First, I hope you are aware of your bias. It’s pretty palpable from article. You describe people promoting this spelling technology as “anti-vaxxers”, a reductive and overly simplistic slur to describe people who are simply activists for better vaccine safety. Vaccines are the only consumer product where manufacturers are …
First, I hope you are aware of your bias. It’s pretty palpable from article. You describe people promoting this spelling technology as “anti-vaxxers”, a reductive and overly simplistic slur to describe people who are simply activists for better vaccine safety. Vaccines are the only consumer product where manufacturers are shielded from all liability, and, protected from market forces due to CDC mandates. Meanwhile and especially if we’re talking about double blind study requirements, these products have never gone through a proper placebo study. Public Health have been claiming safety without the proof required by the scientific method. Stanley Plotkin just published an article in NEMJ or Lancet admitting this inconvenient fact and stating that “more funding” is needed to actually do this important clinical work. Seems pretty late in the game, don’t you think? Public Health agencies had to be sued over years and years to get them to admit that they never did the work they claimed to have done.
So, just saying, as a journalist, surely some skepticism should be warranted in terms of what behaviors this liability free/ regulators asleep at the wheel or looking the other way environment, might incentivize in drug companies that have been criminally charged over and over again with all kinds of fraud and malfeasance for putting profits over lives. People forget these same greedy companies, unrepentant convicted criminals, also make the products called vaccines. Same people.
Anyway, back to article, there appears to be a problematic conflation of two technologies; one that was debunked in the 90’s and the one that’s discussed in the film. A therapist turned detractor that was involved in a very public scandal with the previous technology and ended up with egg on the face, opines that this is the same and so must not work.
I would expect her not to want egg on the face twice but would have liked a much deeper technical explanation for how it’s the same or how it’s different. The article did not give me that.
This new approach using potentially similar technology may actually work because of even slight changes. I was the Founder/CEO of a medical device company and know that even slight variations in protocols can charge outcomes.
And lastly, ASHA is the perfect example of Public/Private partnerships that, to me, are a huge part of the problem in our rotted health care system. These kinds of organizations always partner with bunch of
Pharmaceutical monopolies to promote very profitable interventions for things like autism.
You talk about the profit motive of spelling technology but drugs are way more profitable. Look at ASHA’s website, all they do is wax poetic about new drugs coming out and corporate partnerships with drug companies. Aren’t they incentivized to be critical of their partner’s competitors?
And yes, this technology 100% competes with Pharma’s solutions to things autistics suffer from like anxiety or violent outbursts, all of the issues that parents said that this technology ameliorates.
Are you sure I did that? I don't require ever using the term anti-vaxx, I referred to some of them as vaccine skeptics. And I asked why they don't have the same skepticism about these spelling techniques. Overall, I don't think I commented fully on vaccines other than to make that point -- they have a worldview about environmental causes of autism and that is contributing to their support for mind-body disconnect theory, etc. But I didn't really get into their claims on vaccines.
I agree there are some differences between FC and RPM/S2C but folks involved in the latter will not engage in testing to make sure it works. So it runs into the same problem -- there's prompt/cue dependency on a facilitator. I know of no other form of communication that REQUIRES having another person help you do the communication, rather than learning ASL or using an AAC device independently.
A few comments.
First, I hope you are aware of your bias. It’s pretty palpable from article. You describe people promoting this spelling technology as “anti-vaxxers”, a reductive and overly simplistic slur to describe people who are simply activists for better vaccine safety. Vaccines are the only consumer product where manufacturers are shielded from all liability, and, protected from market forces due to CDC mandates. Meanwhile and especially if we’re talking about double blind study requirements, these products have never gone through a proper placebo study. Public Health have been claiming safety without the proof required by the scientific method. Stanley Plotkin just published an article in NEMJ or Lancet admitting this inconvenient fact and stating that “more funding” is needed to actually do this important clinical work. Seems pretty late in the game, don’t you think? Public Health agencies had to be sued over years and years to get them to admit that they never did the work they claimed to have done.
So, just saying, as a journalist, surely some skepticism should be warranted in terms of what behaviors this liability free/ regulators asleep at the wheel or looking the other way environment, might incentivize in drug companies that have been criminally charged over and over again with all kinds of fraud and malfeasance for putting profits over lives. People forget these same greedy companies, unrepentant convicted criminals, also make the products called vaccines. Same people.
Anyway, back to article, there appears to be a problematic conflation of two technologies; one that was debunked in the 90’s and the one that’s discussed in the film. A therapist turned detractor that was involved in a very public scandal with the previous technology and ended up with egg on the face, opines that this is the same and so must not work.
I would expect her not to want egg on the face twice but would have liked a much deeper technical explanation for how it’s the same or how it’s different. The article did not give me that.
This new approach using potentially similar technology may actually work because of even slight changes. I was the Founder/CEO of a medical device company and know that even slight variations in protocols can charge outcomes.
And lastly, ASHA is the perfect example of Public/Private partnerships that, to me, are a huge part of the problem in our rotted health care system. These kinds of organizations always partner with bunch of
Pharmaceutical monopolies to promote very profitable interventions for things like autism.
You talk about the profit motive of spelling technology but drugs are way more profitable. Look at ASHA’s website, all they do is wax poetic about new drugs coming out and corporate partnerships with drug companies. Aren’t they incentivized to be critical of their partner’s competitors?
And yes, this technology 100% competes with Pharma’s solutions to things autistics suffer from like anxiety or violent outbursts, all of the issues that parents said that this technology ameliorates.
Are you sure I did that? I don't require ever using the term anti-vaxx, I referred to some of them as vaccine skeptics. And I asked why they don't have the same skepticism about these spelling techniques. Overall, I don't think I commented fully on vaccines other than to make that point -- they have a worldview about environmental causes of autism and that is contributing to their support for mind-body disconnect theory, etc. But I didn't really get into their claims on vaccines.
I agree there are some differences between FC and RPM/S2C but folks involved in the latter will not engage in testing to make sure it works. So it runs into the same problem -- there's prompt/cue dependency on a facilitator. I know of no other form of communication that REQUIRES having another person help you do the communication, rather than learning ASL or using an AAC device independently.