Facilitated Communication
Siegfried Othmer
Facilitated Communication
Recently the NY Times published a rant against Facilitated Communication by Amy Lutz, Professor of Medicine at U Penn, and the mother of an adult autistic son. (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/01/opinion/autism-facilitated-communication-spelling.html ). It’s the science, don’t you know. Against such evidence stands the experience of the parents.
Here’s Brian Hooker: “My own son has been letter-boarding — and more recently keyboarding — for five years. Through this method, he openly communicates his thoughts, feelings, and ideas directly to my wife and me, as well as to many others. He is now attending high school and aspires to earn a PhD in physics. His work is his own and neither my wife nor I can comprehend the physics problems he is able to complete correctly. His progress has been nothing short of transformative.”
This single case suffices to establish the validity of facilitated communication. By now, of course, we have the evidence of thousands, so we also know that facilitated communication does not merely work with isolated cases, such as the savants among them. This experience base trumps all controlled studies on the matter. If FC weren’t helping people, it would have died out by now.
I had the experience of exchanging e-mails with an autistic youngster who was in training with Sue Othmer. The conversation was amazing, and I thought the NF had been working miracles with this kid. I was looking forward to seeing him next time at the office. When that happened, however, I saw only the boy I had seen before…no eye contact, in his own world.
Consider the parallelism with neurofeedback. The campaign against NF is now picking up in Germany, where NF is flourishing (https://www.aerzteblatt.de/news/kaum-belege-fuer-einen-nutzen-von-neurofeedback-behandlungen-bei-adhs-306ffbd5-8115-481d-86a4-a9e02d4660c5).
Observe the singular focus on ADHD (adhs). Why? Because that is where the critics at least have a leg to stand on, by virtue of the sham-controlled studies that show only a modest advantage at best for NF versus sham. The problem here is obvious, but remains unacknowledged. In application to ADHD specifically, the sham training process emulates the active process so closely that it engages attentional faculties to nearly the same degree in both arms. In operant conditioning, it takes a number of sessions before the brain figures out the contingency, so in those early sessions one would not have any differentiation at all. If the study runs for only twenty sessions, near equivalence of the two arms should not be so surprising. The research design suffers from a ‘convenient flaw.’
We could use some pushback against the denialists because the skepticism being stirred up among the medical professionals is a barrier to progress. Two options exist: 1) Assail the fortress that the denialists have constructed, and/or 2) establish ourselves as an independent authority. Option 1 goes up against their strength, where the critics hold the advantage as they control the terms of debate and have the last word. But there is value in just showing up… Option 2 goes to our strengths, as we choose the battleground. It will not suffice to establish validity and clinical utility of the method; we also need to establish ourselves as the legitimate practitioners of the method.
Option 1: JAMA Psychiatry recently reminded its audience about James McGough’s dismissal of NF for ADHD, which dates back to 2022. I responded to him, and posted it as an open letter after getting no response. It can be seen here: https://news.eeginfo.com/neurofeedback-for-adhd/ If you care to make your own contribution to the controversy, McGough can be reached here: jmcg...@mednet.ucla.edu
Years ago, I wrote some twelve letters to Thibault, Raz and Lifshitz, demolishing their critique of NF. I never got a response, but their public campaign against NF ended.
Option 2: Facilitated Communication spread into the autism community by word of mouth. Individual cases mattered; studies were irrelevant. Neurofeedback has grown the same way, by word of mouth. This process will only accelerate, and it will also spread into the medical community in the same manner, as clients become willing to disclose to their doctors what they have been doing….
How do we establish ourselves as the proper custodian of this method? We choose the terms of discourse wisely. This is brain training. We are training core state regulation, which is diagnostically non-specific. In our hands, NF is not a medical procedure. In the hands of teachers and educators and sports people, it is not a therapy. Neurofeedback is so central to what people now need in our complex society that the barrier to access must be minimized by all available means.
Jennifer Johnston-Jones
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISNR_Members_Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isnr_members_fo...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/isnr_members_forum/C64A931A-1CC0-47D6-B0B0-34E954A6FC57%40eeginfo.com.
Mark Smith
On May 7, 2026, at 10:03 PM, Jennifer Johnston-Jones <doctorjen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Wondering if anyone knows about Neurofeedback for cluster headaches or other suggestions? If so, recommended providers in New York ?
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/isnr_members_forum/72FE8C94-C754-430A-93BC-FEA118A27E8B%40gmail.com.
Siegfried Othmer
Jennifer Johnston-Jones
On May 8, 2026, at 7:36 AM, 'Siegfried Othmer' via ISNR_Members_Forum <isnr_memb...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISNR_Members_Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isnr_members_fo...@googlegroups.com.
Siegfried Othmer
Jennifer Johnston-Jones
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/isnr_members_forum/6406B70F-BA4B-4C55-9B4C-B97CF9D68B43%40gmail.com.