A Controversial Autism Therapy Unravels a Family

27 Jun

Time magazine has picked up a story from a six-part investigation by the Detroit Free Press.

Some unproven psychological therapies and techniques for autism aren’t simply ineffective. They can split families and cause untold harm to children, as one family in Michigan learned at terrible cost.

If you are new to the story, let me point out that it isn’t what you might think. It is about facilitated communication and a false charge of sexual abuse.

It’s a story one might think would be out of the 1990’s. Except that it just happened.

The ordeal didn’t end when it was clear that the girl wasn’t communicating, after all. It didn’t end when a sexual assault exam found no proof of abuse. And it didn’t end when a prosecution witness insisted the abuse never happened.

The Time story is here : http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/24/a-controversial-autism-therapy-unravels-a-family/

The Free Press story here: http://www.freep.com/article/20110612/NEWS03/106120522/Family-s-life-unravels-claims-dad-raped-daughter

99 Responses to “A Controversial Autism Therapy Unravels a Family”

  1. Navi June 27, 2011 at 09:41 #

    yep, that’s the MI court system.

  2. stanley seigler June 27, 2011 at 16:02 #

    [LBRB say] If you are new to the story, let me point out that it isn’t what you might think. It is about facilitated communication and a false charge of sexual abuse…It’s a story one might think would be out of the 1990’s. Except that it just happened. [2008]

    COMMENT
    actually it is about the legal system…there are many false charges where FC is not involved…the justice system’s stupidity unraveled the family…the case should have never gone to court…by focusing on FC one lets the justice system off the hook.

    [Navi say] “yep, that’s the MI court system.”

    stanley seigler

  3. RAJ June 27, 2011 at 16:09 #

    There is a difference between ‘facilitated communcation’ and augmentive communication. Facilitated COmmunication involves a ‘communicator’ placing hand over hand and ‘guiding’ the patient over a keyboard to elicit reponses. Clinical trials throughout the world found that facilitateed communication was a destructive myth. The American Pediatric Association published an editorial condemning facilitated communication. Eric Schopler, the editor of the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders called it nothing more than ‘ventriloquism’.

    Eric Schopler was the most vigerous advocate for autistic people and their families and condemned most of the fad therapies that claimed to reverse autism symptoms and who would claim that reversal was even possible. He was the first to condemn the first hypothesis in what is now called ‘translational research’ which involves alliances between autism researchers and drug manufacturers.

    In the 1980’s Dr. Edward Ritvo, was the head of the UCLA Nueropsychiatric Institute and a leading expert on autism and who at the time was also on the editorial board of the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders.
    Ritvo’s hypothesis was based on solid replicated science. High levels of blood serotonin compared to typically developing controls has been consistently replicated. His hypothesis was that if a novel drug therapy could lower blood serotonin levels it might normalize serotonin brain expression. He began inititiating trials of fenfluramine drug therapy. Fenfluramine was an appetite suppresant used in treating obesity. One of the known effects of fenfluramine was in substantially lowering serotonin blood levels.

    The clinical trials conducted by Ritvo were astonishing, he saw dramatic improvement even reversal and his results were supported by parent testimonials.

    Clinical trials by independant research groups throughout the world were undertaken. Fenluramine therapy was found to be no more effective than placebo.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6502317

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2606883

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8369641

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2606882

    The fenluramine story had a tragic ending. In 1997 the FDA asked the manufacturers to withdraw fenfluramine from the marketplace because of a high risk for cardiac valvular disease. The risk with fenfluramine therapy over six months was found to be especially high for females.

    http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm179871.htm

  4. stanley seigler June 27, 2011 at 20:51 #

    [RAJ say] There is a difference between ‘facilitated communcation’[FC] and augmentive communication. Facilitated COmmunication involves a ‘communicator’ placing hand over hand and ‘guiding’ the patient over a keyboard to elicit reponses. Clinical trials throughout the world found that facilitateed communication was a destructive myth.

    FC is an augmentive communication…believe the vastly different opines has been covered in another LBRB thread (cant find link to the thread)…

    inaccurate negative hyperbole serves no purpose…dont think there is anything new that will alter pro/con debate…so suggest the LBRB FC thread (LBRB owner pls provide link) be reviewed vice going around the bush again…

    possible new: the latest FC/autism documentary, “Wretches & Jabberers ”
    http://www.wretchesandjabberers.org/about.php

    antiFCers say their opposition is because FC does harm…doubt if larry and tracy (subjects of the documentary) feel harmed by FC…see Wretches & Jabberers documentary…

    new york times (NYT) review say: “The film is maddeningly vague about how the two men made their initial breakthroughs, but it certainly is proof that even those who are written off as children can find a voice.”

    ASHS say: Clinicians and others are encouraged to keep apprised of the latest findings concerning facilitated communication.

    the following quote states my opine:

    “It is my [detroit free press blogger] opinion, many individuals benefit from this process that scientists have not even begun to explore. In my experience those being facilitated become more organized, receptive language seems to improve, positive behavioral changes occur, and most of all they enjoy the process. People perceive them with more respect.”

    oh/and

    FC works…call it hand over hand that in some cases leads to independent typing…a rose is a rose.

    stanley seigler

  5. stanley seigler June 27, 2011 at 23:01 #

    [RAJ say] There is a difference between ‘facilitated communcation’ and augmentive communication. Facilitated COmmunication involves a ‘communicator’ placing hand over hand and ‘guiding’ the patient over a keyboard to elicit reponses. Clinical trials throughout the world found that facilitateed communication was a destructive myth.

    believe the vastly different opines has been coved in another LBRB thread (cant find link to the thread)…ie, been around this FC bush…

    inaccurate negative hyperbole (eg, through out the world, destructive myth) serves no purpose…dont think there is anything new that will alter pro/con opines…so, for those interested, suggest the LBRB FC thread be reviewed vice going around the bush again…

    possible new: the latest FC/autism documentary, “Wretches & Jabberers”
    http://www.wretchesandjabberers.org/about.php

    antiFCers say their opposition is because FC does harm…doubt if larry and tracy (subjects of the documentary) feel harmed by FC…see Wretches & Jabberers documentary…

    new york times (NYT) review say: “The film is maddeningly vague about how the two men made their initial breakthroughs, but it certainly is proof that even those who are written off as children can find a voice.”

    ASHS say: Clinicians and others are encouraged to keep apprised of the latest findings concerning facilitated communication.

    the following quote states my opine:

    “It is my [detroit free press blogger] opinion, many individuals benefit from this process that scientists have not even begun to explore. In my experience those being facilitated become more organized, receptive language seems to improve, positive behavioral changes occur, and most of all they enjoy the process. People perceive them with more respect.”

    oh/and

    FC works…call it hand over hand that in some cases leads to independent typing…a rose is a rose.

    stanley seigler

  6. KWombles June 28, 2011 at 00:53 #

    Facilitated communication is only controversial in the sense that the vaccines and autism link is controversial.

    Contrary to Stanley’s contention that this is solely about the legal system, the reality is that the allegation came about because the facilitator had the girl type that she was raped by her father. The school allowed the FC even though they knew it didn’t work because of the family’s threat to sue if the school didn’t. The family was led into the FC debacle through the advice of a psychologist who should have known better but chose to reject the overwhelming weight of evidence showing that FC was facilitator co-option of the individual’s communication.

    Considering that the evidence has been in since the 1990s on FC, the fact that this is still occurring should be chilling and sound a serious note of caution for anyone who thinks that the debunked autism/vaccine link will simply die away. There will always be people willing to ignore the evidence in favor of their pet treatment/theory.

  7. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. June 28, 2011 at 01:19 #

    Sorry Stanley but I’m with Kim on this one.

    I shall, however, refrain from commenting just now.

  8. Moderation June 28, 2011 at 04:12 #

    Your kidding, we are still having discussions about FC?! I thought this scam died out 15 years ago. Shame on me. I have been following this and many other autism and skeptical scientific blogs for about 5 years now and can’t remember reading about it recently. I will be headed over to the link from KW. Thanks.

  9. stanley seigler June 28, 2011 at 17:03 #

    [DNA say] Sorry Stanley but I’m with Kim on this one.

    no need to be sorry…i now respect your position…tho strongly disagree…i have put my hand in the spear wound…

    sad kwom-etals are on the wrong side of history…and do much harm…not only to the non-verbals on the spectrum, but to their trusting students.

    kwom, as many antiFC crusaders have, has helped to imprisoned many in a silent fortress…bettelheim’s empty fortress..

    [kwom say] “Facilitated communication is only controversial in the sense that the vaccines and autism link is controversial…”

    FC controversy has nothing to do with the anti vaccine controversy…kwom confuses the issue with a poor analogy.

    [kwom say] “the reality is that the allegation came about because the facilitator had the girl type that she was raped by her father.”

    the reality is the legal system did a p-poor investigation…the case should never have been prosecuted…there are many false accusations where FC is not involved…

    kwom, as is her SOP, uses inaccurate negative hyperbole…two examples here:

    1. “this is solely about the legal system,”…

    no one said that…only said: the case should have never been prosecuted.

    2, “The school allowed the FC even though they knew it didn’t work because of the family’s threat to sue …”

    kwom knows this how…the article said: “Walled Lake schools officials were skeptical”…but if true the school system (NOT FC) failed the girl and her family…if they “knew” it didn’t work they never should have allowed its use…and the school is the root cause.

    to focus on FC lets the legal system off the hook…it is about FC only because kwom-etal have made it about FC and ignored the legal system’s major role…a majority of the detroit free press comments relate to MI judicial system…NOT FC,

    there are other examples in most of kwom’s antiFC postings.

    FC works…ask those like larry and tracy (Wretches & Jabberers) who have found a voice thru FC.

    no need to quote clinical studies. I am aware of most of them….and most use similar “autism/ABA science” …promotional science…ms dawson describes in “misbehavior of the behaviorist”…further;

    the time spent on antiFC studies would be better spent on studies related to the innate ability many (most?) on the spectrum have to learn without a formal education…to teach themselves…

    this ability is surfaced in many individuals (some who go on to type w/o support) by FC…it was surfaced (with little or no follow up clinical studies) in the 1960s by the talking typewriter.

    stanley seigler

    ref xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    KWombles
    June 28th, 2011
    00:53:08
    Facilitated communication is only controversial in the sense that the vaccines and autism link is controversial.

    Contrary to Stanley’s contention that this is solely about the legal system, the reality is that the allegation came about because the facilitator had the girl type that she was raped by her father. The school allowed the FC even though they knew it didn’t work because of the family’s threat to sue if the school didn’t. The family was led into the FC debacle through the advice of a psychologist who should have known better but chose to reject the overwhelming weight of evidence showing that FC was facilitator co-option of the individual’s communication.

    Considering that the evidence has been in since the 1990s on FC, the fact that this is still occurring should be chilling and sound a serious note of caution for anyone who thinks that the debunked autism/vaccine link will simply die away. There will always be people willing to ignore the evidence in favor of their pet treatment/theory.

  10. stanley seigler June 28, 2011 at 17:31 #

    LBRB owner,

    my post do not show up…pls advise if LBRB is blocking so that i can move on…

    stanley seigler

    • Sullivan June 28, 2011 at 17:55 #

      stanley seigler,

      I pulled some comments out of the spam filter. There are 3 more which look to me to be duplicates. I will not approve those, if that’s OK with you.

  11. stanley seigler June 28, 2011 at 17:56 #

    they did post…there is now a duplicate post…please delete my stanley seigler, June 28th, 2011, 17:25:05

    stanley seigler

  12. James Todd June 28, 2011 at 18:06 #

    “we are still having discussions about FC?! I thought this scam died out 15 years ago.”

    Well, facilitated communication is back. And, as the Wendows discovered, it’s back with a vengeance.

    How back? It’s not just the multiple FC court cases, mostly civil, that have popped up over the last few years. It’s not just FC being quietly accepted as an accommodation for communications problems in schools and universities. It’s not just FC infesting university classrooms and affiliated sites–we’re looking at you, University of New Hampshire, Ashland, and Syracuse, among others. It’s not just the big “Wretches and Jabberers” road show at AMC Theaters, sponsored by the Autism Society. That just money; nothing personal. The Autism Society gets 10% of the box office from a movie about FC.

    Here’s how back FC is: This year’s Facilitated Communication Summer Institute is not being held at Syracuse, which long ago sold its rational, ethical soul to FC. It’s being held at the prestigious MIT Media Lab, right there in Cambridge. Douglas Biklen, his minions, hangers-on, acolytes, and others, including several “FC Stars,” will be there.

    Click to access SI_2PAGE.pdf


    http://soe.syr.edu/centers_institutes/institute_communication_inclusion/Summer_Institute/default.aspx

    I’d hope that the big brains there at MIT wouldn’t be taken in by something like FC. But, I guess they have more important things to think about than the problems associated with endorsing the single most discredited intervention in all of developmental disabilities, along with participating the blatant exploitation of people with autism. And, what could be a greater coup for a group of avowed pseudoscientists than getting the backing of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology?

    Now that it has opened its doors to FC, maybe MIT should consider an institute devoted to N-rays–or perpetual motion.

  13. stanley seigler June 28, 2011 at 19:53 #

    [james todd say] “we are still having discussions about FC?! I thought this scam died out 15 years ago.”… “Well, facilitated communication [FC] is back. And, as the Wendows discovered, it’s back with a vengeance”

    that FC (it never went away) has survived …and released many from a silent prison…in spite attacks by the publish or perish crew’s antiFC clinical studies crusade… speaks the proverbial volumes to it efficacy…

    thank jim, for providing all the places where FC is back with a vengeance…speaks more volumes…

    [james todd say] “Now that it has opened its doors to FC, maybe MIT should consider an institute devoted to N-rays—or perpetual motion.”

    and cold fusion…and james todd and wombles should be considered as directors for one of these institutes …:)

    BTW jim for thanks for acknowledging in other posts, “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials”…

    stanley seigler

    NOTE to LBRB owner: pls delete my posts June 28th; 17:03:11, 17:03:29, and 17:25:05…AND I PROMISE TO BE MORE PATIENT RE POSTING OF POSTs…sorry for the trouble caused.

  14. KWombles June 28, 2011 at 19:57 #

    Stanley, appeal to popularity is not proof of efficacy.

  15. stanley seigler June 28, 2011 at 20:33 #

    [KWombles say]…appeal to popularity is not proof of efficacy.

    COMMENT: if you say so…are you also saying FC is popular…seems if it didn’t work it wouldn’t be popular…

    not that it means anything…but perhaps popularity is a proof even more compelling than clinical studies by promotional scientists…

    stanley seigler

  16. KWombles June 28, 2011 at 20:45 #

    No, I’m not: you’re making the appeal to popularity, not me, and I’m pointing out it is a fallacy. Popularity doesn’t prove something works. It only proves that people can be gullible.

    Your fallacious arguments for FC are no different than the fallacious arguments that vaccine/autism folks offer. “After all, ten thousand parents can’t be wrong!” No, they sure can. Just as you can be wrong. You’ve got several decades emotional investment in FC and believing it’s real. You offer no evidence to counter the science showing that FC is facilitator co-option. Instead you offer vague anecdotes, insults and fallacious appeals.

    There is no reason with today’s technology that any individual, if he’s capable of verbal/written communication, can’t use a form of AAC without the risk of having his or her communication co-opted. The unfortunate reality is that some individuals are not capable of language. When parents waste time using FC, they deprive the individual of autonomy and the chance of learning how to communicate in an alternative method independently.

  17. Prometheus June 28, 2011 at 20:50 #

    Mr. Seigler opines:

    “…seems if it didn’t work it wouldn’t be popular…
    not that it means anything…but perhaps popularity is a proof even more compelling than clinical studies by promotional scientists…”

    Actually, popularity is only “proof” that something is popular – nothing more. For example, blood-letting was an extremely popular treatment for a variety of ills in the 17th through mid 19th centuries, but it was shown to not only be ineffective, but positively dangerous. Likewise, homeopathy is currently a very “popular” remedy, despite being indistinguishable from placebo.

    History shows us that the popularity of a concept is disconnected from its validity. If anything, popular concepts tend to be more likely to be wrong than the unpopular ones.

    Prometheus

  18. stanley seigler June 28, 2011 at 23:10 #

    [KWombles say] Popularity doesn’t prove something works. It only proves that people can be gullible.

    are you denying it’s popular…denying FC is back (tho it never went away) is back with a vengeance popularity…

    [KWombles say] proves that people can be gullible

    such as SU, MIT and say 10,000 parents who believe and have witnessed amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials…sooo, your ilk are the only non gullible ones…your arrogance is only exceeded by your antiFC hyperbole…

    [KWombles say] Just as you can be wrong. You’ve got several decades emotional investment in FC and believing it’s real.

    now in addition to being a non gullible psychologist you are psychiatrist…i have 45 years of emotions/love invested in my daughter’s life and what is best for her and her peers.

    you have several decades invested in your career and cant accept FC as it would invalidate your life…so you can’t be wrong…sad you are wrong as it is becoming more evident every day…it’s back.

    [KWombles say] You offer no evidence to counter the science showing that FC is facilitator co-option.

    i dont need to offer any more evidence…you and todd do it all…eg, jim provides all the places where FC is back with a vengeance;.acknowledges “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials; and you reference 10,000 parents who believe FC works.

    [KWombles say] When parents waste time using FC, they deprive the individual of autonomy and the chance of learning how to communicate in an alternative method independently.

    opinions,opinions, opinions, everybody has one…i dont agree with yours and bet none of the parents who witnessed “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials” (acknowledged by todd) would agree either…

    to repeat: “It is my [detroit free press blogger] opinion, many individuals benefit from this process that scientists have not even begun to explore. In my experience those being facilitated become more organized, receptive language seems to improve, positive behavioral changes occur, and most of all they enjoy the process. People perceive them with more respect.”

    this opinon is proven by my daughter exposure to FC and 30 some of her peers.

    stanley seigler

  19. stanley seigler June 28, 2011 at 23:59 #

    [Prometheus opines] Actually, popularity is only “proof” that something is popular – nothing more

    think this what i said…ie, “not that it means anything”…it was just a perhaps…that said…

    your blood-letting does nothing to support your opine…not a good analogy…blood-letting was popular with the professionals of that day…they were wrong just as some professional of this day are wrong re FC….not sure blood-letting was popular with the po folks…

    your homeopathy is a better analogy…but;

    i do think popularity is proof of more than “nothing more”…it lends some credibility

    [Prometheus opines] History shows us that the popularity of a concept is disconnected from its validity. If anything, popular concepts tend to be more likely to be wrong than the unpopular ones.

    thanks for the opine … but it’s not fact…history doesn’t show us this (eg, yo blood-letting)…”more likely” is just another opine…no facts…do you have spread sheet showing popular concepts are more likely to be wrong…one (you, kwom, i) shoulnt state our opines as fact.

    stanley seigler

  20. stanley seigler June 29, 2011 at 00:12 #

    [Prometheus opines] ]Actually, popularity is only “proof” that something is popular – nothing more

    think this what i said…ie, “not that it means anything”…it was just a perhaps…that said…

    your blood-letting eg, does nothing to support your opine…not a good analogy…blood-letting was popular with the professionals of that day…they were wrong just as some professional of this day are wrong re FC….not sure blood-letting was popular with the po folks…

    your homeopathy is a better analogy…but;

    i do think popularity is proof of more than “nothing more”…it can’t be summarily dismissed.

    stanley seigler

  21. stanley seigler June 29, 2011 at 00:17 #

    ps.

    Prometheus opines] History shows us that the popularity of a concept is disconnected from its validity. If anything, popular concepts tend to be more likely to be wrong than the unpopular ones.

    thanks for the opine … but it’s not fact…history doesn’t show us this (eg, yo blood-letting)…”more likely” is just another opine…not fact.

    one (you, kwom, i) should not state opines as fact…

    stanley seigler

  22. Gray Falcon June 29, 2011 at 02:14 #

    Stanley, it’s pretty well-established now that the facilitator is doing the communication, not the facilitated. You may believe otherwise, but you have yet to provide any evidence. If anything, FC is taking away voices, not giving them. This incident is a clear-cut example of that.

    • Sullivan June 29, 2011 at 03:12 #

      I think we’ve heard the arguments about facilitated communication here and earlier on this blog.

  23. stanley seigler June 29, 2011 at 12:05 #

    [Gray Falcon say]…it’s pretty well-established now that the facilitator is doing the communication, not the facilitated. You may believe otherwise, but you have yet to provide any evidence. If anything, FC is taking away voices, not giving them. This incident is a clear-cut example of that.

    gray falcon saying it doesn’t make it so…if FC were called hand over hand that in some cases leads to independent typing…would gray falcon still say “it’s pretty well-established now that the facilitator is doing the communication…”

    far from “pretty well established” when there are documentaries like Wretches & Jabberers and “Autism Is A World”

    This incident (assume the detroit free press article) is a clear-cut example of the stupidity of the judicial system…

    yet to provide any evidence…evidence is/has been provided…eg: todd acknowledges: “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials”…NYT says, “The film (Wretches & Jabberers) is maddeningly vague about how the two men made their initial breakthroughs, but it certainly is proof that even those who are written off as children can find a voice.”

    also see “Clinical research: Speech devices useful for people with autism”…

    [sullivan say] “I think we’ve heard the arguments about facilitated communication here and earlier on this blog.”

    indeed we have…and i said here, “…suggest the LBRB FC thread (pls provide link) be reviewed vice going around the bush again…” however the antiFC crusaders insist on reposting their negative hyperbole here…

    and it cant go unanswered…as it exacerbates the denial of the right to communicate to many non verbals on the spectrum…denies them a means to express their pent up feelings.

    stanley seigler

    NOTE to LBRB owner, pls delete
    stanley seigler June 29th, 2011 00:17:13 and 00:12:31

  24. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. June 29, 2011 at 12:52 #

    Now I’m gonna comment, Stanley. I’m not gonna go the way I used to, because – as I said before – it was wrong of me to do so. I’m sorry to have to say this but Facilitated Communication has been demonstrated very clearly to not work. The science has all been done and, despite Biklen et al bleating that the wrong investigative methods have been used, the results have been overwhelmingly negative with regard to Facilitated Communication working. And science is exactly the same, whether it is done on medicines or on ways to get space hardware to the moon or even on ways to get reliable communication methods/aids for people who do not or cannot use language as most people do. I’ve not done science on medicines, nor on space hardware; but I have done it on communication aids (as a research technician in a medical physics & clinical engineering department at my local hospital, many years ago now).

    I don’t like to come across as dashing hopes expressed by people who desperately want to see their non-orative loved ones communicate. That’s not what I want to do, actually. I’m all for making it possible for people to communicate, using whatever methods can be verified to work properly, and I know of plenty that do. Facilitated Communication – regardless of what Crossley and Biklen say – is not one of them. The reason why Facilitated Communication is controversial is that it is still being promoted and used even though the whole mass of scientific evidence says that it should not be used. And I cannot see that as anything but bad.

    And I find it sad to see people being taken in by Biklen and his cronies, just because those people are desperate for their loved ones who don’t/can’t speak to have at least one way of making their thoughts known. I also find it appalling that Biklen et al would be disappointed that courts would reject the testimony brought forth by ‘facilitation’ without regard to the problems it has caused for many innocent people.

    The fact is that FC does not work: time and again, the experiments have demonstrated that the facilitator is the one communicating; the ‘facilitatee’ is not the one producing the text. My ex-wife and I teach people who want to know about this matter how to test the method in a five-hour course, supplemented by a teaching text on the matter. We introduce methods of investigation; how to record data; simple statistical methods to anayse the data and determine what the data actually say. These methods will, if something actually works, show that it works. And if they don’t show that it works, it is pretty certain that it doesn’t work.

    Regarding popularity of something as proof that it works: this is a known logical fallacy. It is called appeal to number or appeal to popularity, and it is fallacious because:

    1- it alleges that, if many people believe something, then that something is true.

    An example of this is the jury trial system, in which a defendent is found guilty by virtue of the belief (supposedly based on the evidence alone) of the majority of the jury. Many examples run counter to the notion that guilt or truth can be determined just by the number of people who believe it to be there. Many people have been put to death wrongly on the basis of wrong verdicts (i. e., they are found guilty by a jury, but we not in fact guilty at all). I can safely say that, if you were to face a situation in which the belief of a number of people in some incorrect fact presented about you would determine whether you would die by judicial sentence or live todie a natural death … you would think ‘Wait a minute… the belief of a majority that some fact is true does not mean that said fact is actually true after all!’

    The fact is (and this is not an opinion, Stanley) that juries cannot deliberate on what is true; they can only deliberate on what each member thinks is true, and the two things are not the same. Whether we like that or not.

    Another example – hopefully an amusing one – is that of Sod’s Law: the ‘law’ that states:

    If anything can go wrong, it will!

    One of the ways in which it is ‘proven’ is the matter of toast always falling butter-side down (ewwww!).

    People actually believe this to be the case. Experiments have, however, shown that it is not the case. The distribution of landings (butter-side v. non-butter-side) is so close to 50:50 that any deviation from this proportion can be explained by random or systematic error. So Sod’s Law is an example of a non-law. So why do people believe it?

    I’ll try to answer that later. I have to shower and go out now and do some sort of work. What I can definitely say, though, is this: I don’t deal with opinion without evidence. I can’t give an opinion without any evidence to go on. If I try to, I feel like shite. Ergo, I base what I say on evidence. And science is always the way we get evidence, because – when science is done correctly – the evidence is as unbiased as it can get.

  25. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. June 29, 2011 at 12:54 #

    Response to Stanley on moderation. It is, whilst a strong disagreement with his position, a respectful disagreement.

  26. KWombles June 29, 2011 at 14:06 #

    The anti-vaccine people are going strong. They have conferences, books, attempts at political parties, but people committed to what the scientific evidence says about the lack of a link between autism and vaccinations stand up to the anti-vaccine rhetoric and offer scientific evidence to back up their positions.

    The fact that the anti-vax people have websites, conferences, books, videos, forums, facebook pages is irrelevant to whether their position is based on the scientific evidence. Appeals to popularity and belief are irrelevant, as are the appeals to authority we see that group make.

    The reality is that as far as scientific evidence goes, facilitated communication shares the same status as autism/vaccination links.

    The following organizations (you can find all the statements on one handy page at BAAM–just google it) have all taken positions against facilitated communication based on the research literature:

    “AACAP | AAMR | AAP | ABA | APA | ASAT | ASC/SCA | ASHA | BAAM | Heilpädagogische Forschung | MADSEC | NYSDH | New Zealand Ministries of Health.”

    Contrary to Stanley’s assertion that it denies disabled the right to speak, the reality is that it is FC which denies the disabled the chance at communicating. There is sufficient AAC which can help even those who are paralyzed and mute to communicate. There is absolutely NO good reason based on technology alone for anyone to be using facilitated communication. FC has been shown time after time to not be the individuals’ communication.

    People committed to following the scientific evidence must logically and consistently do that. And if we’re truly committed to safeguarding disability rights, ensuring that the communication is not co-opted should be one of our priorities. Standing by and allowing a new generation of parents to be taken advantage of by those who push FC and rapid prompting is irresponsible and does not protect disability rights.

  27. Gray Falcon June 29, 2011 at 14:08 #

    I didn’t ask for credulous documentaries and reviews (which I have a low opinion of after they did one on the Shroud of Turin), I asked for evidence. The simple test is this: Ask several questions to the subject when the facilitator is absent. If the questions are answered correctly, the subject is doing the answering. If not, then it’s the facilitator. Nearly every time it was tested, it was the facilitator who was found to be doing the communicating.
    Stanley, all you’ve shown is that FC is popular, and the same could be said about bloodletting and segregation in years past. Popular is not the same thing as correct, it is not the same thing as just.

  28. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. June 29, 2011 at 14:48 #

    Kim: “…the reality is that it is FC which denies the disabled the chance at communicating. There is sufficient AAC which can help even those who are paralyzed and mute to communicate. There is absolutely NO good reason based on technology alone for anyone to be using facilitated communication.”

    I have to agree. At the hospital where I did my engineering internship (as an applied physics student), we had clients who were slowly becoming less able to move parts of their bodies because of a neuro-degenerative disease (multiple sclerosis). We fitted their homes with systems that allowed them total environmental control … even with live-in support, they got this. Why? Because this guaranteed to them the possibility to control their own environments and to express their own wishes free from the influence (conscious or unconscious) of others. One of our clients was already so far along in the progression of MS that he was a constant wheelchair user, and had very little useful speech ability because he could not move his lips to speak (and because he could not fill his lungs to get a good breath to speak with). He had a computer with a customised working environment installed on it and, with this software, he could control the environment (lighting, heating and air-conditioning) and was learning to use a set of software packages that combined a word-prediction program and a scanning keyboard emulator to show up – either on a screen for immediate reading or via a speech synthesiser (yes, á là Stephen Hawking) – in order to express his wishes.

    Based on my background in both special education and engineering/applied physics, I can honestly say that the movement difficulties experienced by this client were more serious than anything falsely posited by Biklen and Crossley as the core issues in autism. And he was able to communicate very well using the support technology package we assembled for him.

    For this reason, I cannot – with all the will in the world – be convinced that it would have been impossible for Stanley’s daughter to communicate using the same sort of package for herself. I don’t know her, and I don’t know her case. I do know that Stanley’s experience of people in the health and social and education sectors where he is has been absolutely attrocious. And I can see why he does not trust people in those professions: I’d feel the same myself, if I’m honest. The actions of those professionals have been .. well, I’ll reserve a public judgement and leave people here to take a guess or two as to what I think of them.

    Nonetheless, this does not detract from the fact that FC is not the thing it has been marketed as being. And I would say – based on my knowledge and experience of the technologies available even back in 1995 – that Stanley’s daughter and the rest of the family would have benefited properly and much better from the availability and use of such technology.

    I am aware that the funding for this sort of thing, though, is different in the US from what happens in the UK. The equipment is provided on loan in the UK; and remains hospital or NHS Trust property; it is reviewed periodically and the package is updated as and when necessary. Admittedly, it can never be ideal, but the general situation suggests that it is at least satisfactory. But ths depends on good clinical assessment by a medical practitioner, an occupational therapist, a psychologist (yes, we do have a lot of useful input if we do our jobs correctly), a nurse, a remediation/rehabilitation engineer or medical physicist, and a social worker prepared to speak up on behalf of his/her client in behind-the-scenes meetings. And it needs for all these professionals to act not as gatekeepers but as pathway guides; the aim should be to enable and affirm entitlement to suppoer rather than close gates and deny appropriate technological support.

    As a professional (acting these days in a consultancy role), I am saddened and embarrassed that professionals who should know better have failed Stanley and his daughter (and, indeed, the rest of his family). But I cannot – as a (behavioural and mathematical) scientist – accept FC as being a valid tool for working with someone, when much better alternatives (things that should have been made available to Stanley’s daughter to use) exist.

    I know that Stanley loves and cares for his daughter. I am a dad myself, and I feel the same for my child. Which is why I want the best for her, as he does for his daughter. However, I am fortunate in that I have a good scientific education which affords me a lot in that I can separate the wheat from the chaff, as the saying goes. I don’t see Stanley as an enemy, in this regard. I see him as someone to whom people have been exceedingly dishonest and unprofessional. I see him as someone who – in the midst of a whole bunch of professionals engaging in a conspiracy of denial – has tried to find something to help his daughter. And I see the FC lot as having played on that.

    From this perspective, it’s hard to not see both the professionals and the FC lot as lacking in integrity and honesty and professionalism. And it is hard to even envisage seeing Stanley as anything but a man who loves his daughter and is trying hard to get the best support for her that he can. I may disagree vehemently with the FC thing, but I can respect him – as a father and as a human being – for being bothered to try. And I think that those of us here who have these higher qualifications in wonderful stuff like education and psychology and whatever else we qualified in should not lose sight of this point. For, if we do, we become the same sort of people who have screwed people such as Stanley and his daughter and his family over for many years in the past.

    I’ll close now.

  29. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. June 29, 2011 at 14:50 #

    another comment in moderation.

  30. stanley seigler June 29, 2011 at 16:46 #

    [DNA say] The science has all been done and, despite Biklen et al bleating that the wrong investigative methods have been used, the results have been overwhelmingly negative with regard to Facilitated Communication working.

    respectfully disagree with your opinion…despite all the antiFC crusaders’ bleating and ms dawson’s promotional science…the bottom line is FC works…it becomes more popular each day.

    difficult to understand the antiFC crusade…FC is just hand over hand that leads to independent typing…sometimes results are miraculous.

    [Kwom say] the reality is that it is FC which denies the disabled the chance at communicating.

    the mantra of the antiFC crusader is show me the evidence…so show me…names maybe…of those that FC has denied the chance…ask larry and tracy (Wretches & Jabberers), if FC denied them a voice…

    [GF say] all you’ve shown is that FC is popular

    and becoming more popular everyday…

    see LBRB FC thread for additional comments/opines…LBRB owner pls provide link

    BTW how many of you know a person who uses FC…or know someone who was denied a voice by FC.

    stanley seigler

  31. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. June 29, 2011 at 17:00 #

    Gray Falcon: “The simple test is this: Ask several questions to the subject when the facilitator is absent. If the questions are answered correctly, the subject is doing the answering. If not, then it’s the facilitator. Nearly every time it was tested, it was the facilitator who was found to be doing the communicating.”

    This is what Howard Shane did in the Prisoners of Silence episode of 60 Minutes. And it is as sure-fire a way as you’ll get to find out if there’s any doubt as to authorship of messages produced in facilitation. This test can be augmented to give evidence as to who is producing the messages by then doing the workplace equivalent of the T-screen experiment done by the O. D. Heck Center staff (in which they found clear evidence that FC was not reliable at all). Howard Shane used a set of folders with pictures in them, on each side of a flap. Some had the same picture on both sides of the flap, and some had different ones. If the results of facilitation show clearly that the facilitatee‘s pictures are being identified, then it’s clear that FC is working. The problem for FC is that it is almost always the facilitator‘s pictures that get identified. Which is pretty much unequivocal evidence that FC doesn’t work as a means of enabling communication for someone who cannot or does not use spoken language.

    But – in settings where FC is practiced – then this testing should be a de jure event on a regular basis. Without it, a fraudulent method gets to carry on in use.

  32. Gray Falcon June 29, 2011 at 17:07 #

    Thank you, Mr. Andrews, I know I’ve heard of that test before, but I don’t know where I did.

    Mr. Seigler, if you can’t understand why we’re upset over a false technique that takes voices away from disable people and has lead to false accusations and ruined lives, then I suggest you learn some basic humanity.

  33. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. June 29, 2011 at 17:12 #

    Stanley: “it becomes more popular each day.”

    Indeed, but this is not proof of efficacy (i. e., that it works); it’s just a measure of how many people respond favourably to it. People still respond favourably towards the notion that vaccines cause autism: the science is unequivocal on that too… vaccines don’t cause autism.

    “sometimes results are miraculous.”

    This is actually problematic and is always going to cause mistrust amongst the scientific… ‘miraculous’ is not natural. And it is one of the things we look for in science to signal that something needs proper investigation. As for FC just being hand-over-hand … even the main FC promotion lot disagree with that. Probably because you cannot really patent h-o-h methods.

    Nonetheless, thank you for disagreeing respectfully. It is much appreciated. I’m thinking that neither of us is in a mood for animosity here.

  34. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. June 29, 2011 at 17:38 #

    there’s still one comment in moderation, responding to Stanley. just wondering… should i repost it?

  35. James T. Todd June 29, 2011 at 18:32 #

    Mr. Seigler:

    I am totally puzzled. I never once in my life “acknowledged” that facilitated communication produced “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials.” Yet, I see you repeatedly attributing to me this false notion of genuine FC-derived accomplishments. Perhaps there is something in my use of conventional punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure that has made me difficult to understand.

    A tiny minority of institutions glomming onto some bit of nonsense is not new. Nor does residing at an institution of higher learning prove the validity of the bizarre notions that sometimes creep into through the cracks. As long as they have been nurturers of and havens for new ideas, and have given wide berth to the activities of their faculties, most universities discover themselves to be the employers of a few cranks, and sometimes even outright charlatans. Most view having a few cranks as a cost of doing intellectual business, tolerating the generally harmless fancies of a few “colorful” academics for the greater good. But that’s not what most universities hope to have, especially having the charlatans–unless they are like Syracuse, which not only endorses a method which destroys families, but actually has a Chancellor, Nancy Cantor, whose disdain for scientific evidence relative to anecdote in evaluating FC is explicit and palpable.

    http://tinyurl.com/2nu4bt

    What I am saying is that Syracuse and the few others are anomalies, not exemplars. In any case, I don’t suppose the University of Nancy is deeply proud of having one of science’s most famous follies named after it. Washington University hardly ever seems to say much about the McDonnell Laboratory for Psychical Research. Does Duke University have brass plaque somewhere celebrating the research of Joseph Rhine, Louisa Rhine, and William McDougall on Lady Wonder, the supposedly psychic, typing, crime-solving horse, lauding their published and peer-reviewed articles concluding that she might very well be a psychic, typing, crime-solving horse? I don’t see the University of Western Ontario making a big deal of its own Philippe Rushton being the president of the Pioneer Fund, or quoting his overtly racist “Toronto the Good” statement in its recruiting materials. Syracuse, in contrast, does promote its dangerous pseudoscience, wearing it like a badge of honor.

    MIT, for its part, is most likely grabbing onto FC because (1) Douglas Biklen has an enormous talent for spotting and leveraging credulity in otherwise intelligent, well-connected people, (2) MIT can attach its “affective computing” efforts to the hot, hot, hot media bait topic of autism, and (3) the Media Lab shares connections with the FC efforts at Syracuse through the FC-loving Nancy Lurie Marks Foundation. (This is not it’s first FC meeting at the MIT Media Lab. It’s just the first big public one.) I’m guessing a place like the Media Lab that would send Roz Picard and Matthew Goodwin to Argentina to investigate Daniel Orlievsky’s mixture of FC and psychodynamic thinking is not only flush with credulity, but has plenty of money laying around for wasteful international travel. It is clearly willing to send people travelling across the globe to mine new veins of autism flummery. The only thing this group seems to lack is a respect for science and even a shred of ethical concern for the harm associated with promoting a demonstrably ineffective and dangerous intervention.

    Back to methodology. I am also puzzled about the fundamental logic of asking various FC Stars and their facilitators about validity of FC given that the FC of those people has never been objectively validated. I mean, here’s my problem. FC has never been shown to work under methodologically sound conditions. Even the “quantitative” validity studies done by FC advocates end up with such poor performances that are actually evidence against FC. There are many studies showing that FC is nothing more than facilitator influence. Now we are hypothetically offered unvalidated writing arising from facilitator/communicator pairs–which we are nevertheless supposed to trust as the last, final, absolute word on the validity of FC? It is as if you are saying, “Refusal to prove is all the proof I need.” Are we to also believe mediums are really in contact with the spirits because they report protestations of authenticity from the “other side?” Recall that I have seen and met the stars of “Wretches and Jabberers.” I saw nothing in several hours of observation and interaction that would suggest all that typing attributed to them is theirs rather than their facilitators’. Here’s what also doesn’t make sense. What if Mr. Thresher and Mr. Bissonnette can actually communicate by typing, and they are being prevented from doing so by the heavy-handed (literally) assistance of their facilitators, Mr. Lavoy and Mr. Cheng? That was Sandra McClennen’s claim with respect to the facilitators in the Wendrow case. She testified that girl could communicate, but the facilitators were really the authors. Why are Lavoy and Cheng somehow immune from the same potential problem? They would not be the first experienced facilitators to have authored output. Mayer Shevin, who once told me that I have “good technique” as a facilitator, admits in one of his chapters to influencing FC output. Shouldn’t we directly and objectively test for that problem in other supposed FC experts before we even think about using statements arising from them as evidence for credibility of FC?

    James T. Todd, Ph.D.

  36. David N. Andrews M. Ed., C. P. S. E. June 29, 2011 at 18:41 #

    yay – it’s out now 🙂

  37. stanley seigler June 29, 2011 at 20:13 #

    [todd say] I am totally puzzled. I never once in my life “acknowledged” that facilitated communication produced “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials.”

    COMMENT: LBRB: James Todd October 7th, 2009 21:26:27, “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.”

    then on kwom blogs after the above was quoted there was a discussion re your acknowledgement…the definition of acknowledged was pointed out: “To admit the existence”

    your fellow antiFC crusader (kwoom) has blocked me from her list (w/o explanation) so the above ie from a poor memory…hope if you have a different recollection you can get me unblocked so we can reach an agreement

    the testimonials, etc did exist…as you “acknowledged”…

    [todd say] A tiny minority of institutions glomming onto some bit of nonsense is not new.

    the “new” was based on todd’s comments FC was back with a vengeance…

    [todd say] same old same old antiFC hyperbole

    see LBRB FC thread

    stanley seigler

  38. Calli Arcale June 29, 2011 at 20:14 #

    Horrifying. And through it all, there is no mention of criminal charges against the aide for her negligence. I can understand the school district’s position; they are mandated reporters, and have little choice in this matter. They can’t possibly have expected the police and prosecutors to have been so insane about the whole thing. But as they hired the aide, they will doubtless be liable for what she did. She herself will likely go on to work with other children. I just pray she doesn’t break up another family like this.

    The prosecutor saying he’d apologize only over his dead body for the hell he put them through, and the hell he put those children through. There is rarely any justice for the perpetrators of these crimes, where it’s a crime of pride and arrogance and excessive zeal to right wrongs. In the desire to save one life, they ruined four, one of them the life they sought to save, and they won’t even acknowledge that.

  39. Gray Falcon June 29, 2011 at 20:27 #

    This thread: https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/10/facilitated-communication-where-does-a-neurodiverse-skeptic-stand/

    I don’t see anything there that you haven’t said earlier. Please, we’re not your enemies, we’re trying to help you understand.

  40. James T. Todd June 29, 2011 at 20:56 #

    Mr. Seigler:

    No go.

    You said, “todd acknowledges: “amazing feats, college degrees, scripts, awards of FC Stars and abounding testimonials.” Nope. I spoke of the vacuous claims by others about these things.

    I am inclined to believe that you have no real arguments in favor of facilitated communication if you must resort to fabricating inconsistencies in your opponents’ arguments.

    James T. Todd, Ph.D.

  41. stanley seigler June 29, 2011 at 21:13 #

    [todd say] Nope. I spoke of the vacuous claims by others about these things.

    to repeat your comments: James Todd October 7th, 2009 21:26:27, “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.”

    you said and i quote: “testimonials abound… There are plenty of FC Stars for which amazing feats are claimed: college degrees, scripts, awards.”

    do you now say there are not: “testimonials abound… There are plenty of FC Stars for which amazing feats are claimed: college degrees, scripts, awards.”

    i have no problem with your crawfishing as they do exist whether you acknowledge or not.

    if you can get me unblocked from kwom blog perhaps your acknowledgement can be clarified…

    stanley seigler

  42. KWombles June 29, 2011 at 21:27 #

    Stanley,

    Science 2.0 is not “my blog.” I did not block you nor did I have anything to do with blocking you. Science 2.0 did. Given that you repeatedly (and I mean in the dozens) posted the same thing over and over again day after day, I can’t imagine why you think anyone would tolerate that level of spamming.

    I can’t attest for whether that means you can’t actually see the site or not, however we know that Arthur spends his time copying our comments into the autismfc list. Maybe the comments are there.

    I’m not sure what the point of engaging in further discussion with you is, after having had that “pleasure” for the last six months or so. You do not rebut the points made in the pieces with evidence. You do what you’ve done here. I somehow can’t help but think that your time and certainly mine would be spent doing something somewhat less pointless. Banging my head into a brick wall would have better results than reading and responding to your repeated, nearly-incoherent insults.

    I think we understand your position: you believe that perceived popularity of FC means it’s effective in the same manner that anti-vaccine folks through about their “ten thousand parents can’t be wrong” story.

    Unfortunately, the entire psychological and medical professional organizations stand against that with twenty plus years of evidence showing it doesn’t work. AAC technology renders any need for hand-over-hand, hand-on-arm, hand-on-shoulder, or hands-holding-device completely unnecessary.

    Instead of considering this mountain of evidence, you maintain your belief in FC and cast anyone who relies on the scientific evidence as an enemy to be attacked.

    I have no doubt you love your daughter and want the best for her, but that love and commitment do not exonerate you from the responsibility for your own conduct.

  43. KWombles June 29, 2011 at 21:30 #

    *throw* about

  44. stanley seigler June 29, 2011 at 21:45 #

    [kwom say] Given that you repeatedly (and I mean in the dozens) posted the same thing over and over again day after day, I can’t imagine why you think anyone would tolerate that level of spamming

    i posted (not in the dozens as yo hyperbole claims) because the post was not posted and there was no explanation as to why not..

    [kwom say] whatever

    same old incorrect antiFC hyperbole and adhoms…eg, “AAC technology renders any need for hand-over-hand, hand-on-arm, hand-on-shoulder, or hands-holding-device completely unnecessary” and “nearly-incoherent insults”

    stanley seigler

  45. KWombles June 29, 2011 at 21:50 #

    Not hyperbole. And not adhoms. Maybe you could spend some time looking up the fallacies. It might serve you well. Nizkor Fallacies is an excellent site. Just google it.

    However, since you’ve once again demonstrated clearly that communicating with you is a colossal waste of time, I’ll be glad to let you comment time after (incoherent) time never offering evidence for why two decades of research should be overlooked in favor of a thoroughly debunked treatment when there are devices that work for those who are nonverbal but do understand language.

    Unless perhaps it’s the discomfort in realizing that not all individuals understand language or will?

  46. Gray Falcon June 29, 2011 at 21:50 #

    Mr. Seigler, bit of advice: Perhaps you should address these criticisms rather than simply dismiss them. Seriously, let go of your pride, if not for your sake, your daughter’s.

  47. stanley seigler June 29, 2011 at 21:59 #

    [kwom say] I think we understand your position: you believe that perceived popularity of FC means it’s effective in the same manner that anti-vaccine folks through about their “ten thousand parents can’t be wrong” story.

    you think you know what i believe…as implied earlier, your arrogance is limitless…i am not familiar with the “10,000 story” and it is not preceived popularity (another eg of your hyperbole) it is actual popularity…andand;

    i do not believe popularity is real/true scientific proof of anything…perhaps proof of promotional scientific proof as used by the antiFC crusaders…but do believe it cannot be summarily dismissed.

    stanley seigler

  48. James T. Todd June 29, 2011 at 22:27 #

    Ms. Arcale:

    Thank you for your on-point comments and questions.

    Unless it could be shown that the aides intentionally fabricated the allegations against the family, it is unlikely there could be criminal charges. The aides have testified in various ways that they were basically doing what they were told, implementing what the school presented to them as an educational or communication accommodation. Their subordinate role in the school also suggests they might have “qualified immunity,” and would be difficult to successfully sue. (They are named in an ongoing suit.) I would, of course, defer to legal expertise in that matter. I am here relating what I have been told by attorneys more familiar these things than I.

    The school, of course, has considerable exposure, and is also named in the suit along with various individual administrators. It seems to be relying on the fact that the parents put enormous pressure it to use FC. I don’t know whether there’s any exoneration for that in the law. It is my view that being experts, schools are sometimes going to have to resist even the greatest pressure from parents and interest groups to do misguided and dangerous things. I’d look for settlement, as was the result of the family’s suit against the police.

    As for the zeal of the Oakland County prosectors, take a look at these links about the James Perry case, which was happening at the same time as the Wendrow case, with the same assistant prosecutor. The prosecutors’ behavior was was not zeal. It was obsession to the point of apparently complete inability to look beyond its own beliefs to the evidence plainly arrayed before it. Perry was also railroaded, and ended up enduring two trials, five months in jail, and the possibility of a third trial before it was all over. This was the case that brought us the term, “non-erotic pornography” to describe “The Lion King” and “Harry Potter.”

    http://jonathanturley.org/2008/08/22/abuse-charges-against-michigan-teacher-dropped-as-prosecutor-faces-bar-disciplinary-action/

    http://www.freep.com/article/20080822/NEWS03/808220399/-m-just-overwhelmed-James-Perry-says-after-legal-ordeal-ends

    I don’t think justice should be expected in an environment that allows such things to occur.

    Jim

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Autism Blog – A Controversial Autism Therapy Unravels a Family … | My Autism Site | All About Autism - June 27, 2011

    […] Read the rest here: Autism Blog – A Controversial Autism Therapy Unravels a Family … […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: