

James Randi: This Cruel Farce Has To Stop - jeremyw
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/783-this-cruel-farce-has-to-stop.html

======
mahmud
PBS Frontline episode where "FC" is debunked.

[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3439467496200920717&...](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3439467496200920717&ei=rzAMS7nxHIrOqAKI75xi&hl=en#)

Example:

" PLEASE HEED MY NEED

    
    
      I NEED TO HEED
    
      OTHERS
    
      I THIS REASON THINK
    
      THE WORLD 
    
      THEY NEED HEED
    
      LIKE WE HEED
    
      BROTHERS" -- Facilitated Communication "by" a 2nd grader
    

12:13 in the video

~~~
mahmud
22:00 and after.

* In a blind-test where guides where shown different pictures than disabled kids; 100% of the time, in 180 tests, the children failed to communicate the pictures they have been shown to the guide. In fact, 100% of results were the images show to the guide!

* The chief evangelist of FC accepts that cases were the children were not even looking at the keyboard were unacceptable and unscientific, but he blamed the guides for being too eager to communicate on behalf of the kids. However, there is plenty of footage of him observing a session where the children were either asleep, looking at the ceiling, or generally not paying any attention. And he made no effort to correct the actions of the guide. Similar practices were also shown of his top aides and students.

* As soon as FC was deployed, there were large scale allegations of child abused, where children were removed from homes and some parents to told to sever all contact with their kids. This prompted one family to inquire about the practices of FC, and after writing to main Autism think-tank in Washington D.C. discovered thousands of similar claims were made in FC sessions. Later tests showed children could not communicate such messages and charges were dropped, but no FC guide was ever charged with wrong doing.

* Millions in public money were spent on FC and an international network of FC practitioners and vendors sprung throughout the U.S.

* A video is shown of the inventor of FC where she is helping a patient choose his fate on whether to stay at home, go to nursing care and other options. The patient is immobile and has a head-mounted pointer where he is choosing the options, and he clearly choose to go into a nursing home. However, when a line is drawn positioning the board, you could clearly see the "guide" ever so slightly moving the board down until the patient makes his "judgment". [This viewer found it curious that the patient was perfectly capable of random movements and jerks, but not accurate slow movement. Not even I can hold a pen so steady with such precision.]

* The final straw was the sight of an autistic kid communicating through a guide, and using this opportunity before a massive audience to attack the opponents of FC and expressed doubts in their academic honesty and their desire to help children!

~~~
wisty
That's not definitive. You should ask a few spirits, using a Ouija board.

~~~
tumult
For anyone keeping track, the comment I am replying to is the kind of comment
you should not be voting up if you want votes to mean anything. By extension,
that also includes this comment itself.

~~~
gord
Im not keeping track...

I upvoted your comment to nullify a downvote, because I believe that downvotes
should be reserved for offensive content.

[ Its a political position, context free, and orthogonal to your intent, so I
hope you can forgive the upvote... its not personal. ]

------
gruseom
It's a shame that this controversy has drowned out the original story: a guy
thought to have been in a vegetative state turns out to have a normally
functioning brain and has definitively communicated with outside observers
(quite separately from the FC stuff). That, at least, is how I understand the
following interview with the neurologist and coma specialist who is treating
him:

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1207843...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120784397)
[audio]

...assuming, of course, that the doctor is credible and competent (and not
only relying on FC).

(I also noticed that HN's resident neuroscientist was downvoted for taking the
story seriously.)

~~~
Schtarflucz
Yup, Steve Laueys is among the leading specialist about consciousness
disorders. His team is also behind the methodology of the fMRI study that
showed that a woman, thought to be in a vegetative state, was able to perform
mental imagery tasks (like imagining she's playin tennis, or wandering in her
house).

I work at the same university and I have already had the occasion to talk with
him. He's not the kind of guy to buy phony stuff. I'd be very surprised if he
accorded any credit to FC, even though the patient's family might do.

BTW, he works in the same lab as the people who publishes the early
birds/night owls paper featured on HN a few months ago.

~~~
Semiapies
Have his results and methodology been replicated by other researchers, though?
I've had trouble finding mentions of such. Having a methodology that only one
guy can "make work" sounds more than a little like Steven Hayne's bite mark
frauds.

~~~
Schtarflucz
The methodology of the mental imagery paper has been published in detail as a
separate paper (by Melanie Boly who actually designed the experiment).

There are various telltale signs of consciousness that can be detected by PET
scan. Vegetatve patients have their associative cortices deactivated,
especially the precuneus that's known to be involved in the processing of
information about oneself.

Furthermore, you can detect using PET that the activity of the cortex and the
thalamus are correllated in controls, but not in vegetative patients.

These results have been published 15 years ago, I supposed that they've been
reproduced since that time. The main criticism that they received was that
they were passive measurements.

The imagery experiment requires he subject to perform the various tasks during
several blocks of 30 seconds inside the MRI scanner. Vegetative subjects only
show a brief activation of the primary auditory crtices while the instructions
are given. Controls show an activation of different higher level areas
involved on the task.

The patient of the Owen paper (Science 2006) showed an cortical activation
comparable to controls although she was completely non communicative and
remained so during several months.

I don't know what test were performed for the patient discussed in this HN
thread, but I know that they have more than enough reliable tests to detect
awareness in non communicative patients.

------
alan-crowe
I found <http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/misc/hottopics/fcwheel.htm> to be the most
interesting link on facilitated communication.

Look at it through the lens of two-from-four thinking.
<http://www.cawtech.freeserve.co.uk/nat_neg.2.html>

We think it is a binary question: does the message originate with the patient
or the facilitator. Think harder; there are two binary questions. Where does
the message really originate? Where does the facilitator think it is coming
from?

It is very tempting to think that these two questions are pretty much the same
and most always have the same answer. This gives us two of the four
possibilities: it really works, its is deliberate fraud.

The piece by Doug Wheeler opts for the third of the four possibilities

>The effect was powerful and personally devastating, as feared.

Most of the facilitators were unaware of the illusory nature of facilitation,
so the bottom dropped out of their world, like a cuckcolded husband
discovering that the child wasn't his. (except the other way round, kind of,
it is the weirdness that makes this so interesting.)

So there is one story about the people in comas and another different story
about healthy people being sucked in by a powerful illusion. The scary part of
the second story lies in the escape route. An outsider insists on doing
careful experiments. Those inside the illusion are annoyed at the waste of
time, but unconcerned by the possibility of a negative result.

So when Madoff conned lots of people was there a similar illusion at work?
People were convinced that he persuaded them that he was legitimate. But he
could have been in a coma, and his investors facilitators, producing the
message: these are great, safe investments. The standard narrative credits
Madoff with extra-ordinary powers of conmanship. That has implications for us
as potential marks. We must look outside and be vigilant against an external
enemy. But if the facilitators experience is part of wider picture we never
suspect that key communications are not coming from him but from us.

------
rglovejoy
What I find to be most remarkable about all of this is that Syracuse
University continues to sponsor a FC institute, despite the evidence that FC
does not work. They might as well have students majoring in phrenology or
aura-reading.

If anyone associated with Syracuse is reading this, I have to ask, is this a
source of embarrassment to the students and faculty, or does the
administration view this "institute" as a revenue source?

------
CulturalNgineer
The saddest thing is likely that this poor fellow actually may have
consciousness and some better form of communication would be wonderful for him
if that's the case...

But is being exploited by "FC" yo-yo's who are either naive or corrupt.

Unfortunately great numbers of naive and corrupt are readily available.

------
robg
Hard to fake a PET scan.

~~~
teej
The article makes no claims as to the brain activity of the man. He is
debunking that this man is able to communicate beyond simple yes and no. The
only "talking" this man has done has been through FC, a practice clearly shown
to be bunk.

~~~
robg
The article on msnbc references both the PET scan and the facilitated
communication.

[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34109227/ns/health-
more_health_n...](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34109227/ns/health-
more_health_news/)

Not sure why Randi got so upset (or which report set him off). Even if the
typing is a fraud, the injury and the realization that he was locked-in don't
seem to be.

~~~
greendestiny
The foundation have been out to debunk this 'facilitated communication' for a
while. This is a high profile case that mentions it, hence a good opportunity
for people to learn what a hurtful lie this type of thing is.

~~~
robg
I don't think it's hurtful in this case. The guy is much more conscious than
the family ever thought. The PET scan verifies it. If they also believe he's
talking, well after 20-something years I don't think that's the worst thing in
the world. But sure, FC on someone who's essentially brain dead is a different
horrid beast.

Randi does good work. In the case though I think he jumped in too quickly.

~~~
greendestiny
The FC is a different issue to the scan and consciousness. No one has
suggested he is conscious because of the FC, the article implies that that
came after the scans.

Essentially the FC is evil because its pretending to be communication from a
loved one and it isn't. He could have some actual capacity for communication
and its being ignored because of the FC.

Imagine if he does have the capacity to understand whats happening? Finally
they notice he's conscious and then they proceed to ignore him while some
bitch makes up pretty stories to tell his family and then writes a book.

------
leviathant
Is this Hacker News? I mean, I understand why I saw the article on several
other news aggregators yesterday, it's not really the kind of topic I expect
to see here.

~~~
gord
I do find the article interesting.

However I tend to agree with this comment - is this 'Hacker News'worthy?

I especially object to the downvote on this post - I think downvoting shouldnt
be used unless the post is clearly offensive.

It think this is legitimate comment - HN needs to preserve Freedom of Speech
and not become a self-serving myopic site where people are afraid to speak
their mind for fear of losing karma brownie points.

~~~
daeken
While I, as well, agree that this may well not be HN-worthy, your usage of
"Freedom of Speech" is silly. First and foremost, the concept of "Freedom of
Speech" has no application in a private forum. If HN allows free speech, it
does so willingly, not because it _needs_ to. In addition to that, freedom of
speech does not mean that your words aren't allowed to be judged. People often
forget that freedom of speech means the freedom to offend and be offended, and
both sides are able to say what they want. In that way, voting is a form of
'speech' as well, it's just not textual.

~~~
gord
yes, I agree perversely. Im assuming HN users value freedom of speech, and I
think less down-voting helps preserve the value of HN by encouraging open
discussion.

Im hoping that down votes happen less when people speak their mind.. and that
downvotes are on average reserved for clearly offensive content.

I think the issue needs some introspection, hence I risked being downvoted.

