Let's do be scientific: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/9/35/
I find no mention of facilitated communication in the methods section: Methods Participating centers were intensive care and neurology units as well as neurorehabilitation centers, part of the Belgian federal network for care of patients in VS and MCS. All the patients included in this study were recruited according to pre-arranged inclusion/exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were a) severe acquired brain injury causing disturbance in consciousness, b) no neuromuscular function blockers and no sedation within the prior 24 hours and c) periods of eye opening (indicating preserved sleep-wake cycles and emergence from coma). Exclusion criteria were a) documented history of prior brain injury, b) premorbid history of developmental, psychiatric or neurologic illness resulting in documented functional disabilities up to time of the injury and c) acute illness. Additionally, the following clinical information was collected from the medical file of each patient: age, gender, past medical history, medication, time since onset and etiology. We used a standardized neurobehavioral assessment scale to determine patients' level of consciousness: the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) [ 12 <http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/9/35/#B12>]. The CRS-R assesses auditory, visual, verbal and motor functions as well as communication and arousal level. The total score ranges between 0 (worst) and 23 (best). The CRS-R has shown superior performance in detecting VS and MCS compared to other scales [12 <http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/9/35/#B12>,16<http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/9/35/#B16> ,17 <http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/9/35/#B17>]. Post-comatose patients were assessed once with the CRS-R by experienced raters (CS or AV). Relying on the Aspen criteria [2<http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/9/35/#B2>], we operationalized the definitions of VS, MCS and emergence from MCS using the items on the scale that were designed for this purpose. CRS-R-derived diagnostic criteria are mentioned in Table 1<http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/9/35/table/T1>. We compared the diagnosis derived from the CRS-R assessments performed by the research team (CS or AV) to the clinical consensus diagnosis. The clinical consensus diagnosis was based on daily behavioral observations and included observations made within the last 24 hours by a clinical team comprised of physicians, psychologists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and nurses. The research team was not involved in the clinical consensus diagnoses. The physicians recorded the clinical consensus diagnosis according to the observations reported by each member of the clinical team during structured but also unstructured team meetings and, in all cases, communicated this diagnosis to the research team prior to conducting the CRS-R assessment. The research team was hence not masked to the clinical consensus diagnoses. When all the clinical staff agreed, diagnosis was deemed VS or MCS. When even one person disagreed, the diagnosis was deemed 'uncertain'. Patients thought to have emerged from MCS based on consensus diagnosis were not assessed on the CRS-R. All patients were assessed once by the research team and were assigned a diagnosis of VS, MCS or emerged from MCS. Differences in diagnosis relative to length of time post-injury (acute vs. chronic) and etiology (traumatic vs. non-traumatic) were assessed using Chi square test, thresholded for significance at p < 0.05. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Liège. Informed consent was obtained from each patient's legal surrogate. ::cough:: moving on On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: > > wrong. In four separate articles FC was mentioned. The techniques > discussed in the original article and the video plainly show > facilitated communication techniques. > > Pull the other leg its has bells on it. > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Larry. Read the article. Then re-read the thread. Nobody but you is > talking > > about facilitated communication, and the article says he is the guy is > > conscious, so this stunt is unnecessary. Shrug. Go read the original > biomed > > article. Double shrug. We now return you to your pointless arguments from > > authority. > > > > On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 7:18 AM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> > >> What valid evidence that this facilitated communication works, or is > >> it just a function of the facilitator's expectations? The data are > >> very clear on that, facilitated communication is bogus science. Its > >> nothing more than what the so called facilitator thinks, for a summary > >> of the research that demonstrates that, see, > >> http://tinyurl.com/yzugd5f. > >> > >> As for the insults you do appear to use them when you cannot > >> demonstrate your point. > >> > >> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > we should just trust you, right? Cause you know. And we should have > faith > >> in > >> > you ;) > >> > > >> > I'd almost feel bad for how ridiculous you sound, except that you did > it > >> to > >> > yourself ::shrug:: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected] > >> >wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> You really need to read up on why facilitated communication isn't. > I'm > >> >> not going to rehash the old tired story, except to say that its been > >> >> shown that facilitated communication isn't. From the videos I've seen > >> >> of the guy, more than half the time he isn't even looking at the > >> >> keyboard or screen. Enough said. Unlike some on this list I do not > >> >> follow faith based science. > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Dana <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > he can't accept that answer because it was family members in the > other > >> >> case > >> >> > also. > >> >> > > >> >> > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Michael Grant <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> For me the fact that it's family members, and more than one, I > think > >> >> adds a > >> >> >> certain degree of credibility to it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Larry C. Lyons < > >> [email protected] > >> >> >> >wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I'm quite skeptical of this case. Its great that the man was > able > >> to > >> >> >> > be rediagnosed as locked-in syndrom rather than minimally aware > >> >> >> > syndrome or being in a peristant vegitative state. But other > than > >> that > >> >> >> > there may be no great change. He still cannot communicate in any > >> >> >> > meaningful way. It would appear that all the communication is > being > >> >> >> > done through a "facilitator." > >> >> >> > (http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/091201-coma-victim.html > ). > >> How > >> >> >> > do we know whether its the patient or the so-called speach > >> facilitator > >> >> >> > who is communicating? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Michael Grant <[email protected] > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > I saw a doc on this recently. Can you imagine the frustration > >> that > >> >> >> would > >> >> >> > > cause. Perfectly functioning brain combined with total > paralysis. > >> I > >> >> >> > > shudder to think of how awful that would be. > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Vivec <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> Actually...did anyone read about that guy who was in a coma > for > >> 15 > >> >> >> > >> years supposedly braindead, but with new methods they > recently > >> >> found > >> >> >> > >> that his brain was quite active, and for those 15 years he > knew > >> >> what > >> >> >> > >> was going on around him? > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> 2009/12/6 Dana <[email protected]>: > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> >>Your accusation is quite interesting considering this is > >> coming > >> >> from > >> >> >> > >> >>someone who thinks its ok to keep someone who's brain has > >> rotted > >> >> >> away > >> >> >> > >> >>alive by artificial means > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > bla bla bla.... no evidence needed for you on that one..... > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> in a form of half life does make me want to > >> >> >> > >> >>puke. What next have anyone who does have a living will > >> >> persecuted? > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:309189 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
