Hi Clare,

You said “That's not my point. Regardless of the diagnosis someone has, Rett's is a very severe disability. So I do find it puzzling that someone with that level of disability ended up in the control group, given that the criteria should apparently have excluded that.”

Did the girl not meet qualifications, or are we to assume she didn’t meet them. If she did not, then this was inappropriate, but if she did……..
And please define “severe”. I was once told “Autism Disorder”, was the most severe of the severe. I am still learning even now, how inappropriate that was.

You said “namely that it would seem a basic point of scientific ethics for Lovaas and co. to disclose publicly the fact that one of the controls was misdiagnosed as soon as they became aware of that fact,”

Provided they understood the difference, or effect. And I again state that Retts was no on the DSM III which was revised over the course of the YAP anyway. Not knowing the specifics of Retts is a big deal. When considering that it was not yet a formal category this seems a it more obvious. As a side note, there is a rumor that on the next DSM. Autism Disorder may be split into 2 distinct disorders HFA and LFA. I wonder if one day Lovaas will again be criticized because he may potentially have used more of HFA’s than LFA’s.

You said “Whoever was responsible for the assessments etc., the fact that one of the controls didn't actually have autism clearly affects the credibility of the claim that treatment and control groups were "matched".”

Mis-diagnosis seems more likely to me. This of course is likely when Retts was not a possible category, and so the diagnosticians may not have understood that, let alone Lovaas. In fact Lovaas didn’t seem to have much of an idea about differences in Retts until his own study with the three girls in the matter.

For a side note, some behaviorists also have a little habit of referring to autistic folks as “autistic persons”, as opposed to “people with autism.” They also include everyone on the spectrum as “autistic”, but may not specify (PDD-NOS or Aspergers) Even now, most articles in JABA come saying “autistic children”, not a student with autism (or the specific subtype). This is because of the radical behaviorist rejection of the medical model, and of the ideas that someone can “have autism”, that is, “can not be separated from it.” Obviously there are some exceptions where behaviorists do use person first language.

Some autistics have also adopted saying “autistic people”, but for very different reasons than the behaviorists.

I am well aware of the “People with disabilities”, word formatting. In general, I support this, because advocates and persons with various disabilities wanted this and worked very hard in the 70’s to change this. More recently some autistics have advocated saying “autistic people”, for the proposed reason of autism’s pervasive nature. As I am sure you know, Jim Sinclair writes eloquently about this as does Michelle. You may have noted that I switched from saying “people with autism”, to “autistic people”, because others on this site advocate that approach, and I just think it’s polite to adopt the term they would prefer.

You said “You miss the point. I don't want any more kids slapped around, autistic or not!”

I don’t want to see that either. My point is we can’t be sure of the effectiveness of the aversives even with Lovaas’ within subject design because of the lack of data presentation.

This next part is just a little technical, so I tried to make it as simple as I could. I poured through Lovaas’ original study last night. Lovaas very briefly discusses that within subject design. From the format (replication design) I know this means that he should have presented the those data in graph format, so that others reviewing his article can agree based on those data whether experimental control was actually achieved, or whether we have cause to believe something else was going on. Without these data, we as reviewers, can not honestly agree or disagree that experimental control was achieved. We are on word of faith from Lovaas in this regard. This is unacceptable in scientific terms.

Last post, then I done for a while,

To any other behaviorist viewers,

I am firmly committed to radical behaviorism and to Discrete-Trial Teaching as an ethical and appropriate way to address the educational concerns of children on Autism Spectrum. I reluctantly joined this discussion, due to my status (undergrad) and my potential naïveté but I felt compelled to do so because no other behaviorist had written a rebuttal to Ms. Dawson, whom I felt merited at the very least, some respectful replies.

I was therefore happy when I first heard that a member of an organization that I greatly support “the Association for Science in Autism Treatment”, had written a reply of sorts to Ms. Dawson. What I found was not a reply of the kind I had desired (point by point and scientific).

It should be noted that several professional behaviorists have made replies of sorts to Ms. Dawson. These being of varying utility, but still not making a point by point scientific reply to the arguments made by Ms. Dawson.

I, who count no day as completed, if I don’t make at least 30-40 mistakes, feel no reluctance to point out that several of these professionals have behaved like (in the words of another list member) “gits.” It should be pointed out that these are professionals who as “behaviorists and persons”, I have the up most respect for, but that is not the point.

I fact, I am aware of only one fully trained professional of a behavioral orientation who has engaged in scientific discussion with Ms. Dawson, and he is autistic himself.

I suppose my point is that Ms. Dawson is presenting written work in an online professional format that I assume took great time and effort, in terms of her personal research. It should be addressed (even in informal contexts) in a manner that reflects our professionalism and orientation to scientific rebuttal.

It is likewise unproductive to call into question Ms. Dawson’s specific diagnosis. Her work would still be legitimate and worthy of scientific rebuttal no matter what her developmental features were. Also, perhaps we have forgotten that the Pervasive Developmental Disorders occur along the so called spectrum of (dis)ability, and persons of highly various skills and levels may be observed as part of this continuum.

Ms. Dawson is not my friend and she makes some arguments that I greatly disagree with, but that has not stopped me from attempting respect and courtesy in my discussion towards her. I request for what it is worth, that all behaviorist who participate in discourse on the work of Ms. Dawson, observe the same debate practices as are typically observed in the scientific community.

John wrote, "Did the girl not meet qualifications, or are we to assume she didn’t meet them. "

Given that she didn't in fact have autism, which was one of the criteria for involvement in the study, clearly she did not in fact meet at least one of the qualifications, and this should have been disclosed as soon as it was known (which it was by 1995 at least).

Even if she was misdiagnosed as autistic, the profoundly disabling effects of Rett's would logically seem to place her outside the study's criteria.

As to how it came about that she was included in the study nonetheless, I have no hypothesis - I am merely expressing my puzzlement.

John wrote, "And please define “severe”. "

Actually, girls with Rett's are considered to fall into the category of "profoundly and multiply disabled". Around 50% of girls with Rett's can't walk, for example.

It's thought that IQ testing of girls with Rett's may often be inaccurate because factors like apraxia affect response time, but when it comes to how they test/appear according to the International Rett Syndrome Association:

"Ultimate level of functioning reflects profound mental retardation in all intellectual domains" (http://www.rettsyndrome.org/main/therapists-role.htm).

Therefore, as I've said, I find it puzzling that she was included in a study which had selection criteria aimed specifically at excluding those with severe or profound cognitive delays.

John wrote, "Provided they understood the difference, or effect. "

They indisputably did by 1995, since the girl in question was one of the subjects in their study of ABA as an ineffective treatment for Rett's (Smith, Klevstrand and Lovaas's, 1995).

I'm perfectly prepared to believe that this girl was mis-diagnosed. But as a point of scientific ethics, it would seem necessary to disclose that mis-diagnosis as soon as they became aware of it, rather than continuing to write and speak as if the control group was in fact perfectly "matched".

Just a history-of-psychology footnote:

John wrote, "This is intersting considering she came visiting to the international ABA conference a few years ago. Someone should have told her she is supposed to dead or crazy."

Oh, Deborah Skinner (the subject of the rumors) knows, and is apparently thoroughly irritated by the perennial claims that she is insane and/or dead.

She once commented: "I'm pretty sure I'm not crazy. And I don't seem to have committed suicide."

However, she isn't married to a behaviorist either - her sister, Julie Vargas, is the one married to Ed Vargas (and I'd presume, the one who came to the ABA conference). Deborah is aparently married to an economist and lives in London.

Hi Michelle,
I've been reading these discussions for a short while, and have to admit they are usually over my head, and/or have topics that I'm unfamiliar with. I'm a 57 yr old Aspie, but have had no experience with ABA. Instead, my main problem was with parents or teachers who tried to use reverse psychology to get their desired results. And they were really amateurish attempts to use psychology to motivate me. Needless to say, reverse psychology doesn't work on Aspies, and was another form of abuse.

All I really want to say is that I appreciate your efforts on behalf of autistics everywhere, and have respect and admiration for the way you are able to marshall your thoughts and express them, all the way to the Supreme Court.
I'm looking forward to hearing of that decision, but am confident that you (we) will win. Apart from the persuasive arguments you make regarding the rights of Canadians as defined by the Charter, the point you make about the government in effect making itself responsible for paying for all the ABA treatments and special education needed throughout life, is one that will make them think long and hard on this issue. They would have to question the efficacy of ABA before agreeing they should have to pay for it, I would think.

Clay Adams

Edited by author 05-02-2004 02:45 PM
Hi John,

Last word on Rett's. Dr Lovaas and gang must have known before 1995. 1995 was just the year the Rett's study was published; I don't know when it was submitted.

Also, in the 1993 follow-up (McEachin et al), this girl is not followed-up, unlike the rest of Control Group One. She was described as functioning very poorly in an institution. One can assume that her real diagnosis was obvious at this point to the many people charged with assessing the study subjects at follow-up. I sometimes wonder if this girl, who was the one with Rett's, is the source of the idea that without ABA, autistics deteriorate.

Re the within-subjects-replication-design, Dr Lovaas farmed out his data to two of his students, and references these works in his study. So the data exist. I couldn't find the original sources (a doctoral dissertation, and an ABA conference presentation), so I could only list them in my sources, and couldn't reference them. Maybe you can find them, John.

Re the assessment of your clients, wow. Of course, everything is geared to the needs of anybody but the autistics. That's not news, but it's discouraging. Accurate diagnosis is a big deal in my area.

Where does the info that the new DSM will segregate HFA and LFA come from? And when's this one come out? (I knew at one point and forgot.) This is going to be interesting, given my own work in the science, and the work of the group which puts up with me. My own view is that the demarcation is artificial.

The isolation of behaviourists from the rest of the science in autism works both ways: behaviourists don't study anything else, and the rest of the field doesn't study the behaviourists. Both sides form their positions on the "other guys" via cliche and ideology rather than study. On the other hand, within (eg) a cognitive group you have people who work in genetic studies, in epidemiology, in statistical analysis, in diagnosis, in neuroanatomy, and in education. All this experience is useful; it represents real expertise.

Looking at the list of participants at IMFAR, I've spotted only three behaviourists. I haven't looked for a while. Maybe I've missed a few. But that's not a strong showing.

I don't think ideology ("I am a radical behaviourist") should interfere with pursuing knowledge in other areas. I started looking at ABA from a neutral position: this treatment had strongly been promoted to me by various people. I also was aware that there were objections. I had no idea when I started that I was going to find what I did. My position remains neutral towards the science: I also criticize cognitive work, and have found errors in epidemiology (and have written in this area), and could form a useful critique of existing diagnostic criteria and instruments had not this been done already so accurately and expertly. I didn't pick out behaviourists for criticism; they selected themselves through their work and their lapses in ethics.

Maybe, John, since you've mentioned bullies, you can conduct a functional analysis of why, when the critic is an autstic, behaviourists with few exceptions are unable to behave themselves properly when confronted with a fact-based argument. Why the invective?

And geez, I thought you were here to learn. That's why I'm here.

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

Hi Clare,

Ahh... yes, Julie married Ed Vargas. I was just kidding about Deborah marrying him.

You said “Given that she didn't in fact have autism, which was one of the criteria for involvement in the study, clearly she did not in fact meet at least one of the qualifications”.

But she may have met qualifications by the DSM-III standards. Of course she does not today.

Yes, it should have been acknowledged as soon as Lovaas knew.

You said “As to how it came about that she was included in the study nonetheless, I have no hypothesis - I am merely expressing my puzzlement”

I don’t know for certain but it seems intuitive to me. She was in an early stage of Retts development in an era when we knew less about Retts in general and she was diagnosed autistic according to that (DSM-III) system and included in the study. I expect she still met IQ prerequisites due to being in an early stage.

Edited by author 05-02-2004 11:03 PM
Hi Michelle,

You said “Last word on Rett's. Dr Lovaas and gang must have known before 1995. 1995 was just the year the Rett's study was published; I don't know when it was submitted.”

I agree. And they should have disclosed it.

You said “I sometimes wonder if this girl, who was the one with Rett's, is the source of the idea that without ABA, autistics deteriorate.”

Maybe, that is not a point I agree with anyway.

You said “Re the within-subjects-replication-design, Dr Lovaas farmed out his data to two of his students, and references these works in his study.”

True, but even then, the data never made it to a peer reviewed journal. This was McEachin’s Dissertation and was Ron Leaf and McEachin who did the APA presentation if I remember correctly. I might be able to get those data. It will probably take me a while though.

You said “Re the assessment of your clients, wow. Of course, everything is geared to the needs of anybody but the autistics. That's not news, but it's discouraging. Accurate diagnosis is a big deal in my area.”

No, I am not always thrilled by it either. I am happy to hear that accurate diagnosis is important in your area.

You said “Where does the info that the new DSM will segregate HFA and LFA come from? And when's this one come out? (I knew at one point and forgot.) This is going to be interesting, given my own work in the science, and the work of the group which puts up with me. My own view is that the demarcation is artificial.”

The next DSM is rumored to be out 2010. The HFA/LFA is only rumor and I don’t know the sources, but I have heard it discussed by several unconnected persons. There is a web site that also says this, I will try and find it. I have not made up my mind as to whether the demarcation between HFA and LFA is artificial.

You said “The isolation of behaviourists from the rest of the science in autism works both ways: behaviourists don't study anything else, and the rest of the field doesn't study the behaviourists. Both sides form their positions on the "other guys" via cliche and ideology rather than study.”

I loosely agree with this.

You said “On the other hand, within (eg) a cognitive group you have people who work in genetic studies, in epidemiology, in statistical analysis, in diagnosis, in neuroanatomy, and in education. All this experience is useful; it represents real expertise.”

Yes, and that’s not a bad thing at all. But this is still not all expertise and maybe not enough.

You said “Looking at the list of participants at IMFAR, I've spotted only three behaviourists. I haven't looked for a while. Maybe I've missed a few. But that's not a strong showing.”

Doesn’t surprise me. The Association for Behavior Analysis convention is this month. And I believe more people attend this than IMFAR (although I might be wrong). This would seem more important to most behaviorists. Lovaas is coming. I believe this is the first time he has come in a long time. It’s also Skinner’s Hundredth Birthday. People are spending a lot of time focusing on this year’s conference. Also as we have previously discussed, behaviorists are a little shy about presenting to non behaviorists, and about hearing non behavioral research. As I said before I was the only behaviorist presenter at the eclectic undergrad conference a few weeks ago. It wasn’t hard to get to. It was held at a College that was just a 15 minute walk from my University. Unfortunately we may have become a bit cliquish. In fact some of sub ABA conferences were begun because some behaviorists got tired of putting up with other paradigms and broke off, and started their own group. So the Midwestern Psychological Association Conference’s behavioral members started the Midwestern Association for Behavior Analysis and their own conference.

The great irony I see, is so many non ABA people are speaking of “Lovaas mania”, and the “ABA industry”, while most behaviorists (even very young ones) lament that we are so bad at promoting our ideas and methodologies. I am not kidding, ask most behaviorists if they think we do a good job explaining and promoting our technologies. They will almost always say we are terrible at it. Interesting huhhh……………..

You said “I don't think ideology ("I am a radical behaviourist") should interfere with pursuing knowledge in other areas.”

I hope it doesn’t. I would be limiting myself in the short term, and those children and University students I hope to teach in the long term.

You said “Maybe, John, since you've mentioned bullies, you can conduct a functional analysis of why, when the critic is an autistic, behaviourists with few exceptions are unable to behave themselves properly when confronted with a fact-based argument. Why the invective?”

You probably have noted my dissatisfaction (extinction/aversive stimuli) with some other behaviorists in their means of making replies to your articles. As far as an analysis: I doubt it has much/anything to do with you being autistic. You make some statements that most behaviorists would strongly disagree with. Other times, frankly, you are hitting the nail on the head and the truth hurts. You are presenting aversive stimuli and some folks are making escape or avoidance responses (negative reinforcement). This is especially true because you have not suggested acceptable (to behaviorists) scientific replacement strategies. There have been times when I have been on certain non/anti-behavioral web sites and even I had to stop and walk away from the computer for a few minutes because I felt more than a little angry (AUTCOM comes to mind). This doesn't mean I wouldn't listen and carefully consider even what they say. I am just sharing an example of an annoyance for myself and other behaviorists. You are also skilled enough to present your work in a formal, logical, and sometimes ironic manner. The irony will especially will push some buttons. So they begin to say things like “she isn’t autistic”, or they respond with blatant sarcasm. Also even most professionals make non scientific based criticisms of DT, or ones that are very sloppily researched e.g. (some Greenspan material, some TEACCH critiques, Son-Rise, etc….). You on the other hand, have clearly spent some time learning about DT and the research base. Your critiques both in paper and message board format, are perhaps the most accurate I have seen.

I should note that invective is not limited to behaviorists or autistics. This general field is one of the more volatile I have seen. Even Maurice writes about the non-fan/hate mail she receives. Also some of the invective behaviorists have put up with feels very aversive e.g. (you train kids to be robots, behaviorism makes pompous decisions about how children develop, and dehumanizes them). These are all being real things that I have read. Even Bettleheim got his two cents in against us. Perhaps we have over generalized across our critics. We might have, to borrow the words of Jim Crawford “thrown out the baby with the bathwater.”

You said “And geez, I thought you were here to learn. That's why I'm here.”

I am very much here to learn. And I am happy to have the chance.

John wrote, "You probably have noted my dissatisfaction (extinction/aversive stimuli) with some other behaviorists in their means of making replies to your articles. As far as an analysis: I doubt it has much/anything to do with you being autistic. "

On the other hand, the same individuals do seem to have mostly managed to reply to their other critics without resorting to slander (accusing Michelle of statements she did not make) or crossing professional boundaries to a grotesque degree (e.g. claiming that Michelle "can't" be autistic, or must have a "personality disorder").

For example, I have yet to see Gresham or Mesibov being accused of having a "personality disorder"; nor have responses to Boyd involved his personal life (and a diagnosis of autism is certainly personal), accused him of conning professionals, or of wanting autistic children to rot in institutions, etc.

And this is not a question of anonymous writers of hate-mail - this is about well-known professionals (Mulick, Green et. al.) and allegedly "science-based" professional organizations (ASAT) making a public response to science-based criticism.

What explains their ability to maintain some sort of professional boundaries when responding to non-autistic critics, yet completely abandon them here?

Given how much of the attacks on Michelle have centred round her autism - hysterical claims that she's "not really autistic", not autistic "like their children", is only falsely claiming to be autistic, etc. - I have to say I find it implausible that Michelle's autism is irrelevant here.

To use your terminology, it does appear that the fact that criticisms are being voiced by an autistic person makes them especially aversive to some professionals in the field.

GUYS, guys, I'm completely off-topic again. But one of the guys on Aspergia found this:

http://www.aspar.klattu.com.au/

off topic and garbage!
try this instead - http://www.aspires-relationships.com/artic..._of_a_sterotype.htm

Hi John,

Clare's observations re the connection between defamation and diagnosis are bang on. Even AutCom, who you mention, has been treated a great deal more politely and accurately (see the Clarifying Comments 2000 paper).

I had overlooked the conflicting ABA confab. It seems, from what you say, that it's the behaviourists who, through their own decisions (conferences are scheduled predictably) are segregating themselves and their science from the rest of the scientific world in the area of autism.

As for the successful promotion of ABA, you are absolutely wrong. See any media stories: they are entirely, unquestionningly promoting ABA. I used the New Yorker article to exemplify this. You would think the New Yorker would be capable of journalism, but ABA in autism repels journalism as well as it repels all other critics. Again, this includes organizations like the CBC and The Globe and Mail in Canada, which are renowned for their journalism.

There's also the acceptance of ABA by autism researchers who don't know the field at all, and simply accept the going "consensus" without analyzing it.

How much good critical writing about ABA have you seen in the public? I've seen none. How many competent criticisms of ABA have appeared in legal proceedings? In Canada, all media reports about Auton assume the parents will win. ABA is described as "scientifically proven" and "medically necessary" and that's it. There's an entire provincial political party which has dedicated itself to promoting ABA, and has refused to speak with autistic people on this issue, see http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/bio.html .

Have you seen Dr Maurice's advice to some ABA convention (I'm guessing; I have it in my pile of stuff somewhere) about popularizing the science? She advises about what language to use and not to use (she's a literary critic, after all) so as to effectively sell ABA.

Dr Malott wouldn't disagree that the popularity of ABA in autism can be linked to the publication, in a rather non-scientific journal (Reader's Digest), of an excerpt from Dr Maurice's extremely emotional book.

My conclusion is that maybe behaviourists are very thin-skinned re any criticism whatsoever, especially if it comes from outside the field, and exponentially more so if it comes from a person who uses the very behaviours they "treat" to educate herself and form a critique.

Or maybe it's insecurity: if behaviourists don't know other fields, they will not want to hear from them. Easier just to invalidate the other fields from afar. Dr Mulick, for instance, made a large sweeping statement about all cognitive scientists.

Interesting that Dr Maurice was "attacked" by accusations that her kids weren't really autistic. Now, anyone who opposes any aspect of ABA is accused either of not having "really" autistic kids (if parents), or of not really being autistic (if autistic). The irony isn't mine, John; it just arises from an accurate description of reality.

Any behaviourist could earn my support by arguing with my position and winning. I'm not wedded to a particular field. I work in cognitive science just now because my criticisms in this area were greeted not with invective but with the challenge, to me, can I prove it?

Michelle Dawson
naacanada

In response to Lenny Schafer:

> It is time for some people with apparent Asperger's to
> stop dishonestly misrepresenting themselves as typical
> examples of people with autism.

The vast majority of autistic adults look like us, so no it
is not dishonest. Whats dishonest is pretending:

A) That there is an epidemic of autism.
B) That todays autistic children are all doomed without
   drastic therapy.

That said there are and have always been individuals with
very severe autism. There are people who do need serious
help, however the help offered seems quite questionable.

Autism is not a behaviour problem, its a set of neurological
conditions which often lead to stress and frustration which
then leads to behaviour problems. No one would complain
if all autistics where offered an effective treatment
without excessive side effects for sensory issues!

We do complain when people see only the actions and 'treat'
them as the problem without looking at the cause. What if
you had kidney stones and the doctor prescribe behaviour
modification instead of morphine for your screaming? Kidney
stones won't kill you, its just pain, an internal experience
which according to behaviourist theory is totally
irrelevant. Thats how autistics are often being treated!

> Michelle Dawson's apparent high functioning autism looks
> nothing like my son's low functioning autism.

1) Michelle Dawson is alot older than your son.

2) Autism is a spectrum, the majority of autistics are
   atleast eventually what you'd consider high functioning.
   Remember autistics often write better than we speak, and
   you've never seen the personal struggles of anyone your
   talking about.

> What may be appropriate treatment and care for someone
> with one kind of autism just may be a form of abuse to
> another.

This is of course true of any condition. But when it comes
down to ABA, if anything applying a behavioural model of
autism to low functioning autistics is even more abusive
than it is to high functioning autistics. They will have
more capacity to develop PTSD, they will have less chance
of understanding what hoops they have to jump through to
satisfy the demands placed on them.

I'm not saying that no behavoural approachs should ever be
used. There may be forms of destructive behaviour where
there is no choice. But behaviour is not the root issues in
autism.

Instead of fighting with and insulting adult autistics, why
don't you take advantage of this resource to understand your
son better? Many parents on alt.support.autism have found
input from autistics very useful in dealing with there own
children.

> it is about time people with Asperger's stop painting
> themselves as representative autistics.

1) In some countries there is no such distinction. There
   is high functioning autism. I can tell if a 50 year old
   is on the spectrum, I can't tell if they had a speech
   delay.

2) Again high functioning autistics represent the vast
   majority of autistics. So in a technical sense we are
   the most representative, not that it matters, everyone
   is an individual, and its silly to say someone is
   representitave of a broad spectrum.

3) The gap between high and low functioning is one of
   quantity not quality. We experience the same symptoms,
   just in reduced severity.

> There is a valid reason for there being a separate name of > Aspergers to distinquish it from the rest of autism.

Let me see you pick out the people out of a group of 50
year old autistics, which ones had the speech delay.
Basically your trying to define Asperger's as anyone who
at any point in there life can disagree with you. You then
presume to speak for all the 'real autistics' who are
unable to disagree with you in writting.

One more thought. What I would have had differently as a
child knowing what I know now:

 1) To know what was going on. Back then it was all our fault
    everyone just assumed we chose to not interact normally.

 2) Protection from bullies, if not home schooling. The amount
    of stress and damage to self esteem school does, seems to
    outweigh any positive benefits.

 3) L-Carnosine, its effect in the past 1.5 years had been
    life changing, its hard to imagine how much different
    life would be having started at a much earlier age.

    One of the only things to actually show a dramatic
    effect in a peer reviewed, blind study with a control
    group. And guess what it really works, amazing what
    real science can do. Show me an ABA study with even
    a control group...

 4) Sensory Integration Therapy done by a compassionate
    therapist.

 5) Access to a word processor at an early age. When your
    severely discordinated cursive hand writting is a waste
    of time. I print in the few rare cases that I need to
    write with a pen. Otherwise type everything.

Larry wrote, "Show me an ABA study with even a control group..."

To be fair, a number of ABA studies have had control groups, including Lovaas's infamous 1987 study. However, they generally haven't been randomized or blinded (I think Smith (2000) was the only randomized trial).

And of course there's an ongoing question about what variable is actually being controlled for. For example, in Lovaas (1987) the variable which the study's design measured was the number of hours of one-to-one teaching (a lot versus a little) - it didn't in any way study ABA versus other treatments.

As far as I know, the only study to even try to compare ABA with another treatment or form of education with equivalent intensity is Eikeseth et. al.'s 2002 study, and in that instance the alternative was "eclectic treatment" (which seems like a fairly meaningless term, especially since the teachers delivering "eclectic treatment" evidently did so without the training, support or parent training given to the teachers working with the "behavioural treatment" group).

Hi Clare,

You said “On the other hand, the same individuals do seem to have mostly managed to reply to their other critics without resorting to slander (accusing Michelle of statements she did not make) or crossing professional boundaries to a grotesque degree (e.g. claiming that Michelle "can't" be autistic, or must have a "personality disorder").”

Most journal editors won’t accept really malicious writings, even so, some of the Lovaas and Gresham correspondence was getting a little feisty by the end. But, I agree with what you write here. There is no excuse for it, and I will not waste my time defending those authors comments.

You said “And this is not a question of anonymous writers of hate-mail - this is about well-known professionals (Mulick, Green et. al.) and allegedly "science-based" professional organizations (ASAT) making a public response to science-based criticism.”

At least one professor made a personal attack upon Maurice. You can read about it in the book she edited “Making a Difference”. But all the same, I will not support or justify non scientific attack, whether it occurs from Mulick, ASAT, AUTCOM, or anyone else.

You said “What explains their ability to maintain some sort of professional boundaries when responding to non-autistic critics, yet completely abandon them here?”

They don’t always. And besides, there is no excuse, no matter who does the talking. Even so I think I see your point.

You said “Given how much of the attacks on Michelle have centred round her autism - hysterical claims that she's "not really autistic", not autistic "like their children", is only falsely claiming to be autistic, etc. - I have to say I find it implausible that Michelle's autism is irrelevant here.To use your terminology, it does appear that the fact that criticisms are being voiced by an autistic person makes them especially aversive to some professionals in the field.”

Looking at this again, I suppose that this is accurate. Again, there is no excuse.