Donate to the JREF

Login Form



$69.00



$7.00



Like it? Share it!
The Naked Emperor PDF Print E-mail
Swift
Written by Hank Schlinger, Ph.D.   
Saturday, 28 November 2009 00:43

(Author's Note: After sending an email to a CNN reporter about his story on Rom Houben, the Belgian man who was misdiagnosed as being in a coma for 23 years and who is now able to communicate about his experience via Facilitated Communication, I was contacted by someone from Campbell Brown about a possible appearance on the show to talk about why we should doubt the validity of the communications.

It turns out that they did not use me, and instead interviewed neuropsychologist Joseph Giacino, who they also interviewed the week before when the story first broke. After watching the segment, I penned the following, which I have slightly modified for Swift.)

It seems obvious that Rom Houben is not able to communicate. One doesn't even need to test it, although I would bet James Randi's $1,000,000 offer that even the simplest test -- blocking the assistant's view of the keyboard -- would yield proof.

Has anyone thought to ask how Mr. Houben is able to type on a keyboard, especially so fluently, when his eyes are closed or if he is not looking at the keyboard? Or how he is able to move his hands or fingers after 23 years of immobility and muscle atrophy? Do we simply take the word of his assistant, who is heavily invested, that she can feel slight movements in his hand guiding hers?

Dr. Giacino, whom Campbell Brown asked about this, is mistaken that "that there is no way to determine Mr. Houben's contribution to these typewritten sentences relative to the assistant's contribution." In fact, it is quite simple to make that determination. There are a number of tests that can be easily carried out, including a double-blind test in which Mr. Houben and his assistant are each shown both the same and different pictures or objects and then asked what they saw.

It was laudable that Campbell Brown showed a brief comment by Dr. Arthur Caplan questioning the communication. But that was not enough, because there is more than just doubt or skepticism about it. All on has to do is watch the video. What it shows isn't even subtle cueing, as in the Clever Hans case, or an example of the ideomotor effect such as one experiences with a Ouija Board. It's really a no-brainer to see that the assistant is doing the typing. Her eyes are constantly on the keyboard as she moves his hand to the letters; Mr. Houben's eyes are not.

It is not correct to describe a "controversy surrounding" Facilitated Communication (FC), or to suggest that there is "skepticism" about it, as though there were any lingering debate about its validity. The matter was long ago settled: FC doesn't work with anyone. It has never been shown to be reliable; not once in over 25 years. And it is not "often" the facilitator who is responsible for what is written as was mentioned by Brown; it is always the facilitator who is responsible, albeit usually unconsciously.

It is also not correct to state, as CNN did on the screen during the Campbell Brown show, that "Houben's brain is fully functional." How can anyone make that claim? He appears to still be in a persistent vegetative state. If he can "follow commands" or "do simple things"as Dr. Giacino and Houben's doctors claim, then why can't he move a finger to type on his own? Or blink his eyes in response to questions? Why don't they show us that?

I don't know what kind of neuroimaging was done or what it showed, but there is no question that Mr. Houben still has significant brain damage. And no brain imaging method can determine that someone is "conscious," if by "consciousness" we mean the ability to understand and describe what is going on. Only some form of communication can allow that determination to be made. In the case of Mr. Houben, it appears that the communication is a sham.

The tragedy in all of this is that Mr. Houben is being exploited by everyone, including the doctors and media, even while many of them may have good intentions. When one realizes that he is not likely producing his own communications, then the scene of reporters "interviewing" him becomes macabre. Someone is "speaking" for him, and that raises serious ethical concerns.

This emperor truly has no clothes.

Trackback(0)
Comments (16)Add Comment
...
written by MadScientist, November 28, 2009
I am extremely disappointed that Laureys is not condemning the fraud; he is putting an end to his career as a medical researcher by being associated with this nonsense, not to mention it is unethical to allow people to pull such a scam on the family of the victim.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +13
Nip this in the bud
written by MarkEMarkEMark, November 28, 2009
Michael Shermer is asking to try to nip this in the bud http://trueslant.com/michaelsh...-man-hoax/

I wrote a humerous* blogpost last week about it too http://williamsatirejr.blogspo...-says.html (* well, I suppose that depends on your sense of humour)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by Nekura, November 29, 2009
Watching the videos closely, any time he's not 'communicating,' his right hand is total immobile, not even a twitch of the fingers. Yet he can hunt-and-peck at 20 WPM with just slight 'stabilization'? It is very difficult to expose this sham because the people involved want to be fooled.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +12
Journalistic Ethics
written by RobbieD, November 29, 2009
The Society of Professional Journalists has a code of ethics - find it at....

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

The very first line of the code is.... "Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible."

I would have thought that the reporting of the Rom Houben case is in breach of this line in the SPJ code, as it does not appear that they have got information from all available sources, they just swallowed the line given to them. Further into the ethics code we see that journalists should...

"Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing."

Have they really tried to independently verify that Rom agrees with the news stories being made about him? Did they not see the dilemma that the only line of 'communication' with Rom was via the route that was the subject of the story?

The ethics code also states that....

"Journalists should:
— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
— Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
— Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media."

So if we air a grievance about this news story there should be a response from those concerned, and if there is none at least we can point to this code and wag a finger. The code of ethics is all very noble, but is not enforced in any way. There does not appear to be any clear route for members of the public to raise issues with the SPJ over ethics, though their website does include an email address for the chair of the ethics committee.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +9
...
written by MrIncredible, November 29, 2009
I've watched this story over the last few days and I find it fascinating, because just when I think "journalism" can't sink any lower, they manage to prove me wrong. It's gotten to the point where I have to second-guess every single thing I see on any news show, no matter how small. How utterly sad. The bigger issue is that the large majority of the population will see this and for them it will be fact. I know, I've tried to explain the concept of FC to a number of people since this story came out. But, when ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, FOX, and so on all have the same story with the same fraudulent angle, what chance to I have of getting anyone to agree with me? I mean, they can't all be liars, can they?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +15
...
written by HarveyC, November 29, 2009
I agree with Mrincredible, I came home from Viet-Nam in '69 and watched the news on TV a few times. I haven't watched the news on TV since. Read the newspaper a few times, and haven't read the newspaper since. As has been stated before, this would be so easy to test. It is a shame some people get their, "15 minutes of fame", in such a scandulous way.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +4
...
written by kenhamer, November 29, 2009
The Society of Professional Journalists has a code of ethics - find it at....

Of course, that presumes that CNN actually has some journalists.

While it's possible some of their people are journalists, at least to some degree, looking at their roster should be evidence enough that they are in the entertainment business (or info-tainment, as some call it.) There is no benefit to them in providing accurate information about anything. Instead, their mission is to keep audience share (and advertising revenue) as high as possible.

They thrive on controversy, contrived or otherwise. So simply, directly, and accurately reporting on (and/or investigating) stories like this one would not nearly generate the same audience as when either something apparently remarkable or controversial is reported. And when you think about it, there's not that much that's truly remarkable about this basic story -- a man has been in a coma for 23 years, but may still have a small amount of brain activity. I'm sure that story could be repeated everyday for years without referring to the same person twice.

But once you throw in some voodoo, ramp it up for the contoversy, and keep stoking it, then it becomes a profitable enterprise.

Writing CNN to complain about stories like this is a little bit like calling a taxi company to report that your electric power is out. The taxi company doesn't care, and neither does CNN.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +3
...
written by Skeptigirl, November 29, 2009
written by kenhamer, November 29, 2009
Writing CNN to complain about stories like this is a little bit like calling a taxi company to report that your electric power is out. The taxi company doesn't care, and neither does CNN.
I don't agree that they do not care. While they are in the business of selling news, and news as a commodity is by its nature flawed, CNN and other agencies are at least marginally sensitive to challenges to their credibility.

We certainly aren't going to ever influence erroneous news if we just ignore it.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +7
The Scans
written by gretemike, November 29, 2009
Dr. Schlinger wrote "it is also not correct to state, as CNN did on the screen during the Campbell Brown show, that Houben's brain is fully functional. How can anyone make that claim?"

I believe, based on the Belgian news article I cited previously (under "This Cruel Farce Has To Stop!"), that the basis for the claim is this alleged imaging (PET scan? I'm not sure.).

As I said then, it strikes me that perhaps the easiest way to prove or disprove this would be to examine the imaging if it is available (I'm assuming - possibly wrongly - that such imaging isn't overly dependent upon subjective interpretation). If imaging cannot determine whether or not a person is conscious, then you've caught them in a lie. But if it can determine whether someone is conscious but they won't release it, then that casts doubt on their claims.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
...
written by kenhamer, November 29, 2009
I don't agree that they do not care. While they are in the business of selling news, and news as a commodity is by its nature flawed, CNN and other agencies are at least marginally sensitive to challenges to their credibility.

They are only sensitive to the degree which their presumed credibility, or lack of, affects their ratings. That's as much the fault of their audiences as it is themselves.

We certainly aren't going to ever influence erroneous news if we just ignore it.

Perhaps. But have you ever seen a news organization revisit a story with a more skeptical eye just because someone (or someones) wrote in complaining about the lack of objectivity or critical evaluation of the story? If it happens, it happens infrequently enough to either not be noticed or be exceptional if it is.

I'm all for protesting this kind of nonsense, but I think writing to the progenitors of it is mostly a wasted effort. I'm not certain who would be a better target for the complaints, but I like to dream that their competitors would gobble it up, even if only for their own self interest.

report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +2
Preaching to the choir
written by Skeptigirl, November 30, 2009
You are preaching to the choir, kenhamer, if your comments about the news media are directed to me. I am all too aware of the issues that accompany the fact the news is a commodity first and a source of information second. As such, accuracy and/or factualness are not high on the priority list of many news editors. In addition, news reporters are enveloped in a culture that perpetuates the problem.

But my point still stands, ignoring the problem is not an option. Giving up in despair is an ineffective means of addressing the problem.

Here is what I propose. Treat this problem like you would any other problem in science. We've identified the underlying issues. You don't believe just writing to news editors is effective. So generate some new hypotheses about how one might influence the inaccurate media. Test your hypotheses, refine them, develop new ones if they fail to produce results.

The assumption nothing can be done is self fulfilling.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +5
I can type without looking...
written by Griz, December 01, 2009
...just sayin'.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: -3
Not the way this man is doing it...
written by JerryC, December 01, 2009
Griz, I can also touch type. That's not the impossible feat that this man is supposedly performing. First of all, he has a flat keyboard, so no feedback even on if the keys are being hit. Second, close your eyes, hold one finger up in the air, and then try pecking away without looking at the keyboard or monitor to record even one sentence, and see how far you get. Can't be done. Yet that's exactly what the camera is showing is supposedly happening.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by Skeptigirl, December 01, 2009
I can type without looking...
written by Griz, December 01, 2009
Think about it. You put 8 fingers (or some version of that) on the keyboard which are then oriented to the location of the keys.

Try this experiment. Close your eyes. Hold someone's hand that has a single finger extended. Try to find the keyboard, let alone type a coherent message at a rapid pace.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
...
written by kennypo65, January 19, 2010
I thought not looking at the keys was the idea. I mean, that's what i was taught to do in typing class(I failed miserably at it). Don't get me wrong, I still think that this is total BS.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
...
written by inquisitiveraven, January 31, 2010
@kennypo65

I took typing class too, and there's some major differences. One, you get tactile feedback from the keyboard which is not a flat sheet. In particular, well, Skeptigirl described it well. You place eight fingers on a designated set of keys, and you always have at least one finger from each hand positioned on its designated key to orient you toward where you are. He's got a flat sheet and only one finger is being used. I have short fingers, and I always have to look if I do anything with the top row because I lose my position otherwise. I also will also note that I always had to look to find the home keys in typing class because the typewriters offered no tactile feedback to differentiate them from any other keys. That's one of the great innovations of the modern computer keyboard. Raised bumps or ridges on the "f" and "j" keys so you can find the home keys without looking.

So, tactile feedback is critical to typing without seeing the keyboard and Mr. Houben isn't getting any on two counts: 1) it's a flat surface, and 2) that isn't even his finger, it's a plastic brace over his it (you can hear it clacking on the screen). Even if he is conscious, there's no way he's directing his own hand movements under those circumstances.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
Last Updated on Saturday, 28 November 2009 20:19