Stuart Vyse on Autism Pseudoscience: Facilitated Communication, S2C, and ‘Telepathy Tapes’

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/11/14

Stuart Vyse, an expert in superstition, pseudoscience, and critical thinking, discusses the resurgence of discredited autism communication techniques like Facilitated Communication (FC) and Spelling to Communicate (S2C). Despite being scientifically debunked, these methods persist due to parental desperation and social media amplification. The podcast The Telepathy Tapes promotes pseudoscientific claims of telepathic abilities in non-speaking autistic individuals, further fueling misinformation. Vyse emphasizes the responsibility of scientists to counteract such claims and highlights cognitive biases that sustain them. He warns of dangerous, unproven autism treatments and stresses the need for evidence-based perspectives to challenge pseudoscience effectively.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are with Stuart Vyse. He is an American psychologist, behavioural scientist, and author specializing in superstition, pseudoscience, and critical thinking—all important topics. He is a fellow of the American Psychological Association, the Association for Psychological Science, and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

All are great organizations, particularly the last one, where he serves on the Executive Council. Vyse has written multiple books, including Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition, which won the William James Book Award. He is a contributing editor for Skeptical Inquirer and writes the column Behavior & Belief. He has taught at Connecticut College, Providence College, and the University of Rhode Island. Thank you for joining me.

So, what are the core claims of this new wave of autism pseudoscience? Many in the skeptic and humanist communities will be aware of the essentially fraudulent single study that falsely linked vaccines to autism, which caused enormous issues. What’s happening with this new wave, and how does it differ from past misconceptions?

Stuart Vyse: Some of what is being presented as new is not new. One example is a communication technique used with people who have severe forms of autism—those who appear to have no language, are non-speaking or have limited verbal abilities.

Several techniques have been around in the U.S. since the 1990s, the most famous of which is facilitated communication (FC). However, it was discredited shortly after being introduced in the U.S.

The theory behind it suggests that many non-speaking individuals with severe autism have intact cognitive abilities but are unable to express themselves due to motor difficulties. In other words, they have what some proponents call “broken bodies.”

The technique involves a facilitator holding the hand of the disabled individual while they type on a keyboard. It was initially thought to be a breakthrough. Suddenly, individuals who had never spoken could produce fluent writing, including poems, books, and other complex compositions.

However, controlled studies repeatedly demonstrated that the words produced through facilitated communication came from the facilitator, not the autistic individual. This led to the scientific community’s widespread rejection of FC. Despite this, variations of FC continue to resurface under different names, such as the Rapid Prompting Method (RPM) and Spelling to Communicate (S2C), both of which remain scientifically unvalidated and controversial.

But the control tests done in the 1990s showed, without exception, that unbeknownst to the facilitator—the helper—it was actually the facilitator controlling the typing, not the disabled individual. It was an Ouija board phenomenon, with a fundamental misunderstanding of who controlled the process.

That technique has been around for a long time. While newer versions are somewhat different, they still have the same fundamental problem: two people are involved, and it is unclear who controls the communication.

Unfortunately, despite being discredited by science back in the 1990s, these techniques persist because they provide such a strong emotional reward for the parents of severely disabled individuals. The appeal is so great that these methods have not disappeared. In fact, they are more popular now than they were back then.

But the latest twist, according to a popular podcast called The Telepathy Tapes, is that these non-speaking individuals, or those with limited language, are not only communicating through these discredited methods, but they also allegedly have telepathic powers.

According to the podcast, they can read minds, insert thoughts into other people’s minds, and see through blindfolds. Essentially, they are claimed to have numerous paranormal and supernatural abilities.

Of course, the evidence for this is weak—in fact, there is no real evidence at all. But despite that, the podcast has gained immense popularity—it even briefly knocked The Joe Rogan Experience from the number one spot earlier this year. It continues to have a large following.

Jacobsen: Psychic abilities, insofar as any scientific tests conducted on them, do not exist. How does The Telepathy Tapes podcast attempt to justify its claims? There are a lot of tactics people use. Do they couch it in scientific-sounding language? Do they bring on discredited experts?

Vyse: All of the above. The first line of defence is that it’s a podcast, so listeners only hear descriptions—they are not seeing what is happening. This allows for a great deal of embellishment. The podcast employs dramatic background music and exciting language to enhance the illusion of legitimacy. Still, because it’s all audio, there is no visual verification of the claims.

The second line of defence is the inclusion of so-called “experts.” They bring on a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and a biologist. However, all three have long histories of believing in ESP and other supernatural phenomena, so there are no skeptical voices on this podcast at all.

And the tests they conduct to “prove” these psychic abilities are, in my opinion, laughable. They are not rigorous and rely on this discredited form of communication.

They’re either using the old facilitated communication method or a newer form called Spelling to Communicate, which organizations such as the Speech-Language-Hearing Association in the United States and other professional bodies do not support.

The fundamental issue is that it is not clear whether the disabled person is actually the one communicating. If the communications are invalid, the supposed psychic abilities disappear—because the facilitator already knows the answer.

In their tests, the person facilitating the communication knows the answer, even when the disabled individual does not. If the facilitator is controlling the typing, then it is simple transcription. It’s not magic.

Jacobsen: You have the relevant background here. What are the cognitive biases and heuristic errors people make when attributing veracity to these unfounded claims?

Vyse: Well, the core issue—the most significant bias at play—is that the facilitators are almost always the parents of the disabled individuals. This means they are far from objective observers.

These are people who, before using these communication methods, had never heard their child say, “I love you,” or anything of that nature. Then, suddenly—almost magically—the child appears to be expressing complex thoughts and emotions.

I want to pause here and acknowledge that being the parent of a child with such a severe disability is incredibly difficult. My heart goes out to these parents because they face challenges that typical parents do not. They have constant worries about their children’s futures. But because of this, there is a powerful bias in favour of belief.

The main issue is the parents’ belief that their child possesses an underlying competence and an ability to articulate speech that had previously been hidden.

It often goes beyond confirmation bias, becoming willful ignorance and motivated reasoning. The desire for this to be true is so strong that people actively avoid anything challenging their belief system.

Simple tests can easily demonstrate who is actually controlling the communication. You can conduct these tests on a tabletop. Since the 1990s, when peer-reviewed studies provided devastating evidence against these techniques, parents and advocates of these methods have gone to great lengths to avoid subjecting them to rigorous testing.

They believe in it, and some openly admit as much. For instance, a pro-Spelling to Communicate documentary, Spellers, is available on YouTube. It presents a highly favourable portrayal of the technique, reinforcing the belief system of those who support it.

A woman, a scientist, is interviewed in this documentary. Her son uses a spelling technique with her, and she says, “I don’t need the science. I know it is him communicating with me.”

So, there is a willful rejection of anything that would challenge that belief—for reasons I think are completely understandable. If you believe your child has an intact mind, has wonderful thoughts, and is producing great ideas, it would be incredibly difficult to challenge that belief once it has been established.

Jacobsen: Recently, Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Meta, formerly Facebook, announced that he would be dropping fact-checkers for ambiguous or unclear reasons. Regardless, social media plays a significant role in amplifying and spreading pseudoscience.

How is social media amplifying and spreading autism-related pseudoscience—whether the first wave or this newest wave, which you’re known for covering? The old is new.

Vyse: Yeah. I think social media—and podcasts, which we didn’t have 15 or 20 years ago—is one of the main ways these ideas spread like wildfire.

Beyond the podcast itself, extensive promotions are happening on platforms like X, BlueSky, Facebook, and Instagram. This particular podcast is leveraging all of these social media channels.

Furthermore, there is a network of parents of disabled individuals who are highly engaged in searching for new solutions to their challenges. Long before The Telepathy Tapes, autism was already considered a fad magnet—because severe autism is so devastating for parents, they are especially vulnerable to treatments that claim to offer hope.

There have been scores of fad therapies claiming to cure autism, some of them quite dangerous. Yet parents, understandably, are often willing to try anything that might provide a solution. This latest wave is simply another iteration of that pattern.

Jacobsen: What responsibility does the scientific community have in debunking these claims?

I should add a small note for those who may not be immersed in the history of media culture and its intersection with the scientific community. Dr. Carl Sagan, for example, faced considerable criticism from within the scientific community for dedicating so much of his time to popularizing science—especially through Cosmos, which he co-created with Ann Druyan.

As far as I know, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson has faced similar, though less intense, critiques—largely because Sagan had already paved the way.

So, instead of asking how the scientific community views the responsibility to debunk these claims, a better question is: How do some scientific community members perceive their role in debunking claims that spread like wildfire through social media?

Vyse: Yeah, I think that—personally—I believe this is an important issue to address. And, honestly, it’s a jungle out there.

You mentioned that Facebook will no longer engage in fact-checking. In a more libertarian fashion, the responsibility is now entirely on individuals to decipher what is truth and what is bunk.

So, it is important for those with a platform to use it. Neil deGrasse Tyson is excellent at that. I don’t think the criticisms Sagan received back then were entirely unwarranted. They largely came from fellow scientists who adhered to the old-school view that you should stay in your lab, research, publish in scientific journals, and not concern yourself with public outreach.

I think that attitude has shifted significantly—especially with today’s widespread anti-science sentiment and rejection of expertise. These misleading ideas will spread exponentially if we do not provide a countervailing view.

I am fortunate to write for Skeptical Inquirer because when something like The Telepathy Tapes emerges, I can respond quickly if it falls within my expertise. And in this case, it does. I can provide an immediate counterargument.

I’m also encouraged to see that several articles—not just mine but from various sources—have criticized the technique since the podcast was released. Many of these writers seem to be aware of the background of facilitated communication and other discredited methods used in the podcast.

That’s heartening. But simultaneously, it’s extremely difficult to counteract a podcast that has reached the number one spot. I think this podcast’s overall effect will be to further spread these discredited techniques.

That’s why it is important to speak out.

Jacobsen: In general, I don’t think the public is stupid. I think baseline human cognitive abilities are quite high in terms of functioning. The issue is often a lack of exposure to an evidence-based perspective.

Someone more astute than me in political analysis once told me—and I forget whether this was in an actual interview, a casual conversation, or a pre-interview discussion—but they said something that stuck with me: An option is better than no option.

If the only option people are presented with is something like The Telepathy Tapes or autism-related pseudoscience, then that is what they will grasp onto. It’s an easy cognitive shortcut. It helps with cognitive closure—people want an answer. If a seemingly compelling one is available, that will be the first thing that comes to mind.

As someone in the media, albeit as a freelancer, I think scientists in particular fields have a significant responsibility to serve the public—not by forcefully pushing them away from pseudoscience but by almost poetically coaxing them into considering another perspective.

That’s what Sagan did and Tyson does so well: they describe science in a way that entices people into a different worldview.

I believe scientists are responsible in this regard—especially if they are tenured professors. They are among the most protected professionals in the world regarding academic freedom, financial stability, funding opportunities, freedom of speech, and professional respectability.

Vyse: Exactly. I agree with you completely on that.

Jacobsen: What are the old and new common threads across these various forms of autism-related pseudoscience?

Vyse: Well, the common thread is simple—the promise of an elusive but enormous reward. That reward is either the curing of the disorder or the discovery of a hidden ability. That is the core of it.

The parents in these situations—whether or not you are a parent yourself—are people who likely had an image of what raising a child would be like. They wanted a child, made the effort to have one, and had certain expectations for the parenting experience.

But in the case of a child with autism, that ideal is suddenly shattered. All of their hopes and dreams for what parenting would be are dramatically altered.

At its core, that is the most important aspect of these pseudoscientific claims. You have a set of desperate parents who would do anything to reclaim the dream they once had for their child’s future.

And unfortunately, there are unscrupulous people out there who are more than willing to exploit that desperation.

I can share one recent anecdote. One of the alternative treatments that some parents of autistic children try is hyperbaric oxygen therapy. They place their child in a hyperbaric chamber—similar to the chambers used to treat divers suffering from decompression sickness (“the bends”).

Some centers offer this therapy for autism despite having no scientific evidence that it works. But they market it as an effective treatment.

Just a few weeks ago, in Michigan, a five-year-old boy was tragically killed when the hyperbaric chamber he was in caught fire. These chambers are filled with oxygen, which makes them highly flammable.

It was unclear from the news reports I read whether the child was undergoing the treatment specifically for autism. However, the center where this occurred openly listed autism as one of the conditions for which they recommended hyperbaric therapy.

So, even if autism was not the reason in this particular case, it very well could have been. This is just one example of the lengths parents will go in search of a solution.

Jacobsen: Stuart, thank you for your time and the opportunity to speak with you today. 

Vyse: Great. Thanks for inviting me.

Jacobsen: Take care.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.