Challenging the Research

• Therapy for Autistic Children by S.W., 5/18/97
  • (...)
    
    • Challenge the research not the researchers by J. Stuart, 9/25/98
      
      

Well J. Stuart, it seems whenever I get alittle arrogant it comes back in my face. As well it should.

Firstly, you or someone else could be talking to your son through FC. 80% of the autistics in my small sample could FC with someone.

Now to the research. I know about all the research that didn't provide any validation of FC. But fortuneately for people who haven't done FC there is some that has shown validity. The August '96 issue of the Journal of Mental Retardation has three studies that show validity on an individual basis. One study had a classically "low functioning" autistic read a short story while the facilitator was out of the room. When the facilitator came into the room the autistic was asked questions about the story. His answers through FC were 70% correct, not only validating his FC, but showing that he had an above average intelligence. In another study there, of the 50% of the autistics that wanted to particpate in the study (they were asked through FC), 30% showed validation of their communication through FC (the Cardinal study). These studies don't show blanket validation of FC, but they show enough validation to make one want to know more or at least give FC enough of a reasonable doubt to take it more seriously. But more importantly there are thousands of people who have used the method who swear it is the communicators who are initiating it and many annecdotal stories of validation.

What I discovered in my two year conversation with four adult autistics and one with spinal bifida is that they have some unusual abilities and operate alittle differently from us. One doesn't have to FC to know that there is something different about autistics. Well, there surely is... to say the least. Other people who FC may not agree with me on this, but I believe that I had an unusual opportunity to do a full investigation and some skills that went with it to produce a more in depth investigation ("QIM Tunes"). Many others worldwide using FC came up with similar discoveries unbeknowenst to eachother until later. I won't go into it now except to say that it heads into realms of science fiction and spirituality.

As an FC advocate, I really am not that interested in validity. Because I used it (FC) while I was working in residential care online, my main interest in FC was therapeutic. Most of the interventions we used had little scientific validity and I saw FC as just another intervention that helped or didn't help. FC helped produced positive behavioral outcomes way beyond any intervention that I used in my 25 years of service. Plus I absolutely loved talking to these guys through FC. I never have known more interesting or better people in my entire life. So as a worker trying to do what was best for my clients, FC was the ticket whether it was valid or not.

Then comes along all these pseudo scientists calling FC unethical. There premise being that since science has no evidence of any cognitive functioning of these people, it is unethical to believe that through FC you can tap cognitive abilities. For the 25 years before FC, these same purveyors of wisdom were telling me that we needed to assume that they had cognitive abilities and treat them accordingly. FC sure has made those people nervous.

Talking to you J. Stuart as one parent to another, please learn more about FC. I'd be glad to help.

No Replies