Good eye. It is super fishy and scientifically debunked, revealing it for the fraudulent method it is

Because as Apraxia is a motor disability it’s hard for them to hold it

@@florpagosacosta5892 it's called a mount. he's not holding it because it's fake psudoscience propaganda trying to take us all for fools unfortunately. I'll admit this was well done but you can never get rid of that feeling that something is off about it. Did you notice how the lady in the videos they chopped to hell, from him doing it as a kid, was scolding him when he picked the letters she didn't want? that's not training someone to communicate, that's someone training you to create an illusion as if you're communicating. This is all very well documented about this RPM/Spell to Communicate etc. and it's known to be harmful to those subjected to it. It comes from people who think autism is some kind of disease that needs to be cured and people who think those who communicate non-verbally are not valid and need to speak and be conventionally intelligent to be of value. These people will go to the ends of the earth to convince you that this crap is real, there's other videos like this on youtube. They reject any scientific research and actively try to stop research being done because they're in so deep with their elaborate lies and they bank on them being able to say that you're being intrusive, wanting to pry into the life of a disabled child, if you want them to prove themselves. So no one can really challenge these parents on it. It's just sad because they're doing real harm!

I completely agree!!

Can you direct me to the peer-reviewed articles showing favor for this?

WHYY has told me it has not censored comments. The only comments that I'm aware of that have undergone censorship are those that linked to evidence against FC/RPM,S2C, ASHA's position statement, and evidence about the psychological illusions involved in facilitated communication. Those comments made no mention of the boy in the video. If the goal is to prevent cyberbullying, perhaps the comment that called Professor Travers "Mr. Troll" and accused him of self-promotion will be censored (update: it was not censored, but "Mr Troll" was eventually edited away by the comment's author). But my guess is that that comment will stay up, while the comment I'm typing right now will disappear. Update: this comment has stayed up, contrary to my predictions. But right below this comment, I'm about to add a comment that links to data. My prediction is that this comment will not stick around for long.

For links to information about the methodology discussed here, Spelling to Communicate/Rapid Prompting Method (RPM/S2C), see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_prompting_method and www.facilitatedcommunication.org/systematic-reviews. To view the American Speech Language Hearing Association’s position statement against RPM/S2C, see www.asha.org/policy/ps2018-00351/ It’s worth noting that some of the most prominent supporters of Spelling to Communicate also believe that vaccines cause autism-another theory that has been completely debunked. See www.amazon.com/How-Autism-Epidemic-J-B-Handley/dp/1603588248

@@katharinebeals 11 months strong! I have been directing hopeful families to the ASHA website as well. It needs to be known that S2C, RPM, and all FC are not just useless, but potentially harmful. The consumer deserves to be educated about evidence based procedures, and psudoscientific nonsense.

@@IcanSeeMyselfOutThanks No one cares about ASHAs stance when they don't take new research into consideration. If a family is finally able to communicate with their child, they have all the proof they need.

@@dawnjennings-os4ho What new research? Articles up through 2022 all say FC is crap.

some who do s2c or RPM will also develop more speech, but do you expect someone who is deaf and uses ASL to communicate also talk. There are actually issues with the body for many people with autism - called apraxia - they know what to do, but they cannot control their body to do it - whether that be speaking or tying their shoes. Another issue with apraxia is that the body will actually do things that they do not want to do, which includes unreliable speaking or scripting.

Can you cite those peer-reviewed articles in favor of FC? I don't see the relevance of your argument. In the case of Hari, it sounds like he had all the knowledge with him already, FC did not teach him all he knows. Sounds like he could have done the exact same thing with a pad of paper and a pen, american sign language, or an iPad with proloq2go. Unless you can scientifically show FC does what it markets itself to do, we are just going off of testimonials (which is a huge red flag for psudoscientific practices). FC is not approved by any reputable establishment, and has been proven to be the thoughts of the facilitator, not the learner. So....are you just happy with pretending, or do you want to really help these kids become independent communicators so that they can thrive in the environment?

@@IcanSeeMyselfOutThanks l have read your comments before on different videos on S2C …..the commenter has given you a further testimonial yet you refuse to accept it because it doesn’t fall in line with your thinking. I just wish you could devote as much energy in finding solutions rather than trying to demolish those that are working towards freedom of being ‘locked in’ - there are none so blind as those who refuse to see!

@bobwishart8780 I don't have to try to demolish FC, science has already done that for me. My question to you is why do you want to try to trick desperate families looking for help?

@@IcanSeeMyselfOutThanks Yes, you're exactly right, Hari had the knowledge with him already (S2C just gave him an effective way to communicate his knowledge), same for Matthew, Elizabeth Bonker, and many others who are lucky enough to have been given the chance to spell. Please educate yourself on apraxia and you will answer your question as to why they can't effectively communicate using a pen/paper, sign language or an iPad (those all require very complex fine motor), it takes a lot less motor control to move your arm to point to a letter. It's all about motor planning, not cognition.

There's no scientific proof S2C actually does what it is marketed to do. In fact, all the scientific evidence shows it is the facilitator communicating, not the kid. So, yeah, I'm a bit negative when people push this snake oil with 0 peer reviewed articles in favor of it, and prey on families who are looking for help for profit. If you would like, I can cite specifically why people should look into proven methods and not waste their time and money with FC, RPM, or S2C. Just ask!

Not true. There is a recent study done. I tried to post the link but it seems to have been taken down. It looked at the eye tracking of autistics while using assisted autistic communication. And showed that they were looking at the letter prior to touching it, revealing agency. There are other studies being currently designed as we speak. More to come for you to see.

@@lindatino4288 .....I never saw the first one. What should I google?

@@lindatino4288 oh, Linda...Linda...Linda....I hope you are not talking about "AAC", which is a scientifically proven method and does not stand for assisted autistic communication...Looking forward to reading that article! What should I google to find it?

Published in Nature by Vikram K Jaswal, Allison Wayne and Hudson Golino

Did you watch the video?

@@bobwishart8780 I did, and a lot of other video’s. And looked at study’s on ResearchGate and Pubmed.

@@bobwishart8780 Yes, and read a lot of the scientific research published on ResearchGate.

I am not sure who you are, but you should not lump Spelling to Communicate with facilitated communication methods where an individual's arm or hand is held by a facilitator. The assertion that a letterboard can be manipulated enough to produce complex and lengthy messages is simply not supported by open-minded observation. It's a shame you haven't done your homework.

I think that we need to rethink what "doing one's homework" means. In addition to empirical evidence/evidence-based practice, which has ever-evolving criteria across disciplines, even in the most objective fields, individuals and their support networks need to be listened to and taken seriously about what "works." Those afflicted should be the people we focus on when developing evidence-based practice, not professionals and academics who can be more steadfast to their bank accounts, reputations, and "accomplishments."

One more thought for the ASHA and AAIDD... In interventions for nearly every other disability category, support and scaffolding is highly encouraged. Envision the ubiquitous graphics used in nearly all special education programs of children watching a soccer game from the side-lines. The image depicting EQUALITY gives students of different heights the same exact stool for better viewing. The image depiciting EQUITY gives shorter students a higher bench to better ensure they can ACTUALLY see the game. Why with S2C is more support suddenly unfashionable? Individuals will need varying levels of support to succeed and to eventually become more independent. Why inhibit this progress with the most vulnerable/at-risk?

ratio

@@gregtino4230 He did not lump S2C with FC, science did. ASHA lumps them together because it's fake and there are 0 peer-reviewed articles showing it actually does what it says it does. Consumers need to be educated before they waste time and money on this.

Can you cite your sources? I was under the impression S2C is fake, and 100% the thoughts of the facilitator, not the learner.

@@IcanSeeMyselfOutThanks … here as well????

Why is “competence” limited to the type of written speech that conforms to our neurotypical conventions? It even includes publishing, going to college, advanced degrees, speaking tours. My NT (and AS kids) kids cannot necessarily do those things, but they are still well accepted. Why are NT’s judging the competence of neurodivergent non speakers by conventional verbal and worldly success standards? That means every non speaker is seemingly not competent until he begins to speak like the rest of us, ( but using a letter board). Not only that but his competence must impress as IQ “genius” ie spontaneously acquired without the steps of reading that precedes writing. I worry that parents who lovingly accept a non verbal child and work with his or her uniquely non verbal communication will be seen as negligent.

@@IcanSeeMyselfOutThanks And how exactly are the facilitators thoughts going from the facilitators mind to the speller's fingers? That takes some serious skill. Your theory is that these "cognitively impaired" individuals are able to pick up on these subtle cues by the facilitator in order to accurately spell, letter by letter these complex thoughts? That makes more sense to you than autistic/apraxic individuals being intelligent enough to communicate once they are taught the motor skill that allows them to do so? Imagine you might be wrong, imagine the harm you are causing.

@@bobwishart8780 huh? Who are you?

The problem is that what you know about autism and other disabilities needs some updating, Mr. Travers. There is a growing body of evidence supporting our method even though you like to claim there isn’t. Your comment about “autistic people deserving to be represented and supported as they truly are“ should read “supported as you (Mr. Travers) BELIEVES they are because you can’t see past your older view of autism”. There are no miraculous breakthroughs here. Every speller has shed blood sweat and tears to get to the point of fluency of someone like Matthew Cramer… my own son included, which took him over a year of very hard work and daily practice. If you would spend some time with some spellers you might not have posted your comment today

The problem is that what you know about autism and other disabilities need some updating, Mr. Travers. Your comment about “autistic people deserving to be represented and supported as they truly are“ should read “supported as you (Mr. Travers) believes they are because you can’t see past your older view of autism.” There are no miraculous breakthroughs here. Every speller has shed blood, sweat, and tears to get to the point of fluency of someone like Matthew Cramer… my own son included, which took him over a year of very hard work. If you spent some time with some spellers you might not have posted your comment today.

I am a Parent whose child went through 20 years of school with methods that may have claimed to be evidence-based - but did nothing to advance my child's education. The icon-based options , which were chosen by a facilitator rather than the individual, required full hand over hand prompting--so whose was the real communicator in that instance?? Clearly the facilitator. Mr Travers, you have already demonstrated your position on closing the door on this method because it doesn't line up with what lines your pockets. Spelling methods are not miraculous breakthroughs - they are rigorously taught methods that require practice, determination and patience. Please just stop with your 30+ year old comparisons. We are not in "Kansas" anymore nor are we in 1991.

Spot on Colleen Foti! All of those evidence based practices endorsed by ASHA did NOTHING for my son and in the process he never received any kind of education in his 12 years of school. I don’t have any confidence in anything backed by ASHA

Mr. Travers, one very crucial question for you... Are you the parent, sibling, or close relative of someone with autism who is minimally or non-speaking? Your thoughts mimic the meaningless rhetoric of ivory tower academics and professionals, divorced from the consequences of what their dogma and close-mindedness have on individuals with autism and their loved ones every second of every day. Think carefully about WHO you are actually serving here. What you deem "valid communication" is silencing for my brother, Matthew. You and your colleagues' inability to challenge and rethink the theory presented to you is plainly shameful and disconcerting in and of itself. I have never seen him more fulfilled than when he has used S2C. What real-world experience do you have witnessing how S2C affects someone with autism everyday? Research is needed, but research is also man-made and thus flawed. Research is a particular conundrum with autism. Autism confounds the fundamental nature of generalizable results.

In other words, a show where the only people who are interviewed are convinced parents and fringe doctors like Andrew Wakefield? (It's worth noting that many people who believe that Spelling to Communicate unlocks uninstructed literacy skills and uninstructed facts about fossilized resins also believe that vaccines cause autism).

They DID talk to one of the experts of autism......Matthew Cramer

Ms. Beals - Who determines who the experts are? Wouldn't the experts be the individuals that are Autistic and can provide first person information? I am quite confused at your suppression of the communication of those that are Autistic.

WHYY, are you censoring comments? Why is only one reply (besides the one I'm typing right now and about to submit) visible? Will this comment stay up? I'm familiar with the content of several of the comments you have deleted and they contain nothing offensive. Please explain your censorship policy.

@@katharinebeals It may not be their censorship policy but rather their content moderation guidelines. While you may not have found deleted comments offensive, WHYY's moderators might have viewed them as crossing the line from respectful debate into unjustified attacks on Matthew Cramer or the educators who support him. Content moderation can certainly be difficult, and subjective, but there is a growing movement to curb cyberbullying. I'm sure nothing nefarious was intended, they might have just erred on the side of protecting their subject, especially since Matthew is a minor.

Ms. Beals - do you feel that because you donate to a station they should only run stories that you approve of and agree with?

@@colleenfoti2829 seems that way

Ms. Beals - I believe any reasonable person watching this WHYY segment would agree with me in saying that S2C does not "suppress the voices of vulnerable individuals". Quite the opposite. It is crystal clear that it is giving him a voice. He looks quite happy and fulfilled. I also believe the same people would say that your negativity toward S2C is an unwelcome attempt to suppress the voices of the vulnerable. Why would you pour negativity on those who are simply trying to improve their lives?

It's even more disheartening to read your comment about "suppressing the voices of vulnerable individuals". I would suggest that you are guilty of suppression. Spelling to Communicate is not a facilitated communication method where an individual's arm or hand is held by a facilitator. The assertion that a letterboard can be manipulated enough to produce complex and lengthy messages is simply not supported by open-minded observation of the technique. Perhaps you should spend more time observing, rather that criticizing and disrespecting non-speakers.

Ratio