Irrelevant bollocks. I'm making no such claim, nor is anyone else here.
I would say any time the existence or details of a plan need to be concealed, because someone will find the objective undesirable, it's a conspiracy. In this case, I'm alleging a conspiracy by omission. Various gatekeepers are declining to speak up about the person(s) they allowed to pass through their gates.
This is more of your nonsense. Facilitated Communication is nonsense.
Evidence?
That is an excellent piece. Thanks.you regularly remind us that you have a psychology degree from a UK university, so hows about you take up "your fondly held dogma, re FC = bad" with the BPS:
Just believe: The strange story of Facilitated Communication | BPS
Dr Naomi Fisher looks into incredible claims in a popular podcast, and more…www.bps.org.uk
NB, this is not, per other posts, "wiki says" etc...
ETA Tl;dr - "Unfortunately, FC has also been completely discredited. In order to test the validity of FC, researchers carried out simple blinded studies. They showed the nonspeaking person one picture and showed their facilitator a different picture. They then asked what was on the picture, using FC. When the facilitator did not know the answer, the nonspeaker could not give a correct answer 100% of the time. When the facilitator and the nonspeaking person were shown the same picture, the FC-generated answer was correct. The conclusion was inescapable; the facilitator had to know the answer to the question in order for the right answer to be generated using FC. Communication generated by FC came from the facilitator, not the nonspeaking person."
You're avoiding the point. Facilitated Communication is utterly discredited and considered nonsense by every professional body
I suppose when people agree with each other about what the plan is, and that they'll keep quiet about it. I mean if the publishers really had a meeting to talk through the "what if she's lying?" scenario then you might get to call that a conspiracy but realistically they probably have innumerable "what if" meetings about their clients and they're not all conspiracies just because the discussion is confidential.
I would bet money on her never allowing any such test
No! We are claiming that The Mom is committing fraud, and that the publishers and the higher schools of learning are victims of that fraud.
And because it exploits disabled people, frequently for commercial gain.
Oh, we should be more open-minded? Be skeptical of our skepticism? Now where have I heard that before?
To be clear: I'm not one of those claiming that the publisher and the schools are victims of fraud.
That's a hypothesis that has merit. Given the absolute ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ that publishers routinely put out, they don't care about the truth status of books at all.
Unless the school comes good and starts getting actual verification from someone other than The Mom, I guess we'll never know.
More information. As you saw in the example above, re Jason Adell, who was diagnosed as autistic and non-verbal until about age eleven. He didn't read or write until age eighteen, thanks to meeting an academic mentor who detected signs of intellect and encouraged it. He is now a professor at Cambridge University. So whilst no two autistic persons will be the same, some having a wider range of neurological, developmental and kinaesthetic issues than others, I can quite see that Woody came into his own after being labelled a non-learner by his school. In addition, Woody has two siblings. I don't see how you can conclude without knowing that he 'has never communicated with anyone but his mother'. Do you seriously think it likely Woody could get two degrees in English (NOT an easy subject) from prestigious universities if he was not 'all there'? I understand he is now doing a PhD. (Cue sound of boiling blood from youtuber influencers.)
