t come when you call them. Similarly, you want women to be obedient, like dogs.
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 14th, 2010
00:49:11

“Dave, like patriotism is often the refuge of scoundrels, proclaiming “evidence based interventions” in autism is such too. I don’t mean to say we don’t need evidence to inform our decisions, we certainly do, but to evoke that as the only solution is to be clueless about the vagaries of our evidence based interventions.”

Tom, from what I have seen here, you already know that this is how we progress. What sifted the wheat from the chaff in herbal medicine was what became the science of pharmacology: an evidence-based practice. So don’t try to fucking bollocks me about there being any other solution to this issue of ‘how do we get to know if FC works or not?’, because there isn’t another way. Systematic evaluation is what brings that evidence. So, stop bollocksing me, and stop bollocksing yourself. End of story. Deal with it.

“Aww, David, you left out the renowned FC expert and street panhandler, Tom Smith!”

Clay… can you see why now?

“I’m not here to put down science, I used it all the time in my work and it’s why I’m here supporting FC. While the evidence may suggest that FC is unconsciously coming from the facilitator, there are other explanations for what is happening.”

Okay Tom … so tell them – if they actually exist as proper explanations. If they don’t exist as properly researched explanations… do the research and come back and tell them. Or shut the fuck up. Bring up the evidence – because that is what it would be, if it passes muster in terms of quality – and even then – that suggests that, like it or not, you have to provide evidence that something works (and how it works).

“This is powerful therapy because it normalizes human relations. That can be proved.”

Actually – this has not properly been ‘proven’.

Try again. Come back with evidence. Or shut up.
stanley seigler
May 14th, 2010
04:34:34

clay say: I remember what you [tom s] did to Juli. So how long you been down, 7 years

and this has to do with FC…HOW

stanley seigler
a sailor who has been to sea…
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 14th, 2010
07:30:14

Tom: “This is not a reason to ban the method and none of the professional orgs suggest that but recommend it be used carefully.”

American Psychological Association: “Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that facilitated communication is not a scientifically valid technique for individuals with autism or mental retardation. In particular, information obtained via facilitated communication should not be used to confirm or deny allegations of abuse or to make diagnostic or treatment decisions.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that APA adopts the position that facilitated communication is a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy.” (my italics)

Looks pretty much like a ban to me, Tom. Given that these are the usual purposes for a psychologist to be involved in a case… telling psychologists not to use information produced by FC in those instances where a psychologist is likely to be involved is pretty much a ban.
Arthur Golden
May 14th, 2010
08:53:25

I am just checking to see if I (and apparently only I) am still on moderation or if I can now exercise a timely right of reply (although it may not be exercised for a number of hours).

Edit – it appears I am no longer on moderation. Thank you very much.

Arthur Golden
Arthur Golden
May 14th, 2010
16:18:56

comment #253

Real sniping can have rather negative permanent consequences, but fortunately there is only verbal sniping going on here. I am willing to assume that everyone involved here is righteous and genuinely concerned about helping others, expecially nonverbal autistics. Unfortunately, there seem to be some very serious communication problems going on here and I do not mean through Facilitated Communication.

Rather than try to engage in any further mutual sniping, I think it would be more productive for me to repeat some positive statements (with any negative phrases retracted) that I have made before in a couple of the comments on this blog. I hope that these positive statements will be understood by others and will lead to all righteous people working together to help others, especially nonverbal autistics. At this point I will provide one live link to the public open archives of my autismfc yahoo!group and thereafter I will refer to message numbers, which can found by going to this webpage:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com.....c/messages

On May 12, 2010, I posted 6 messages to autismfc, message #2009-2014, which contained most of my recent comments to this blog entry from May 4-12, 2010 – comments #199, 208, 210, 218, 228 and 239.

comment #228 of May 7, 2010 (delayed in posting because of moderation, also autismfc message #2013) includes:

...I am willing to … try to work with any Behaviorist who is willing to put in the hard work to do good scientific research, whether it is Professor James Todd, Jason S. or David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. or others. I prefer to be open about such scientific research and we can discuss it here in public on this blog…. I commit to keeping strictly confidential any emails I receive from any other Behaviorists in reply to this offer. Emails can to sent to me at golden.arthur at gmail.com

comment #239, autismfc message #2014 includes:

I do not reject science and I believe that science is a useful tool that should always be taken into consideration, but major life decisions require going beyond science. I believe my long-held position on science more properly expresses the actual position of “some advocates of FC” including Stanley Seigler and Tom Smith.

Replying to a more recent comments of David Andrews, if he provides me verifiable information (with links on the internet) to his claim of $900,000 conferences by Professor Douglas Biklen, then I will take seriously his statement about Biklen’s [huge] business empire…. I am also willing to read the very best paper on FC by Gina Green mentioned by Jason S. and give it serious consideration, but I cannot find any reference to it on the internet so a link would be appreciated.

With that stated, I believe that blog entries such as LBRB are not the appropriate place for long-term serious discussions and I intend to continue any discussions about FC on my own yahoo!group “autismfc” with some messages also placed on alt.support.autism of usenet to assure a permanent record. I do wish to express my appreciation to Kev Leitch the original writer of this blog entry for providing a forum about FC that did generate much interesting information about the views of skeptics and others.

Currently, I am busy moving to a new apartment, but I have decided to start a new thread on “autismfc” yahoo!group, where I will discuss my actual recent cooperation with Professor James Todd on arranging good scientific research involving my own son Ben, with the subject and initial paragraph of:

facilitated communication and autistics – good scientific research

Whatever I may or may not have done in the past, I am now fully committed to good scientific research about facilitated communication (FC), especially for autistics including my own completely nonverbal son “Ben” (Benjamin Ethan) Golden, born January 30, 1972 in Boston, Massachusetts USA and living in Israel since August 16, 1994.

Arthur Golden

Edit – p.s. I see that this comment is back on moderation but I pray that it will be quickly approved for the sake of helping others, especially nonverbal autistics such as my own son Ben.
stanley seigler
May 14th, 2010
19:29:12

[CSPE say] Says it all, really. Seigler is anti-science [...] I don’t need to dig anything

it really do! sad one has to explain to weal scientists how it… Says it all: Seigler is anti-science-CRAP…the kind of hypocritical, promotional, science-CRAP demonstrated here by one poster boy…

if poster boys were real v weal scientist they would see (but none so blind as those who will not see), neither ABA nor FC are real science (maybe art, FC a van gogh). they would attack ABA and FC as does ms. dawson: “Promotion [crap science] first, science later, if ever.”

“I [CSPE] don’t need to dig anything”...but yet you keep digging the hole you’re in…not very scientific.

Actually as mentioned all the crapola could end if ABAers would just cease their, motived by greed and fear, FC snake oil, crusade and agree to ASHA guidelines…let an interdisciplinary team determine needs and appropriate programs/support…

so unnecessary crusade does indeed sentence many on the spectrum to BB’s empty (silent) fortress…shame, shame, shame…

sadsadsad, real scientist didn’t follow up on the goodwins talking typewriter (no facilitator, same hard copy as FC) of the mid 60s…and now they want to criminally continue the imprisonment by denying FC can surface an innate ability, to communicate w/o a formal education, some/many (most/all) have…

stanley seigler`
stanley seigler
May 14th, 2010
21:13:29

[CSPE say] the science of pharmacology: an evidence-based practice. So don’t try to fucking bollocks me [my way the only way Andrews] there isn’t another way.

THANKS. Great analogy…BIGpharma is to ABAers: as BIGpharma’s mad ave promotions are to ABAers’ anti-FC and crap-science promotions…keep digging and you will be able to justify science proving nicotine not addictive.

of course ABA not hard sience(more art) and BPharma is

[CSPE say] Actually – this has not properly been ‘proven’...

guess CSPE talking about all ABA pseudo-science as ms dawson argues convincingly…

fyi:
during 2004, which shows the U.S. pharmaceutical industry spent 24.4% of the sales dollar on promotion, versus 13.4% for research and development, as a percentage of US domestic sales of US$235.4 billion…The study is important because it provides the most accurate image yet of the promotional workings of the pharmaceutical industry, says

stanley seigler
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 14th, 2010
21:29:20

Stanley…

You’re getting incomprehensible. All you’re doing is regurgitating stuff
without actually backing it up.

“...but yet you keep digging the hole you’re in…not very scientific.”

I’m not digging any holes. I’m just watching you regurgitate absolute twaddle…

“if poster boys were real v weal scientist they would see (but none so blind as those who will not see), neither ABA nor FC are real science (maybe art, FC a van gogh). they would attack ABA and FC as does ms. dawson: ‘Promotion [crap science] first, science later, if ever.’”

As an example – the above. What on earth are you talking about? You really are making no sense.

ABA is in fact a very scientific way to understand the environmental contingencies that give rise to and then maintain behaviour patterns. There is – sadly for you – no question about that. FC, on the other hand – and (again) sadly for you – has never done well in any scientific attempt to validate it. This is also not under question.

“Actually as mentioned all the crapola could end if ABAers would just cease their, motived by greed and fear, FC snake oil, crusade and agree to ASHA guidelines…let an interdisciplinary team determine needs and appropriate programs/support…”

Hmmm… where to start debunking this

Have you actually read the ASHA guidelines? Because, if you have, you will notice that there is a very strong insistence on proper scientific method. AS is made clear in the first paragraph:

“The discipline of communication sciences and disorders (CSD) is committed to advancing knowledge through basic, translational, and applied research regarding (a) normal speech, language, hearing, and swallowing; (b) the nature, prevention, and amelioration of communication and swallowing disorders; and© intervention strategies and the effectiveness, efficiency, and outcomes of clinical treatment. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) believes that advancements in basic knowledge and clinical practice emerge from the diligent application of sound research methodologies and the peer-reviewed, published dissemination of findings. Throughout its history, ASHA has relied on scientific research and scholarly publication to advance knowledge in critical areas related to the discipline and the professions.”

You may wish to observe the emboldened text where we see mentioned explicitly “the diligent application of sound research methodologies and the peer-reviewed public dissemination of findings”. Further into the introduction to said guidelines, we find the following:

“ASHA is mindful of the position taken by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1975, noting that ‘one of the basic responsibilities of scientists is to maintain the quality and integrity of the work of the scientific community’. Federal guidelines define scientific misconduct as ‘fabrication, falsification or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results’. Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion”. Others have added the general notion of questionable research practices to the discussion.”

Their commitment to a scientific basis for evaluating any treatment measures to be used by professionals – in their case this means speech therapists (but this can be generalised to include all professionals with whom a client will end up being involved) – is very clear, in that they base their own guidelines on the philosophy of the AAAS … which is that treatments must be subjected to scientific scrutiny in order to determine whether the evidence to support them is sufficient and of high enough quality.

Of particular interest here is the section on data management:

“Prior to data collection, the following topics should be included in discussions among co-investigators to ensure that paper and electronic data are private, secure, accurately recorded, and trustworthy:

1. Experimental protocols;
2. Methods of recording and coding data that maintain the confidentiality of participants’ identity;
3. Methods for securing data, including secure electronic access and storage;
4. Format of laboratory notebooks;
5. Methods for copying, backing up, and cross-checking data;
6. Methods for recording data so that the research record can be readily understood.”

You’ll notice that this is very much oriented towards a scientific way of investigating treatments and the things for which treatments are likely to be required/requested. The emboldened words give this away.

So you might now see why I get offended when you are constantly coming here and spouting utter nonsense (e. g., “and now they want to criminally continue the imprisonment by denying FC can surface an innate ability, to communicate w/o a formal education, some/many (most/all) have…”), which is nothing but an emotionally-driven diatribe intended to depict the scientists as being nasty characters, denying opportunities for people.

The truth is, however, that those who refuse to allow their method of choice to be subjected to a proper scientific investigation are the ones who do this… and that includes you.

You might also wish to use grown-up language. You’re behaving like an idiot. Am I to infer from this behaviour that you are one?
stanley seigler
May 14th, 2010
23:17:42

hehaaa…CSPE rave on (scientificly of course)...you say re:

re: I’m not digging any holes. I’m just watching you regurgitate absolute twaddle…

sad when you dont even know you are in a hole…you believe (how wrong can a scientist be) you just regurtate…actually you respond with shovel from yo deep hole…

you respond with the crap science shovel of greed/fear that FC will invalidate the pavlov dog treatment of many on the spectrum…

re: ABA is in fact a very scientific

really…ms dawson and many i have talked with over 30 some years dont agree…pls go to ms dawsons blog (she’s much better at your crap science than i)... “Promotion [crap science] first, science later, if ever”...(a summary)

re: Have you actually read the ASHA guidelines?

oh yeah…and agree w/ much, especially where it recommends an interdisciplinary team (IDT) determine needs/support…

a hands on IDT (vice general, questionable ABA/FC science) is the best judge of programs for an indiviual…CA,USA has legislation (Lanterman Act) to require IDT determine needs and programs

...the hands on IDT (despite short coming) beats poster boys determining programs (8 days a week) for my daughter (IDT approved FC)...

re: So you might now see why I get offended when you are constantly coming here and spouting utter nonsense

i dont…sadsad you are offended when one want to ensure the non verbal on the spectrum have the opportunity to express their feeling by what ever means they choose…

you really just dont get it (compassion)...pity pity pity…glad you’re in Finland not CA,USA…you sound like the PhD psychologist who spent 45 mins with my daughter and said she wasn’t autistic (in face of 30 years dx she is)...

dont want those like you in an ocean width of my daughter…based on your my or the hiway mind set…you have nothing to offer

re: “ASHA is mindful of the position taken by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 1975, noting that ‘one of the basic responsibilities of scientists is to maintain the quality and integrity of the work of the scientific community’.

sad ABAers have given up integrity for promotional science…and sheep like you just go baaaa FC…

re: You might also wish to use grown-up language. You’re behaving like an idiot.

grown-up language like shitten hayzus and name calling…keep on digging yo hole…you gonna prove FC works…

stanley seigler
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 15th, 2010
07:29:19

Stanley, remember how I told you about a client of ours at the hospital when I was in medical physics? The one who’d had much of his cerebral cortex removed because a disease turned it to mush?

I’m just wondering… how much of my brain would we need to remove for me to become as stupid as you? That’s a serious question.

“sad when you dont even know you are in a hole…you believe (how wrong can a scientist be) you just regurtate…actually you respond with shovel from yo deep hole…”

Prove that I’m just digging myself into a hole! Your assertion… you prove it. The other readers here can be the ‘peer review panel’. See what they say.

“you respond with the crap science shovel of greed/fear that FC will invalidate the pavlov dog treatment of many on the spectrum…”

What? Who’s on about treating people like Pavlov treated his dogs? And why should I take lessons on psychology from a person who obviously doesn’t know his back-side from his elbow on anything to do with psychology?

“ms dawson and many i have talked with over 30 some years dont agree…pls go to ms dawsons blog (she’s much better at your crap science than i)... “Promotion [crap science] first, science later, if ever”...(a summary)”

Regurgitation.

“.the hands on IDT (despite short coming) beats poster boys determining programs (8 days a week) for my daughter (IDT approved FC)...”

Doesn’t mean the IDT involved were right!

“i dont…sadsad you are offended when one want to ensure the non verbal on the spectrum have the opportunity to express their feeling by what ever means they choose…”

Who said that I don’t want the non-orative on the spectrum to have a chance to communicate? At no point in this exchange have I said that. That has been your misinformed assumption based on the fact that you lack the basic understanding of … well, English! I’m assuming that your first language is English, and I’ve seen your missives to other places (various net-editions of news-papers). I’m satisfied that you be able to understand the language.

“dont want those like you in an ocean width of my daughter…based on your my or the hiway mind set…you have nothing to offer”

What do you mean ‘my way or highway? You think I made this up? I’ve given you evidence that says clearly that the ASHA guidelines insist on the use of scientific method and you still have a go at me? At this point, I do have to wonder if you have any connection left to reality. I’m not the one making the rules up. As for nothing to offer… yes, you’re right… I’m not qualified to offer much to someone who needs a speech therapist more than they need a psychologist, because I’m a psychologist (not a speech therapist). Having said that, we were trained to assess communication using an ethnographic method, which involves observing people in communication settings (basically… anywhere that was relevant), keep an observation schedule and look for patterns, and then check those patterns with people who knew the person whose communication we were assessing. Using this data, and repeated observation-recording-analysis cycles, we would then build up a grounded theory about that person’s communication in terms of difficulties and strengths. We learned how to control these assessments to minimise the effects of any confounding variables and how to account for them in the write-up. Clinical psychologists are rarely taught this. Those of use who train to work in educational settings are.

The main reason I’ve nothing to offer you, though, is not that I live here and you live there. It’s because you’re basically ignorant. And that has no cure.

“sad ABAers have given up integrity for promotional science…and sheep like you just go baaaa FC…”

Actually, most people working in that field are passionate about getting the science right. As for me being a sheep… think again. Looks to me like you are the sheep… blindly following the FC pack without really understanding what is really going on.

“keep on digging yo hole…you gonna prove FC works…”

You think? We don’t know that FC works without a scientific investigation (which your beloved ASHA guidelines also insist on!). And you and the rest of your crowd don’t want the scientific evaluation. I have to ask myself why.

For the benefit of anyone reading this, my thoughts on FC are as follows:

1- FC has no strong basis in what we already know about autism… that is, it does not follow from the currently available theory, as it has been verified scientifically;

2- FC has some major problems regarding the issue of authorship which, in some cases, have lead to families being wrongly divided because of unwarranted interventions from outside authorities based on information gained from the use of FC with children… the issue of authorship is, therefore, one of great importance, and the testing done to date strongly suggests that too much information produced by FC is facilitator-originated;

3- The studies that have been conducted into the ‘validity of FC’ (that is, the inference that the information produced using FC is client-originated) show two co-occurring trends-—a) as validity estimates increase, there is a decrease in the implementation of control for confounds;—b) as implementation of control for confounds increases, validity estimates decrease correspondingly;
... and this evidence (documented in published papers in scientific journals, as is required by ASHA guidelines) currently casts serious doubt on the efficacy and utility of FC as a means of supporting communication;

4- On the issue of whether FC will die out or not, I cannot say anything… what I can is that, without evidence of efficacy and utility based on a thorough scientific investigation of the method, it ought to.

5- The above does not mean that I (or anyone who insists on scientific evaluation of the method before it becomes an accepted support method) want non-orative people (autistic or otherwise) to have no means of communication… on the contrary, it means that we do want this, but we are not satisfied with the results of FC because the scientific evidence to support its use does not exist… the burden of proof is not on us to prove that FC doesn’t work – it is on the proponents of FC to provide the evidence, and (as yet) they have not done this.

6- I agree with the APA, ASHA, AACAP and other organisations who state the following as part of their official policy on the use of FC-—“Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that facilitated communication is not a scientifically valid technique for individuals with autism or mental retardation. In particular, information obtained via facilitated communication should not be used to confirm or deny allegations of abuse or to make diagnostic or treatment decisions... (the) APA adopts the position that facilitated communication is a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy” (APA, 1994);—“When information available to facilitators is controlled and objective evaluation methods are used, peer-reviewed studies and clinical assessments find no conclusive evidence that facilitated messages can be reliably attributed to people with disabilities. Rather, most messages originate with the facilitator… (it) is the position of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) that the scientific validity and reliability of facilitated communication have not been demonstrated to date. Information obtained through or based on facilitated communication should not form the sole basis for making any diagnostic or treatment decisions” (ASHA, 1994);—“Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that FC is not a scientifically valid technique for individuals with autism or mental retardation. In particular, information obtained via (FC) should not be used to confirm or deny allegations of abuse or to make diagnostic or treatment decisions” (AACAP, 1993 – reviewed 2008 and endorsed by AAP);

If anyone doesn’t like my stance on this issue, then that’s their own problem. I refuse to be brow-beaten by emotionally-twisted people who have invested too much emotion (and too little thought) in a method that has no sound scientific basis to support its use. If such people don’t like the truth (which is that FC has not been demonstrated to work or have any usefulness in clinical/educational practice), then stop railing at me and people who want to see all methods go through some rigorous evaluation before being put into use as parts of support packages for any disabled person (autistic or otherwise)... go to your own lot and tell them to do the science, properly!
stanley seigler
May 15th, 2010
12:37:59

[stanley say] sad when you dont even know you are in a hole…you believe (how wrong can a scientist be) you just regurtate…actually you respond with shovel from yo deep hole…

[CSPE say] Prove that I’m just digging myself into a hole! Your assertion…you prove it. The other readers here can be the ‘peer review panel’. See what they say.

Sadsadsad, pitypitypity…you prove it for me with your rants…your foul mouth (grown up language); name calling; my way or the hiway; pseudo science…refusal to believe observational science (seeing is believing science)...

your hypocritical, promotional, ABA science is no better than FC science…see ms dawson’s blog…you need more than saying “regurgitation” to refute ms dawsons claims re your ABA science…have your peer group review ms dawson claims re yo science.

[cpse say] Doesn’t mean the IDT involved were right!

Guess everyone’s wrong except the hole digger. A happy camper, reduced behavior issues is the proof IDT was right..seeing ius believing…observational science.

[cspe say] Who said that I don’t want the non-orative on the spectrum to have a chance to communicate? At no point in this exchange have I said that. That has been your misinformed assumption based on the fact that you lack the basic understanding of … well, English!

“well english”...ohmy sigh, you are a cute hole digger…your actions speak louder than words…and the results are the same: YOU DENY because some young parents (as i thought BB did) think you (with your med, cspe whatever that is) know what you are talking about.

criminal you don’t understand the immoral consequences of your foul mouth science…

oh/btw, you know how many people who use FC…

keep digging, poster boy…hopefully you will convince young parents you are clueless…

stanley seigler
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 15th, 2010
18:01:30

Stanley…

Get help.

That’s almost all I have to say to you now. You can’t come up with anything to counter properly what I say about the science because there is nothing. I’ve told you and the world where I stand on the FC issue. I’ve told you it’s not my rules but you can’t seem to comprehend that. I really am wondering what is wrong with you that you can’t get this into your head: I didn’t make up the rules of science so – if you’re wanting to blame someone – you’re blaming the wrong guy here. So your attacking me personally because of the way science is done is absolutely not acceptable, and nor is it with regard to Jason S., Dwight F., or James Todd. And that is something you came onto this board already doing… long before I got involved here.

As for clueless, think again: like I say, I’m involved in the writing of a book about FC and how to assess its viability and its authenticity. You couldn’t do that… you know far less that you think. I have been following the development of FC for years, and noted its several failings under scientific scrutiny. I am also aware that people like Richard exist, and – whilst I have no evidence at hand to support his claims – his story at least is consistent with something assisting his development of skills that he can use in communication. Without wanting to rubbish his comments here, or to insult him, I would accept what he says under certain conditions (ones that are dependent on a scientific scrutiny of his situation)... and I would go as far as saying that he’s the very kind of person who would provide a reason to rigorously investigate this FC thing.

““well english”...ohmy sigh, you are a cute hole digger…your actions speak louder than words…and the results are the same: YOU DENY because some young parents (as i thought BB did) think you (with your med, cspe whatever that is) know what you are talking about.

criminal you don’t understand the immoral consequences of your foul mouth science…”

Now I know you’re talking insane jibberish… not a single thing in what you said bears any relevance to what I said. I present a cogent argument for my position and all you can do is resort to insult… which is what you’ve been doing all the time you’ve been in this board. Take this as an example:

“todd-etals do a criminal disservice, injustice, to non verbals (and others) on the spectrum…they deny ‘seeing is believing’ science…they deny our children and friends their human/civil rights…they condemn children to Bettelheim’s Empty Fortress…

why deny anecdotal evidence that has been around since at least the mid 60s…when the potential is freedom for so many…to protect their livelihood maybe…”

The bit I emboldened was totally uncalled for. You started the name calling. As for the ‘seeing is believing’ science… that is not science: it is easy to get so bound up in some observation that, in one’s own mind, one expects an outcome, and sure enough, one gets it. Proper science protects against this thing (it has a name: experimenter/observation/ bias).

Incidentally… FW2, someone with whom I have some serious disagreement almost all of the time, is rather sceptical about FC (at least, when it comes to these sudden leaps of output under facilitation!) ... I gather she is an engineer, so she has quite a lot of understanding of science, and would know when to get suspicious of a method being touted the way that FC is.

We (JT, DF JS and I) have presented issues related to science for you. We have answered questions relating to the science. All you have done is name-calling (pseudos-cientists).. yet you don’t like it when you get called something not nice. Hypocrite.

You never have anything new to say. Why not shut up, and give us all a break from this endless stuck-record-thing you have going? Of course… you’re not capable of that, are you? I’d bet good odds you can’t keep from retaliating in such a vacuous manner again.
Arthur Golden
May 16th, 2010
09:18:29

In light of what David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. recently wrote about Science and what I recently repeated about Science, I wish to note that he has not yet contacted me by email at golden.arthur at gmail.com to take up my offer:

“I am willing to … try to work with any Behaviorist who is willing to put in the hard work to do good scientific research, whether it is Professor James Todd, Jason S. or David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. or others.”

Professor James Todd already replied positively to me on April 11, 2010 (as documented in autismfc message #2018) and I look forward to a positive reply very soon from David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. and others.

Meanwhile, I intend to post any further substantive messages on the subject of “facilitated communication and autistics – good scientitifc research” only on on my autismfc yahoo!group.

Arthur Golden

p.s. posted without moderation. Thank you very much.
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 16th, 2010
10:27:30

So, Arthur… you want Professor Todd and/or me to do some actual research work… are we getting paid for our time?

Because if we’re not, you’re expecting too much from us. We each have our various duties and responsibilities. We don’t exist to be unpaid consultants: Professor Todd has his responsibilities at the Eastern University of Michigan (where he works), and I have mine in trying to write a book on the topic of FC and investigative methods (in a country where the recession still bites and the government still sends over €1,500M out of the country just to make Finland look good, and where we consequently haven’t got enough money in the system to make the system work!)... I also have to try and find a way of earning a living! You want my expertise, you have to pay for it… I’m not a charity. Neither is Professor Todd. I suspect that Dwight F. and Jason S. aren’t either.

The amount of work required to investigate FC properly – both qualitatively and quantitatively – is huge. it is a very labour-intensive task, not least because it is likely to require much work in the planning stages to develop a protocol that not only looks at general ‘laws’ (the quantitative measures) but also at the individual aspects of what is happening, how it is happening, and why it is happening (the qualitative measures).

This would be a seriously huge undertaking if it were to be done properly… and that means that, even with 30 to 50 participants (the minimum needed to get reasonable statistics to analyse meaningfully), it would take a long time to conduct.

That sort of thing isn’t going to come for free.

If you really are interested in having it done, you should apply (with your nearest university departments of psychology and education) for a grant. The Hebrew University’s Mount Scopus campus houses the Faculty of Social Sciences, which is where the psychology department is found. The School of Education seems to be extra-faculty, but it does have links with the psychology department in one of its research activities: educational and clinical child psychology. Professor Asher Cohen is your main contact in the Department of Psychology and, in the School of Education, you need to be talking to Professor Philip Wexler. I know nothing about grant-awarding bodies in Israel but I am sure that these two professors will.
Arthur Golden
May 16th, 2010
10:55:41

If I am provided an email address, which I will keep confidential, I will see what I can do about funding.

Art
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 16th, 2010
12:04:53

Much of the site for the University is in Hebrew. You’d have more chance with it than I do. Google “hebrew university of jerusalem” you’ll find the site address there.
stanley seigler
May 17th, 2010
18:04:35

your straight lines from the hole are invaluable…if there was ever any doubt ms dawson was right about your (ABA)science:...you removed it in spades (as in cards and shovels) ...you are on the wrong side of history…with BB, the lobotomists, and flat earthers…

[cspe say] As for the ‘seeing is believing’ science… that is not science: it is easy to get so bound up in some observation that, in one’s own mind, one expects an outcome, and sure enough, one gets it. Proper science protects against this thing (it has a name: experimenter/observation/ bias).

“that (seeing) is not science” ... so all those who have seen: “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials”...are delusional…it all in one’s mind…those (toad-etals) who deny FC also deny observable science…none so blind…keep digging.

real scientists and many ABAers accept ms dawson’s view of ABA and FC as promotional science…ie, it is NOT science

compassionate ABAers accept FC as a form of ACC…DDS, CA USA (the dept of developmental services) accepts FC when the choice of an IDT (interdisciplinary team)...whittier school district accepts FC as an ACC…

even todd acknowledges “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials”... (see previous todd post to this blog)...Of course he then dismissed amazing feats and abounding testimonials as tricks of FCers…he say: anyone can make claims and lots of people, universities have been fooled…

all the people except cspe and the toad-etals…who make their living: “applying all manner of behavior modification systems to people with innate neurological anomalies without a hope of benefit to anyone (except their own earnings)” [PhD physicist say]

the basic premise: behavioral science (BS, how appropriate) is a science; is seriously flawed. BS is not a science…it is an art.

those who treat BS as an art are artists and do much good in the world…those (eg, cspe) who treat it as a hard science generally, do more harm than good…those who treat it as soft science fall in the middle…amount of good v evil depends on their “venal pecuniary motives” (todd’s scientific for greed)

the anti FC crusade…crusade to save the lucrative aba market…is losing momentum…cspe should get his money making book (the silent fortress) out asap…if it’s loaded with his LBRB crap …it’s already in the ditch with BB’s “empty fortress”...

[cspe say] go to your own lot and tell them to do the science, properly!

[ms dawson say] For those promoting ABA-based autism interventions, claims of effectiveness unfounded [...] any experimental design carrying the risk of being informative about the benefits and harms of ABA-based interventions has, for a long time now, been considered unethical.
http://autismcrisis.blogspot.c.....chive.html

people who live in glass houses, etc, etc,...

go to your own lot and tell them to do the science, properly!

stanley seigler
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 17th, 2010
19:02:07

Like I said… Seigler cannot even bear to keep his trap shut.

“go to your own lot and tell them to do the science, properly”

No. You are the people making the claim, so the burden of proof is yours. YOU get the science done. Fact is – you don’t want it done.

Pity the rest of your comment was either –
a) regurgitated rubbish that you’ve already used before (in many cases, word-for-word!)

or

b) indecypherable rubbish that I just can’t be bothered to go though.

I’ve made my point very well, and you can’t make yours so you rely on regurgitation and indecypherability to make yourself look as if you know what you’re talking about.

Everybody here knows you talk rubbish. And so do you. You’re just so sick that you can’t not let yourself look like you’re wrong.

You’re a sad man, Seigler. At least Arthur Golden would like to see some real science done on this issue. And at least now he knows the people to contact at his local university. What he does with that information is, of course, up to him.

I’ve come up with good scientific objections, based on empirical research (something you will never be able to understand), and all you’ve done is come back with what amounts to the worst sort of religious diatribe. You haven’t said anything new since … well … your second comment, really… and that is very sad.

Crawl back under your rock, Seigler. You haven’t evolved enough to play with us yet.
stanley seigler
May 19th, 2010
19:39:42

[cspe say] Like I said… Seigler cannot even bear to keep his trap shut…Crawl back under your rock, Seigler. You haven’t evolved enough to play with us yet.

i have to speak out (cant keep my trap shut) when soft scientists using questionable science are on a crusade to imprison many on the spectrum in the “silent fortress”..

on the fun side:

also hard to keep my trap shut when having fun watching someone destroy his credibility… and that of behavioral science (BS) with vindictive, “scientific” personal, attacks…

it is humorous (tho sad) to watch a med-cspe attack (what a wasted education) one he believes should crawl back under a rock…reckon cspe cant resist useing sticks and stones science …

feel bad egging him on…but he is a fiddle so easily played…and his ilk does much harm.

nice cspe has learned, foul language does nothing to advance an argument…ie, lately, no shittin hayzus scientific terminology (he owes me) ...but;

sad he still believes he scientificly proves his position with grammar school, yo momma wears combat boots, sticks and stones, language…guess he learned this at master’s level…

i see the futility of discussions with mulish, soft, wannabe hard, scientist, on a crusade to rid the universe of FC…vice, job one, cleaning up their own promotional science (see ms dawson’s blog)...

whats the toad-etals motivation… only logical one seems to be: venal pecuniary motives” (todd’s scientific for greed)...also

realize no matter how many times it’s regurgitated, mulish wannabes will NOT get that: their soft science is NOT hard science (hardly science). not only does it fail to invalidate FC; it does not validate most BS programs to cure/improve autism.

irony of irony: they even deny the existence of observable science, the foundation of good science…ie, a scientist begins an investigation by observing an object or an activity…they formulate a hypothesis that explains the behavior of the phenomena observed.

it has been observed many on the spectrum have an innate ability to learn without a formal education…vice formulating a hypothesis…cspe/toal-etals waste energy on an anti-FC crusade…

[cspe say] “As for the ‘seeing is believing’ science…that is not science”...

cspe would do well not to play…as he confirms all the negative aspects of a wannabe hard scientist (AKA a softie true believer)...he does does much to prove ms dawson’s (and others) promotional science opine.

it’s really not about FC…its about soft v hard science… about soft science, true believers (cspe, toad-etals) v real science…and the harm softies do…except to their pocket books.

“Like I said”...keep digging

stanley seigler
David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E.
May 20th, 2010
08:12:19

The amazing Seigler crawls out from under his rock to say nothing new again. I should do a content analysis of his comments here to show how much of a stuck record he is. But, then again, I’ve got much more exciting things to do than that.

And notice this time that it took him all of three days to come up with a comment that said absolutely nothing. Notice also the bit where he says: “.he does does much to prove ms dawson’s (and others) promotional science opine.”

Hasn’t even read what I wrote, has he? I actually want the science first and then – if the method holds up – the promotion. Weird that he calls for the promotion first on FC and absolutely no science, when he wants science first on the ABA treatment stuff. Talk about inconsistency of thinking! Regardless of what the thing (diet, FC, DTT, etc) is, I always want the science to be done first because that’s whe only way we’ll know what works, how it works, for whom it works and why.

This is my last post on the topic. I’ve no doubt that Seigler will be anal enough to try to come back with a riposte, but it won’t have much new content. I think we all know now what his mentality is.

I feel sad for his daughter. Hope he treats we better than he treats this autistic person whom he admits to having been (at least in his purile mind) goading: “feel bad egging him on…but he is a fiddle so easily played…and his ilk does much harm.”

I think we already know that it is Seigler’s type than ‘does much harm’.

I’m out.
Clay
May 20th, 2010
16:08:19

David said:

“And notice this time that it took him all of three days to come up with a comment that said absolutely nothing.”

Indeed. Most the time, I can’t figure out what he’s trying to say. His sloppy use of the language, punctuation, and pronouns makes it difficult to determine just what he means.

“Notice also the bit where he says: “.he does does much to prove ms dawson’s (and others) promotional science opine.”

And I’m sure that his oft mentioning of her name (and probable mischaracterization of her statements) antagonizes her all the more, since she believes (rightly or wrongly) that she is not permitted to comment here (or just on this thread) to defend her positions.

Stanley, shut the hell up! You’re just making a fool of yourself, and not doing your position (whatever it is) any good.

I ask the LBRB team to mercifully close this thread.