Facilitated Communication – where does a neurodiverse skeptic stand?

6 Oct

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.

Advertisements

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

  1. stanley seigler May 14, 2010 at 23:17 #

    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

  2. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. May 15, 2010 at 07:29 #

    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 <i<should 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!

  3. stanley seigler May 15, 2010 at 12:37 #

    [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

  4. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. May 15, 2010 at 18:01 #

    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.

  5. Arthur Golden May 16, 2010 at 09:18 #

    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.

  6. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. May 16, 2010 at 10:27 #

    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.

  7. Arthur Golden May 16, 2010 at 10:55 #

    If I am provided an email address, which I will keep confidential, I will see what I can do about funding.

    Art

  8. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. May 16, 2010 at 12:04 #

    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.

  9. stanley seigler May 17, 2010 at 18:04 #

    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.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

    people who live in glass houses, etc, etc,…

    go to your own lot and tell them to do the science, properly!

    stanley seigler

  10. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. May 17, 2010 at 19:02 #

    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.

  11. stanley seigler May 19, 2010 at 19:39 #

    [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

  12. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. May 20, 2010 at 08:12 #

    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.

  13. Clay May 20, 2010 at 16:08 #

    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.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: