Jason, I didn't get fired up at all. I had to repost my last message with the qualifier “I like you,” which I do, because I didn't want you to get angry. Although getting fired up may lead someone to do more research to support their point, it may also make it harder to take in evidence that is against their view. It is true that I like you and you are my friend. Even though I often get fired up, I actually enjoy it when my opinions are challenged. I am almost 100 percent sure that I am similar to all others and have blind spots, even now after find and fixing so many of them. Of course I don't know because by definition I don't “see” my mental blind spots. After re-rereading and rethinking this, I conceded that you are pretty much correct on the anecdotal evidence thing. I haven’t checked to see if there is any credibility to the stories. In my opinion anecdotal evidence has some value, but only when the facts are reliable.
Scientific studies have much value but can also be wrong for a number of reasons. Below are some short summaries of reasonable sounding studies that claim the FC can work. These are on a CNN web page that is accessed by a link on another CNN page that is one of the stories that supposedly shows that Gupta actively promotes or promoted FC. The most that can be said in that regard, in those articles, is that in one, one of Gupta’s correspondents does seem to actively promote FC. But Gupta never does promote it and in my opinion gives a balanced presentation overall. On the web page where the below summaries are found, there are others that don’t support FC. I didn’t bother to post them because you already agree with those. Here is the link followed by a some of the summaries of scientific studies that got favorable results for FC. Please explain to me why these are all wrong. http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/shows/autism.world/fc/studies.html Cardinal, D. N., Hanson, D. & Wakeham, J. (1996). Investigation of authorship in facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 34, 231-242. "We examined whether facilitated communication users, under controlled conditions, could transmit rudimentary information to a na•ve facilitator. Forty-three students across 10 classrooms were shown a single randomly selected word with their facilitator out of the room. The facilitator then entered the room and asked the student to type the word, which was recorded exactly as typed and later evaluated; approximately 3,800 attempts were conducted over a 6-week period" (231). "There were two main findings of the study. First, under controlled conditions, some facilitated communication users can pass information to a facilitator when that facilitator is not aware of the information, and second, the measurement of facilitated communication under test conditions may be significantly benefited by extensive practice of the test protocol. This latter result could partially account for the inability of several past studies to verify facilitated communication-user originated input" (238). Sheehan, C. & Matuozzi, R. (1996). Investigation of the validity of facilitated communication through the disclosure of unknown information. Mental Retardation, 34, 94-107. "Three individuals (8, 10, and 24 years old with diagnoses of autism and mental retardation) participated in a message-passing format to determine whether they could disclose information previously unknown to their facilitators. Results showed valid facilitated communication from each participant" (94). "The data from the current study lead us to caution that a phenomena as complex as facilitated communication eludes a cursory exploration. Each participant was able to disclose information accurately and deftly at times and was wholly inadequate in his or her attempts at other times...The developing picture of an individual's validity profile replete with the patterns of required support, inconsistency, language impairment, and strides towards independence may well be the only reasonable evaluation of a validity confidence level" (104). Weiss, M.J.S., Wagner, S.H., & Bauman, M.L. (1996). A validated case study of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 34 (4), 220-230. The case of a 13-year-old boy with autism, severe mental retardation, and a seizure disorder who was able to demonstrate valid facilitated communication was described. In three independent trials, short stories were presented to him, followed by validation test procedures with an uninformed facilitator providing physical support to the subject's arm. In trials 1 and 3, several specific answers were provided that clearly indicated that the young man, not the uniformed facilitator, was the source of the information. Moreover, some responses seemed to imply that the subject was employing simple inferential and abstract reasoning. The case study adds to the small, but growing number of demonstrations that facilitated communication can sometimes be a valid method of communication for at least some individuals with developmental disabilities. Dr. Michael J. Weiss and Dr. Jan Nisbet contributed to this report. Dr. Weiss is a developmental psychologist at Giant Steps School in Connecticut, a private school for children diagnosed with autism and other developmental disabilities, and also is an adjunct professor in psychology at Fairfield University. He has been a faculty member at the Schools of Medicine at McGill and Harvard Universities and a staff psychologist at the Children's Hospitals in Montreal and Boston. Weiss has worked in private practice and has published numerous articles, chapters, and abstracts related to infancy, children and families, and developmental disabilities. Dr. Nisbet is director of the Institute on Disability and a tenured associate professor in the Department of Education at the University of New Hampshire. She has conducted research and writing for the past 20 years on topics related to school restructuring and reform, transition from school to adult life, supported employment, self- determination, inclusive adult lives and aging On Jan 9, 1:03 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Isparklaria, > > I know you personally and like you but in my opinion you are being > extremely dishonest and irrational. If there is someone that FC > helped, the researchers from those journal articles would approve of > it. The problem is that those faith healing like cases are often > supported by anecdotal stories. You are also being utterly ridiculous > with the accusation that I am advocating censorship. I never even > suggested that Gupta or CNN should not cover FC. That is fantasy that > only exists in your head. I only stated that Gupta is not the right > person for the Surgeon General position and explained why. > > Jason > > PS--I hope this gets you fired up. The first sentence is nearly a > direct quote from (or at least model after) your post about me. > > On Jan 8, 10:14 pm, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > One of the reasons that I don't like Gupta is that he seems to make > > sound byte news and also I know of him having an out and out error > > that he refused to admit in the case of Michael Moore's movie sicko. > > I > > am reading the same thing from you. I know you personally and like > > you, but in my opinion you are not being sufficiently honest. Gupta > > did not advertise FC. He did not endorse in the stories I read. > > Maybe I missed something. If I didn’t miss anything are you > > advocating that the press be censored and no information by on the air > > about FC unless it conforms to the most negative opinion about it? > > > Here are the facts as I see them. > > > 1. There have been several studies on FC. > > > 2. The results don't look good for FC. For the most part it has been > > discredited but there are some reasons to believe that the studies > > had > > a problem. How you treat people is important and does effect their > > performance on something like this, especially people with autism. > > Nevertheless, FC does not look like an effective treatment in nearly > > all cases. > > > 3. There are a few notable exceptions where someone was definitely > > helped by FC. > > > 4. In my opinion, the people who were helped might have been helped > > by > > any quality human contact and help with their communication. However > > that has yet to be determined. Besides that is one good thing about > > FC, it requires one on one human contact and help with communication. > > If someone is basically intelligent and has certain problems (I don't > > know what they are) then FC did help them. These individuals might > > never have been helped except for by FC. It seems to me that > > researchers should be trying to figure what worked about the FC and > > how to figure out who might benefit from FC or a modified version and > > also how to identify those people. > > 5. If I had a child that has autism, I would want to try what I could > > that could help them and not hurt them. FC it seems can only hurt if > > it deprives someone of another treatment that might help. It seems > > that in most cases it is simply a waste of time and money. If time > > and > > money and issue than another treatment would probably be the way to > > go. > > > 6. From what I read Gupta reported numbers 1 though 3 correctly. He > > did not advertise FC, he simply reported a story in the news. If I am > > right about numbers 1 through 3 and the evidence that I have seen > > indicates that I am right, then in my opinion Gupta should have > > summarized in some way similar to number 4 above. > > > 7. Although I don't like Gupta, I don’t know much about him. I will > > not email Obama unless I see that Gupta really did actively promte > > FC. > > In my opinion he didn't so the best job on theses stories, > > but that's all. FC is not totally discredited, but I would say it is > > a > > waste of time and money for the vast majority. Gupta is not as > > responsible as I would like him to be, but he appears to be more > > honest than most. I still don't like him but I don’t have a sound > > reason to oppose his nomination. > > > 8. The "skeptics" are partly correct but they are dealing in sound > > bytes and bullying tactics which is often the case. They also don't > > seem to be interested or capable of dealing with the nuance of > > criticism about the quality of the research and expect animals and > > humans to behave in as predictable fashion as gears, pulleys, levers > > and other simple machines regardless of unfamiliar, unfriendly > > environment. > > > On Jan 8, 10:11 pm, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Gupta is advertising FC that has been discredited by careful > > > research. Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence. Take are > > > search design class. What more do you need? For example, anyone can > > > calm that daily masturbation cures cancer and people can have > > > anecdotal stories about the power of masturbation in curing cancer. > > > However, those anecdotal statements do not make masturbation a > > > validated scientific treatment of cancer. Yes, those "few unusual > > > people who have unquestionably benefited...[by jerking off and have > > > cured their cancer by this treatment]". What kind of argument is > > > that? Someone with that type of judgment (or lack thereof) should not > > > be a Surgeon General--that is my opinion. Claiming that snake oil > > > will help in some cases is not what should be said. It is ridiculous > > > because the person jerks off and forgo other treatments. Just like > > > children exposed to FC and are sometimes not exposed to other > > > treatments that have a history of effectiveness. > > > > On Jan 8, 1:37 pm, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Jason, > > > > > I have looked at three of those CCN links and I did not find that > > > > Gupta was actively promoting facilitated communcation. Maybe I missed > > > > something. It seemed that he reported that most studies have > > > > discredited it but there seem to be a few unusual people who have > > > > unquestionably benefited and a few studies that cliam that it does > > > > work for a few people. Please post some better information that shows > > > > that Gupta has actively promoted FC or ask one Gina Green to do so. I > > > > don't like Gupta and would like to write in against his nomination, > > > > but I need a reason. > > > > > Thanks > > > > > On Jan 8, 10:43 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > This above message is from Gina Green, Ph.D., BCBA .... > > > > > > On Jan 8, 7:56 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Here some information emailed from some work colleagues. > > > > > > > Jason > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 6:46 PM > > > > > > > Subject: URGENT - Fwd: Surgeon General > > > > > > > Colleagues, > > > > > > > Please see info below from Hank Schlinger and Jim Todd, and take a > > > > > > few > > > > > > minutes to email the Obama team if you share my opposition to their > > > > > > nominating as Surgeon General a media personality who has repeatedly > > > > > > demonstrated his blatant disregard for sound science and his active > > > > > > promotion of pseudoscience. Please also pass this on to others who > > > > > > might be concerned. > > > > > > > ___________________ > > > > > > > Read the information below from Jim Todd and then please take a > > > > > > moment > > > > > > and go to the Obama website below and ask the Team NOT to consider > > > > > > Sanjay Gupta for Surgeon General. If enough people oppose this > > > > > > possible nomination, maybe they will drop his name from > > > > > > consideration. > > > > > > (see my comments to President Elect Obama below) > > > > > > >http://change.gov/page/content/contact/ > > > > > > > "CNN reports that Sanjay Gupta, who has actively promoted > > > > > > facilitated > > > > > > communication as a valid and useful communication method, is being > > > > > > considered for United States Surgeon General. > > > > > > >http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/06/gupta.surgeon.general/index.html > > > > > > > Here are some links to Gupta's promotion of FC. > > > > > > >http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/blogs/paging.dr.gupta/2007/10/giving-autism...... > > > > > > > As far as developmental disabilities are concerned, Gupta seems not > > > > > > to > > > > > > understand the depth of his ignorance. Real people suffer real harm > > > > > > because of his advocacy of autism pseudoscience and his promotion of > > > > > > ersatz experts over real scientists." > > > > > > > Dear Obama Transition Team, > > > > > > > I am writing to express my strong opposition to Dr. Sajnay Gupta for > > > > > > U.S. Surgeon general. > > > > > > > Dr. Gupta has actively promoted facilitated communication (FC) as a > > > > > > valid communication method for people with autism. FC has been > > > > > > thoroughly discredited scientifically, a fact which Dr. Gupta > > > > > > refuses > > > > > > to accept, opting instead for anecdotes and personal observation as > > > > > > evidence of its validity. > > > > > > > The job of Surgeon General of the United States is too important to > > > > > > be > > > > > > offered to someone who has consistently promoted a pseudoscientific > > > > > > technique that has harmed so many children and their families. > > > > > > > Thank you.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
