The critics and skeptics of FC want to have it both ways. They call it a "sham" and "quackery" but at the same time say that the people doing FC are "honest" and "ethical" and subject to the "seductive appeal" and "self fulfilling prophecy" of FC. I have no problem with the latter criticisms, but why the sham and quackery stuff? Could it be you have your own agenda of the "seductive appeal" and "self fulfilling prophecy" of what you consider the facts to be that these disabled people are cognitively brain dead and have no ability to communicate? You can continue with your professional arrogance if you allow us the right to communicate. We understand that if you can't sit in your office chair and pontificate, we certainly can't expect you to hold an autistics hand and try to communicate with him on his turf. I worked for two years doing FC as a residential counselor making near minimum wage and dealing with behaviors that no amount of money could compensate me for. I enjoyed talking to my clients through FC and found that it had positive behavioral outcomes that none of you psychologists could dream of accomplishing with your arrogance. Some of you wiser people in the field really need to curb the idiots amongst you.