Comments on: Dr. Laureys Admits Facilitated Communication Failure

By: stargazer9915

stargazer9915 — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:49:30 +0000

Theoretical evidence is an oxymoron. There is no such thing, just like FC. Yes, it would be nice if it were true, but all, and I mean ALL, evidence points to the contrary. Giving false hope in the form of FC is out-and-out despicable. These people should be prosecuted for fraud.

I know it’s a hard line, but I feel someone needs to take it.

By: Jeshua

Jeshua — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:23:26 +0000

While i totally agree that what has been done so far with FC has not worked, the idea just seems too attractive to abandon altogether. Isn’t it possible that someone could come up with a different approach to FC that could work? It doesn’t seem as though there is any solid theoretical reason why it shouldn’t work, just as there is no solid theoretical evidence that time travel is not possible. BTW, I have no personal reason to be hopeful about FC, but who wouldn’t like to travel back in time?

By: Robo Sapien

Robo Sapien — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:07:49 +0000

I’m only asserting that his body may be keeping his consciousness “offline” as a programmatic response to the conditions it observes. Of course the brain itself can’t shut down, or nothing else would work :O

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 03:00:42 +0000

Articles like this are why I come to this website. There’s another layer to the reporting here. This is something most other blogs leave out.

By: MadScientist

MadScientist — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:24:02 +0000

I’m still suspicious of Laureys and still think that his institution should investigate him for fraud. Perhaps he’s just not that good a scientist to see that FC is BS, but it’s hard to believe he can be that stupid and yet claim to make real progress in diagnosing victims like Houben.

By: SeanG

SeanG — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:53:20 +0000

Someone operating a shop on the corner is one thing. Seeing this in hospitals is distressing. I recently took my dad to a physical therapy appointment at a local hospital. I was dismayed to see a placard advertising acupuncture at the front desk. Granted, this was a private practice within the hospital. Aren’t there boards or something that regulate what goes on in a hospital?

By: Max

Max — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:30:22 +0000

“If FC were truly plausible, then there would be no need for a therapist, as a simple Ouija board would suffice.”

Does Stephen Hawking’s speech synthesizer count?

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:58:49 +0000

Hospitals are now a major source of medical pseudoscience – specifically the marketing departments of hospitals, who see it as a revenue stream, and don’t seem to care about scientific legitimacy.

By: Sara

Sara — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:11:21 +0000

These alternatives are thriving because the Medical Community is advocating them. My mother was recently in the hospital for a month. She was visited several times by 2 women who were Theraputic Touch therapists. They were apparently part of the hospital staff since at one point they knew my mother was suffering from an odd hand cramp (unrelated to her illness).

When a hospital employs and sends around a touch therapist – people assume that this is solid science. Authority has spoken.

By: stargazer9915

stargazer9915 — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:10:01 +0000

Many in the autism community also ‘believe’ that vaccines cause autism. Doing just a small bit of research on FC will show that it is a sham and probably more harmful than useful. Ask yourself “if many in the autism community believe it works quite well, then why do most courts of law not allow it?”

There is as much evidence for FC as there are for phschic mediums (see previous article).