Conflicts of interest, all around.
No one in this conversation is operating from a place of pure scientific neutrality. The honest move is to name the interests on every side.
We have interests. We are explicit about them: we believe nonspeaking people deserve access to methods that demonstrably let them communicate, and we are working to change the public conversation toward that end.
Many frequently-cited critics also have interests — institutional positions, expert-witness fees, funding ties to organizations with a stake in the outcome, and reputational investment in positions taken decades ago. These interests are not usually disclosed when their statements are quoted as "the scientific consensus." A more honest media and academic ecosystem would name them.
"They're just taking your money"
Another claim critics make is that these methods are just taking families' money. Do they object to an SLP, ABA provider, or OT being paid for services? If the same professional organizations did not lobby so heavily to prevent schools, agencies, and insurers from accepting Assisted Communication methods, families would be able to get reimbursed for them. Is the fear that ASHA-credentialed and BCBA-credentialed providers won't be paid for their services? Instead of blocking these methods, those organizations could embrace them — learn more, incorporate them, and become part of the team helping nonspeakers access this kind of communication.