“Groundhog Day” FC Style: A perspective from a former facilitator
As I sat down to write this blog post, I was reminded of a movie called Groundhog Day where the main character, played by Bill Murray, relives the day repeatedly until he finally figures out a way to get himself out of what seems like an endless loop. Frankly, that’s how I’ve felt, lately, about my experience with Facilitated Communication (FC)—a technique I stopped using 30+ years ago, but still spend nearly every day talking or writing about in one way or another.
Today, I’m taking a break from directly reviewing the Telepathy Tapes podcast to share some thoughts I’ve had over the past few weeks and months as all this talk about nonspeaking individuals and telepathic abilities has unfolded. This blog post is a bit of a rant at (mostly credulous) reporters who are suddenly interested in the telepathic superpowers of profoundly autistic individuals without asking too many questions about the facilitator-dependent technique, FC, that underpins these claims.
Skip to the bottom if you want to know what questions I think reporters should be asking when it comes to the topic of FC/S2C/RPM instead of (overtly or covertly) endorsing a mystical, magical, pseudoscientific idea that claims to solve the complex communication needs of nonspeaking individuals with autism.
Image by DW
For a while (in the early- to mid-2000s), it looked like FC had died out, but within the last 10-15 years or so, it’s come back with a vengeance under the guise of Spelling to Communicate (S2C), Rapid Prompting Method (RPM), Spelling Method, and more. We’ve collected a list of over 20 different pseudonyms on our homepage, so it’s understandable that the average person could be fooled into believing that the facilitator-dependent technique they are using isn’t FC. But it’s reporters’ jobs to research the topic(s) they’re writing about.
FC’s popularity in 2025 seems to be following the same arc it did in the early 1990s. Back then, it was adopted by parents, educators and other professionals without any critical analysis of the technique or seeming concerns regarding the harms it could do. Its popularity was helped by media outlets who billed FC as a “miracle.” (See below for references to some of the early stories). Only this time, in addition to credulous news reporters, we have movies like “Spellers,” “The Reason I Jump,” and “Makayla’s Voice” as well as podcasts like the Telepathy Tapes and social media fueling people’s imaginations about what life could be like if profound autism was erased and nonspeakers’ words were replaced by those of their facilitators’. Proponents know that the standards of evidence are much—much—less rigorous in the popular media than it is with the scientific community. It’s why peddlers of pseudoscience often use popular media to spread their propaganda.
And, as much time as I’ve put into writing regular blogs for this website on topics that include my personal experiences with FC, I keep coming across or am sent articles written by reporters and proponents alike who have, it appears, co-opted my story to fit their own purposes. Especially lately, there seems to be an effort by some of the more enthusiastic and aggressive proponents to get me to, as they put it, STFU. I guess that means my message is hitting a nerve (as it should).
I’d suggest that, if anyone wants to read about what happened to me as a facilitator firsthand (and not through the perspective of some troll on the internet), they should go back and read through my blog posts or read the articles I’ve linked to below. And I highly recommend that anyone who hasn’t watched Prisoners of Silence, a Frontline documentary that aired in 1993 that accurately exposed the dangers of FC (and its flaws), do so ASAP. Although Prisoners of Silence was produced more than 30 years ago, it is still relevant today (sadly).
I realize that to many of today’s reporters, FC in its supposed “new” packaging seems like a revolutionary (if “controversial”) topic, but the technique was solidly debunked by the scientific community some 30 years ago. (I’m going to keep repeating that fact until it sinks in). My direct involvement with FC as a facilitator ended in 1993—a year or two before the first public opposition statements were published in the United States. But I keep having to relive that experience over and over and watch as the details of those events get twisted in more and more bizarre ways.
Who knew I’d still be talking about FC in 2025? And who knew it would become mainstream for proponents to rationalize away facilitator cueing and control by calling it telepathy?
I’d laugh, but it actually makes me quite sad to think nonspeaking individuals with complex communication needs are still being exploited by a technique that was debunked even before Douglas Biklen of Syracuse University brought it to the United States from Australia in 1989-1990. (See The Unusual and Excessive Hype of FC)
It does not seem to matter to today’s (mostly credulous) reporters that FC (in its variant forms) has been repeatedly denounced by major speech/language, health, and autism organizations who, among other things, caution that there is no scientific evidence to prove its efficacy and warn against prompt-dependency and other human rights violations. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), for example, has had an FC opposition statement in place since 1994-1995. They renewed their opposition in 2018 after a systematic review and decided to add the so-called "no-touch” forms of FC (RPM/S2C) to their statements as a result of their 2018 review. (See Opposition Statements and Systematic Reviews)
As a critic of FC, I’ve been dealing with FC almost daily since I decided to rejoin the public conversation about FC in 2012. I’d left teaching by then to pursue my interest in art, but at that time, I wrote an article for the journal EBCAI in reaction to yet another false allegations of abuse case (the Wendrows) that was receiving national attention. (Links to my article and others below, but see also the False Allegations section of our website).
Frankly, in 2012, I was stunned to learn that FC still existed. Naively, I thought that Prisoners of Silence had gone a long way in exposing the problems with the technique. Who in their right mind, I thought, would use FC after seeing that?
I say, “rejoin the public conversation,” because, almost as soon as I realized that facilitators (including myself) were controlling letter selection during FC, I stopped using it. I worked with the administrators in the school system to ban its use—at least until there was reliably controlled evidence to back up proponent claims of communication independence. I also talked with Jon Palfreman behind-the-scenes as he was researching Prisoners of Silence, though I was getting pressure from the school’s superintendent not to speak with the press. Later, I would talk with Hugh Downs, host of 20/20, for an episode about FC and the Wheaton case that aired in April, 1994. During the show, I met with and apologized to the Wheatons on air.
It might seem to some that transitioning from believer to skeptic was an easy process. It wasn’t. Some days, even 30+ years later, the sadness of that experience still gets to me. I’d do anything to go back and prevent the younger me from adopting FC, but I can’t. All I can do and have done is to admit to and learn from my mistakes, apologize for the hurt I caused, and move forward.
To people considering FC or reporting on the technique, it should raise huge red flags that no reliably controlled evidence for FC/S2C/RPM exists even 30 years after Prisoners of Silence. It seems to be lost on today’s reporters that proponents of FC/S2C/RPM should have tested for authorship and/or corrected the flaws in their technique(s) before releasing FC onto an unsuspecting (and sadly credulous) public, but they did not. Instead, reporters and proponents alike take an “it’s true because people using FC say it’s true” approach to the debunked technique. (Proponent stories are not evidence, they’re anecdotes and testimonials).
I wrote about my experiences in the 2012 EBCAI article in part because I’d hoped I wouldn’t have to keep reliving the details of my FC experience with every reporter who called and aggressively told me they’d be talking about my story whether I provided a comment or not. I’d also hoped that my speaking out would encourage other facilitators who’d tried and then abandoned FC (for whatever reason) to find the courage to step forward to publicly talk about their experiences as well—just like the facilitators featured on Prisoners of Silence from the O.D. Heck Center did for me.
Neither of these things have happened in part, I think, because former facilitators see how facilitators (like me) are demonized by proponents for casting doubt on FC. I suspect active facilitators are threatened by hearing about FC failures and, instead of testing their own skills under reliably controlled conditions, they double down on their belief system and distance themselves emotionally from the very real possibility (probability) that they are controlling letter selection. If they don’t look at their own behaviors, I guess they say to themselves, they don’t have to know the truth about FC.
Of all the reporters I’ve talked with to date, maybe one handful (literally five or fewer) have my respect. I’ve learned that, to most reporters, my story is just flavoring for articles they’ve already written perhaps even before talking with me. It’s got salacious details of false allegations of abuse made via FC-generated messages—messages, by the way, I’d authored while I still believed in FC that came out during a Department of Human Services (DHS) interview where I and my student were asked a bunch of leading and sexually explicit questions. Context matters.
Howard Shane from Boston Children’s hospital reenacts a simple message-passing test with Betsy and her mother for Prisoners of Silence. This is the same test I participated in. Contrary to what I’m now reading (that message-passing tests have a telepathic component to them), there were no telepathic interactions between me and my student. Not during the tests. Not ever. It never ceases to amaze me what rationalizations proponents can come up with to avoid reliably controlled testing. (Screenshot from Prisoners of Silence, 1993).
And, unlike the facilitators of today who are told it’s unethical to participate in authorship testing, I agreed to the testing (against the advice of FC workshop leaders) because it was the right thing to do. People’s lives were at stake and it was important to find out the truth about FC, regardless of the outcome.
What’s also not mentioned in most contemporary reports of my experience with FC is that I was devastated to find out that I, and not my student, was the author of the messages. It hurt deeply to learn that my intentions to provide my student with the support I thought she needed to communicate independently ended up causing emotional distress to my student, her family, and, dare I say, to myself. I’ve been actively working to right that wrong ever since.
But it’s important to understand that my experience isn’t unique. Every facilitator—every facilitator—who has participated in reliably controlled testing has come out of the testing with the exact same results as I did. I’m talking about hundreds of facilitator/client pairs and thousands of trials that not only failed to prove claims by proponents that FC-generated messages represent the thoughts of those being subjected to it, but consistently demonstrate facilitator control over letter selection.
This is an inconvenient detail that is rarely, if ever, mentioned in today’s reports about FC/S2C/RPM. It also appears to be difficult for people to grasp that facilitators can be well intentioned and sincere about their belief in FC without fully understanding the extent to which they are controlling letter selection. If (and it’s a big if) you can get a facilitator to admit that facilitator cueing is a problem with FC/S2C/RPM, they’ll tell you the problem isn’t with them but with someone else. Every practicing facilitator on the planet thinks they are the exception to the rule when it comes to influencing letter selection.
It took me a while to accept it, too, even after the testing. My emotions were slower to catch up with the science than the intellectual part of my brain. But Phil Warden, the guardian ad litem in my case asked me one question after the testing that stopped me from going deeper in the FC belief system: How many more people have to get hurt before you stop? And then he, Howard Shane (or both) handed me copies of the O.D. Heck study that showed what those facilitators, too, had experienced during (and after) their testing. Those facilitators, too, were devastated by the test results but accepted them and bravely talked about it publicly. The actions the O.D. Heck facilitators took after they found about the test results made a huge impact on me. (See Prisoners of Silence and Wheeler et al., 1993).
I suspect today’s crop of facilitators resist tests designed to rule in or rule out facilitator influence and control over letter selection largely because these tests (to date) have only ruled facilitator control in. Even Soma Mukhopadhyay, inventor of RPM, couldn’t pass authorship tests in which she was blinded from test stimuli. (See Truth Will Out: Review of Portia Iversen’s “Strange Son”). And, I can say from firsthand experience that it is (psychologically) easier for proponents of FC to blame the authorship tests themselves than it is to accept the fact that FC/S2C/RPM as a communication technique is not only fatally flawed, but completely dependent on the facilitators’ behaviors to make it work. (See Katharine’s blog post When nothing else works: Blaming the scientific method instead of pseudoscience).
The idea that a facilitator-dependent technique can produce independent communication no longer makes any sense to me whatsoever. But, as a facilitator in 1992-1993, it did.
Continuing Education Unit (CEUs) for Facilitation Communication two-day training at the University of Maine on January 14 and 15, 1993).
I find it interesting that even the leaders in the FC movement have been unable to pass message-passing tests. Sadder still, when confronted with the problem of facilitator cueing on Prisoners of Silence, Biklen threw his own trained facilitators under the bus when he blamed them for being poorly trained. And, yet, Biklen was caught on camera by the Prisoners of Silence camera crew interacting with a student who was looking at the ceiling while being facilitated. Biklen failed to redirect the student or mention the problem to his facilitator. Watch Prisoners of Silence to see how a simple test with an expert typist showed how it is impossible to accurately spell words while using a one-finger hunt-and-peck-style of typing without looking directly at the keyboard.
Biklen looks on while Jeff Powell looks at the ceiling and stims while his facilitator stares at the keyboard and continues selecting letters (from Prisoners of Silence, 1993).
I’d later come to learn that Syracuse University put out a 1991 promotional video that clearly showed facilitator cueing. This critique of Biklen’s 1991 promotional video shows his own facilitators working with students who are not attending to the keyboard during FC sessions. One student, who is standing up, turns his whole body away and looks at the wall, while his facilitator holds his hand and types out letters on a keyboard.
Occasionally, I receive comments from current-day facilitators who believe that a two-day training isn’t enough for facilitators to understand the intricacies of FC. But FC proponents at the time I was trained weren’t saying people needed formal training to use FC. For example, this 1992 Word of Mouth newsletter for speech/language clinicians in the public schools outlines the steps of FC without any mention of further training or warnings about potential harms. In addition, for 30-something years Syracuse University offered a similar 2-day training bi-annually long after FC was discredited.
I’ve seen the handouts from a Syracuse workshop held 3-4 years ago. In substance, the materials weren’t much different from the workshop I took in 1993. There was, perhaps, more information about presuming competence than we got in the original workshops (priming workshop participants to feel guilty if they didn’t adopt FC), but the anecdotes, testimonials, and “practice” sessions were pretty much the same. They’d beefed up their reference list with poorly designed authorship studies and articles that had nothing to do with FC/S2C/RPM. We’ve added the articles to the Critiques of Pro-FC Articles section of our website.
Current day reporters rarely dig into the history of FC far enough to know that after a spate of false allegations of abuse cases (including the Australian “Carla” case that involved founder Rosemary Crossley and nine of her facilitators) came to light in the early-to-mid-1990s, a spokesperson and major funder for Syracuse University’s Facilitated Communication Institute (FCI), John Hussman, told a New York Times reporter that they planned to change the name of the FCI to the Institute on Community and Inclusion (ICI) to “fly under the radar.” (see Engber, 2015). At this same time, the FCI/ICI started using “supported typing” to describe FC which, to me at least, demonstrates some awareness that the technique was deeply flawed, but they didn’t want the general public to know they were still using it.
I’m curious to know where the line is between self-deception, willful ignorance, and outright deceptiveness?
Note: We understand that Syracuse University’s ICI, now part of the Center for Disability and Inclusion, scrubbed all mention of FC on their university website in the fall of 2024 and (supposedly) cancelled their FC program. How is it that the press has not investigated why FC’s most ardent proponent of FC in the United States has suddenly (and quietly) dropped the program? I’d love to know if the ICI (ground zero for FC in the United States) has truly cancelled the program or if they are just “flying under the radar” like they did in early 2000s? Or is the central FC program migrating to other universities? Cal Lutheran, perhaps, or University of Virginia? And, if the ICI has dropped the program, why haven’t they made a public statement about it? Why keep it secret? And why, are people who call the ICI to ask about FC still being referred to someone named Srilata Saroja, an FC trainer? Is she still being hired by the ICI to conduct trainings?
Not that I’m ever asked, but one of the main differences I see between me as a facilitator in the early 1990s and today’s facilitators is that now—in 2025—there is a large body of evidence readily available on the internet for facilitators to access (notably because of our website). These articles showing that under reliably controlled conditions, the messages generated via FC are dependent on information that the facilitators have access to. Not only were many of those tests not available when I was trained as a facilitator (not many existed yet), but hundreds of facilitator/client pairs across the United States, including myself participated in reliably controlled authorship testing—testing that, as I noted earlier, should have been done before FC was released to the public, but wasn’t.
I’ll add that most of the tests were not due to false allegations of abuse claims, but simply conducted because the educators and researchers involved with FC at the time wanted to understand exactly how FC worked. Those facilitators had the integrity to test the technique under conditions that separated facilitator behaviors from those of their clients. And, despite their belief that FC worked and their belief that their clients and loved ones deserved to have a voice (via FC), they all found out that FC does not and has not ever worked as an independent form of communication. (See controlled testing)
But most of today’s reporters don’t include that kind of information in their stories about FC. Most unquestioningly accept proponents’ claims that the first and second generation facilitators were all “overzealous” and “poorly trained.” That doesn’t speak well for Syracuse University or for their “master trainers” who sponsored the many workshops held across the United States in the early to mid-1990s (including Alan Kurtz whose workshop I took and passed with no problem).
Instead of emphasizing the lack of scientific evidence supporting proponents’ belief in FC/S2C/RPM, many reporters take a credulous approach to the issue—perhaps hoping it could be true for some people—and focus their stories on facilitators who 1) have not participated in reliably controlled testing, 2) deny or downplay the existence of the scientific evidence against FC, 3) somehow believe they are the exception to the rule when it comes to facilitator cueing and control over letter selection, and 4) are completely and willfully ignoring the warnings against the use of FC/S2C/RPM published by ASHA, AAIDD, ISAAC, and other major organizations.
I can understand the difficulties of calling out a parent of a child with profound autism for using a pseudoscientific technique. But I also don’t think taking an Emperor’s New Clothes approach to FC is particularly helpful for anyone. It is possible for reporters to remain sympathetic to the fact that anyone (regardless of education or background) can be fooled by the illusion of FC/S2C/RPM and, at the same time, hold facilitators (and especially the leaders in the FC/S2C/RPM movement) accountable for promoting discredited, disproven, or unproven communication techniques.
“Tell Them You Love Me” is a documentary about a former Rutgers University ethics professor, Anna Stubblefield, who was convicted of two counts of sexually assaulting an individual with disabilities when she used the discredited technique, FC, as a form of consent.
I’ve learned over the years that public interest in FC is cyclical. Right now, it’s this extraordinary attempt to portray nonspeaking individuals with autism as having super human, telepathic powers that’s brought FC/S2C/RPM to the forefront. In the past, it’s been false allegation of abuse cases or facilitator crimes (like Syracuse University trained facilitator Anna Stubblefield or Gigi Jordan, who was trained by Syracuse master trainer Marilyn Chadwick) that captured reporters’ imaginations. But, even then, reporters only show a passing interest in FC/S2C/RPM. It’s hard to keep their attention on the fact that, throughout the history of FC, proponents have consistently failed to produce scientific evidence to prove communication independence and justify the use of the technique(s). As soon as the stories stop getting readership views, they move onto some other topic.
Often FC/S2C/RPM stories are presented as feel-good, miracle stories with maybe (maybe) a sentence or two about how the techniques are “controversial.” This type of reporting is deeply frustrating, because critics like me and many others are fully and painfully aware that every minute nonspeaking individuals are subjected to FC/S2C/RPM is time lost in opportunity costs when it comes to accessing legitimate and evidence-based forms of Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC).
Since the Telepathy Tapes podcast first aired in 2024, we on this website have seen an uptick in reporters who are researching FC.
That’s good.
I think.
Mostly.
Here’s the thing: of the reporters who’ve shown an interest in talking with me directly (not all of them have), most are only interested in talking to me about what happened 30+ years ago. That’s the Groundhog Day portion of this blog post.
I’m generalizing here and probably exaggerating, but I sometimes feel like I’m trapped in a time warp by reporters who discovered FC about 5 minutes ago and aren’t all that interested in hearing about what I’ve learned in the 30+ years since I was a facilitator. I think it’s safe to say that I’ve grown in my understanding of FC—and of the scientific process—since 1993. The science backed up my experiences and helped release me from my facilitator mindset with information that, in the end, made much more sense to me than the rationalizations and pseudoscience I was hearing from those who trained me in the technique. Information, by the way, that was not readily available at the FC workshop I took or in the handouts about the technique circulating around the school system.
Today’s (credulous) reporters ask me to do the impossible: to put myself back in the same mindset I had as a facilitator. But, even if I could, I’m not interested in being pigeon-holed by an event that happened 30+ years ago and that I’ve atoned for. I’m not denying it happened. I’m not denying it was a terrible experience for everyone involved—especially for the family—and I’m truly sorry for the pain I caused 30+ years ago, but, unlike 100% of the facilitators using FC/S2C/RPM today, I participated in double-blind authorship testing and as soon as I understood FC to be pseudoscience., I stopped using it. That should stand for something. In fact, if you want facilitators to stop using FC and all its variant forms, then critics of FC have got to allow for human mistakes and provide support to those people to help them cope with the experience and understand how it is they got caught up in the illusion.
Here’s a quote from the article I wrote in 2012. I believe it still rings true today.
I understand how difficult it may be for some facilitators to change their belief system. There is a lot at stake: people’s careers, reputations, connections with their family member or client. Nonetheless, I urge practicing facilitators to take a long, hard look at their own behavior. Voice doubts. Pursue testing outside the FC community. Question motivations. And, for those facilitators who have already undergone scientific testing, find a way to put aside the hurt and shame and speak out about your experience. We cannot erase the damage we have caused by our actions, but we can take responsibility for our part in perpetuating the myth of FC. It is time to put a stop to this practice that adversely affects the very people we set out to protect. History has shown that people who know better think ‘‘what is the harm in trying FC?’’ But now we know what harm FC can do. Deep down, we have known this for 20 years. We now have to find the courage and integrity to believe it.
And, as I wind this blog post down, I want to take a moment to speak directly to reporters. I get that many of you may just be learning about FC/S2C/RPM for the first time. You’ve probably learned about the miraculous, feel-good side of it from enthusiastic facilitators before penetrating to its dark underbelly. Few people have followed FC as closely as I and some of my colleagues have over the past 30+ years. And I realize, perhaps more than most, that it’s a lot to digest.
I also get that my story is important. It’s rare that a facilitator admits to cueing the client and rarer still for a facilitator to speak publicly about it (I think I’m pretty much the only one at this point). But from my perspective, there’s a much broader, more systemic problem that you (the reporters) should be addressing when it comes to FC/S2C/RPM. Read about my story in the articles linked below,, but for heaven’s sake be responsible in your reporting. Don’t conflate anecdotes and testimonials with reliably controlled testing and don’t shy away from asking the hard questions:
Why aren’t facilitators volunteering to (or being required to) participate in reliably controlled authorship testing to make sure they aren’t (inadvertently or otherwise) controlling letter selection—especially given the long history of documented abuses with FC? (See False Allegations of Abuse and Facilitator Crimes)
Why are facilitators choosing to ignore the advice of organizations like ASHA and the others? (See Opposition Statements)
Why aren’t police, lawyers, judges, and DHS personnel being trained about how to detect FC/S2C/RPM use and taught about the dangers of these techniques? Why aren’t police and court personnel demanding authorship testing when FC false allegations cases are brought to their attention BEFORE innocent people are jailed and falsely accused of crimes they didn’t commit and innocent children are removed from their family’s homes? (See false allegations of abuse)
How is it that facilitators are being allowed to refuse court ordered authorship testing? (They’d rather drop the charges than participate in the tests)
Why can’t family members express legitimate concerns about FC/S2C/RPM and facilitator control without fear of being falsely accused of abuse, jailed, and/or alienated from their families?
Why aren’t the appropriate support systems in place for individuals with profound autism and their families to get access to educators, speech/language pathologists, and others who promote and use evidence-based communication techniques and methods, so they don’t have to turn to pseudoscience to get “treatment” for their loved ones?
Why do proponents keep changing the name of FC instead of addressing the inherent flaws in the technique (see over 20 pseudonyms on our homepage)?
How is it that proponents of FC/S2C/RPM—especially in academic/research settings—been allowed to use anecdotes and testimonials to market these techniques instead of being required to produce reliably controlled evidence to back up their claims?
How many more people have to get hurt before FC/S2C/RPM use is regulated, or better yet, stopped?
Finally, here's a question about your own profession: why have so many journalists published uncritical feel-good stories about FC, and why are so few willing to publish evidence-informed stories that ask hard questions? (See News Round Ups here and here).
And, reporters, when you’re done asking and answering the questions I’ve listed in this blog post, we have even more questions for you to consider at this link.
You can also find links to critical reviews and blog posts about the Telepathy Tapes in the Podcast section of our website if you really want to know why this current obsession with super human powers in autistic individuals is causing so much harm.
References and Recommended Reading
Engber, Daniel. (2015, October 25). The Strange Case of Anna Stubblefield. New York Times.
Wheeler, DL, Jacobson, JW, Paglieri, RA, and Schwartz, AA. (1993). An experimental assessment of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation. Vol 31 (1), 49-60.
Sample of Early News Stories About the Miracle of FC
Powell, Betsy. (1991, December 2).'MIRACLE' TECHNIQUE LETS TEEN TRANSCEND BONDS OF AUTISM. Richmond Times - Dispatch. p. 1.
Macdonald, Sally. (1991, December 25). BY TYPING, SON SPELLS LOVE A LETTER AT A TIME TYPING UNLOCKS A TRAPPED MIND: `I CAN TELL MOM I LOVE HER.' The Salt Lake Tribune. p. A1
Honey, Charles, (1991, November 17). I AM MNOT RETARDD’ Autistic teen breaks a wall of silence with touch of a finger. The Grand Rapids Press. p. B1
Butler, Ann. (1993, April 16). Finding his voice. Chicago Tribune. p. 7
Articles about my experiences with FC that I endorse:
Boynton, J. (2012). Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6:1, 3-13. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.674680
Mostert, M. (2012). Facilitated Communication: The empirical imperative to prevent further professional malpractice. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 1-10. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.693840
Palfreman, J. (2012) The dark legacy of FC. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 14-17. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.688343
Sigafoos, J. and Schlosser, R. (2012) An experiential account of facilitated communication. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 1-2. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.710992
Todd , J.T. (2012) The moral obligation to be empirical: Comments on Boynton's “Facilitated Communication—what harm it can do: Confessions of a former facilitator”. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 36-57. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.704738
Von Tetzchner, S. (2012) Understanding facilitated communication: Lessons from a former facilitator—Comments on Boynton. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 6 (1), 28-35. DOI: 10.1080/17489539.2012.699729
Vyse, S. (2018). An Artist with a Science-Based Mission. Skeptical Inquirer.
Blog posts about the Anna Stubblefield Case
At What Point was Anna Stubblefield Culpable for her Criminal Actions?
Tell Them it’s not Hate Speech: FC, facilitator crimes and the ethically compromised world of disabilities studies
Thoughts about “Tell Them You Love Me,” Anna Stubblefield, and FC/S2C/RPM
Blog post about Gigi Jordan
The tragic story of Gigi Jordan, her son, and FC