The recurring claims, calmly answered.
A small body of older studies and position statements gets recycled across articles, podcasts, and Reddit threads. Here is what each claim actually rests on — and what an honest look at today's evidence and practice has to add.
We don't dodge the hard questions. We don't pretend the 1990s didn't happen. We do insist on engaging with the actual claims, the actual evidence, and the actual people doing this work today.
Who is really doing the typing?
The authorship question, taken seriously — what it gets right, what it misses about motor learning, and what fading data over time actually shows.
Read →Message-passing studies
What the classic message-passing studies tested, what they didn't test, and why their design conditions are not the conditions under which most supported communicators actually communicate.
Read →'Pseudoscience,' really?
ASHA's own evidence-based practice framework has three pillars, not one. Supported communication has more to say in each of them than its critics admit.
Read →The false-allegations claim
If a person's only path to reporting abuse is banned, abuse becomes invisible. The civil-rights stakes of taking this critique uncritically.
Read →'Isn't this just old FC repackaged?'
What has actually changed in 30 years of practice — and why pretending nothing has changed is itself a position with consequences.
Read →Conflicts of interest, all around
The frequently-cited critics, their funders, the studies they shaped — and the conflicts that get omitted when the 'objective consensus' is described.
Read →