S2E44: Is Spelling Really “Debunked”? An Advocate Responds | Talk Tracks

Summary

---

The Telepathy Tapes — S2E44: Is Spelling Really “Debunked”? An Advocate Responds | Talk Tracks

Host: Ky Dickens
Guest: David Coffer (advocate, writer, father to non-speaking autistic son Stone)
Air Date: August 5, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Telepathy Tapes directly addresses the controversies surrounding the use of spelling-based communication methods (such as Spelling to Communicate, Rapid Prompting Method, and Facilitated Communication) for non-speaking autistic individuals. Following a high-profile New York Times op-ed dismissing spelling-based techniques as "debunked," advocate and parent David Coffer joins host Ky Dickens to share his family's transformative journey and to critically respond to scientific and ethical criticisms often levied against these approaches.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. David and Stone’s Communication Journey

[03:10–06:28]

• David introduces his son Stone, sharing their long search for a viable communication method after years of both traditional and intensive autism therapies.
• Turning point: Discovering "Spelling to Communicate" via J.B. Handley’s book Underestimated in 2022 and meeting the author.
  • “Once that door was kicked open, he went flying through it and progressed through the boards ... It was just so beautiful to finally be able to communicate.” (David, [04:31–06:28])
• Shift from isolation and low societal expectations for Stone to engaging conversations, new educational opportunities, and realistic college aspirations.

2. Barriers from Mainstream Institutions

[06:42–09:42]

• Despite Stone's rapid communication progress, his public school refused to allow letterboards, citing ASHA’s (American Speech-Language-Hearing Association) anti-spelling policy.
  • “We were denied like so many others ... They specifically cited ASHA as the reason.” (David, [07:36])
• David’s advocacy included hiring an education attorney, eventually securing alternative schooling for Stone.
• Motivation to amplify advocacy for communication rights; started "Coffer Insights" and networked with other families.

3. Reflections on Criticism & Skepticism

[09:42–11:35]

• Emotional reaction to the NYT piece:
  • Sadness for the author’s lack of hope for her own son.
  • Anger at reliance on outdated, limited studies without counterpoint or acknowledgment of thousands of lived experiences.
  • “Shame on the New York Times for platforming this ... without at least providing someone else to counter it.” (David, [11:35])

4. Science, Evidence, and Outdated Studies

[13:13–20:27]

• Common anti-spelling claims: lack of scientific support and fears of facilitator influence.
• David challenges the application of more stringent standards to non-speakers than speakers.
  • “Why is there this barrier in the first place for non speakers to have to prove their authorship when we don't place that same type of burden on speakers?” (David, [18:05])
• He points out ASHA’s own evidence-based practice model lists lived and clinical experience as valued evidence, yet such experiences are routinely dismissed by critics.

5. Evolution of Research & Methodological Double Standards

[20:27–22:57]

• Early 1990s message-passing studies were clinical, high-pressure, and not neurodiverse-affirming; their results are still heavily cited as “definitive,” despite more recent evidence.
  • Analogy: Asking a person using a walker to suddenly walk unassisted as a “real test”— an unfair, non-representative metric ([22:21])

6. Understanding ‘Message Passing’ and Real-Life Constraints

[23:21–29:43]

• David details how the message-passing test environment ignores apraxia and stress factors non-speaking autistics face, resulting in failed authorship “proof.”
  • Personal example: Stone intentionally failed such a test to avoid returning to a disliked school, illustrating individual agency ([24:15–26:27]).
• Raises the double-edged interpretation: failed tests may even be evidence of telepathic attunement or simply the wrong experimental design ([27:20]).

7. Rebutting the Ideomotor Effect Critique

[29:43–31:37]

• David finds the ideomotor effect argument unconvincing; it’s more about self-influence than transference from facilitator to non-speaker:
  • “Let me back up ... you don't think that the non speaker is competent enough to spell on their own ... but somehow they're sophisticated enough to interpret these uber sensitive cues ... It makes no sense.” ([29:43])

8. Citing Newer Eye-Tracking Research

[31:37–32:27]

• References the 2020 University of Virginia eye-tracking study.
  • Eye and finger movements were consistent with autonomous letter selection, undermining cueing arguments.

9. Bias, Industry Influence, and 'Following the Money'

[34:35–37:22]

• Newly published research (2026) finds 93% of ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis) studies include at least one author with financial ties, with most failing to disclose such conflicts.
• David likens spelling-based communication providers to “startups,” lacking lobbying clout or research funding to match ABA industry’s institutional sway.

10. The Lived Experience: Transformation

[40:11–43:18]

• “You can’t fake happiness, you can’t fake confidence ... the joy that he brings to this world now, the way that he shows up ... he spreads that joy.” (David)
• Influence is present in all communication, but with the right guardrails, autonomy can flourish.

Memorable Personal Moments:

• When asked about Stone’s passions, he replied:
  • “My passion is learning ... I want to go to Harvard.” ([43:30])
• Knowing facts never taught in school, e.g., identifying “the British” as adversaries in the Revolutionary War ([45:02–46:32])
• Stone teaching himself foreign languages by watching YouTube in multiple languages ([46:40])

---

Notable Quotes & Timestamps

• On institutional assumptions:
  • “They had him counting coins ... I couldn't believe it.” (David, [06:42])
• On skepticism:
  • “Shame on the New York Times for platforming this ... without at least providing someone else to counter it.” (David, [11:35])
• On lived evidence:
  • “You can't fake happiness, you can't fake confidence ... the joy that he brings to this world now ... everyone who sees him and meets him sees that.” (David, [40:11])
• On message-passing double standards:
  • “The analogy I would use is someone who can make 50 free throws in practice, but then in the big game ... the pressure is on and they're not able to do it.” (David, [24:15])
• Stone’s message to non-speakers:
  • “I want to tell them to keep up their hopes, to communicate well.” (Stone, [53:10])

---

Discussion of Broader Advocacy & Policy

11. Policy Update: New York Communication Bill

[54:22–56:44]

• The NY State Legislature passed a bill protecting all forms of communication (including spelling and letterboards) but Senate amendments threaten to exclude spelling-based methods.
• David urges listeners to advocate for restoring the bill to its original, inclusive form:
  • “Let the will of the people speak, not whatever special interests may have whispered in your ear at the last minute.” ([54:35])

12. Hope for Families & Final Words

[48:49–51:39]

• To families: “Keep the hope. It’s possible ... hearing these similar stories, as I'm sure you have, you know, over and over. It never gets old. It's so incredibly special to hear when the breakthrough happens.” (David)
• To skeptics: “Why are you so passionately against this? Why not give it an opportunity? Really, what do you have to lose?” ([48:49])
• On the prevalence and risk of abuse among non-speaking autistics, and the necessity of supporting all methods that can help them communicate for safety and dignity.

---

Stone’s Words (with David Reading)

[52:31–53:31]

• “Yes, I’m totally excited ... I’m thinking this will help people.”
• “I’m more motivated to help non speakers than ever.”
• On advice to other non-speakers: “Keep up their hopes, to communicate well.”
• Response to NYT: “I think they need to do a better job of showing non speakers totally can communicate.”

---

How Listeners Can Get Involved

• Follow updates and advocacy action regarding New York’s communication rights legislation.
• Read David’s substack: [Coffer Insights].
• Consider the broader coalition of families, practitioners, and non-speakers worldwide who attest to the value of spelling-based communication.

---

Additional Resources

• Underestimated by J.B. Handley (book)
• 2020 University of Virginia Eye-Tracking Study (Jaswal et al)
• Coffer Insights Substack
• The Lighter Side of the Spectrum (David’s podcast)
• Telepathy Tapes website: [thetelepathytapes.com]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [03:10] — David’s background & Stone’s early years
• [04:31] — Discovery & experience of spelling to communicate
• [06:42] — Barriers in public school
• [11:35] — Response to NYT editorial
• [18:05] — Double standards in communication “authorship”
• [20:50] — Evolution of research and critique of outdated studies
• [24:15 & 26:27] — Message passing and real-world example with Stone
• [29:43] — Debunking the ideomotor criticism
• [31:37 & 32:27] — Eye tracking research supporting autonomous spelling
• [34:58] — Conflicts of interest in autism research
• [40:11] — Transformation in Stone’s confidence and happiness
• [43:30] — Stone’s unexpected educational ambitions
• [45:02] — Stone’s knowledge beyond schooling
• [46:40] — Stone teaching himself languages
• [52:31] — Stone directly addresses listeners

---

Tone & Notable Moments

• Warm, candid, and passionate: David’s responses reflect deep personal investment and hope, balanced by nuanced, reasoned critique.
• Memorable moment: The unexpected revelation of Stone’s dream to attend Harvard ([43:30]) and his response in the live spelling segment ([52:37]).
• Call to action: Listeners are encouraged to stay open-minded, advocate for inclusive communication rights, and seek out lived experiences as evidence alongside formal research.

---

This summary aims to capture the spirit and detail of the conversation for those who could not listen, providing both a critical overview and the human stories at its heart.

Transcript

[A]

Hi everyone, I'm Kai Dickens and welcome to the Talk Tracks, brought to you weekly by TTT Media. In this series, we explore the threads that weave together our understanding of reality, science, spirituality, consciousness, and even unexplained phenomena. Because every era has ideas once dismissed as impossible until someone was willing to investigate them seriously. And on this show, we do just that. This episode is brought to you by Schedule 35, the most trusted name in psilocybin products. Today I'm joined by David Coffer, a writer, advocate, speaker and father to Stone, a non speaking autistic young man whose life changed profoundly after he began spelling to communicate. We first came across David through Coffer Insights, his substack where he brings clarity, context and a deeply personal perspective to some of the most complicated conversations affecting the non speaking autism community. He writes about communication rights, research, education, inclusion and policy, including the ongoing fight over a New York State bill intended to protect access to different forms of communication like spelling. David approaches these issues not only as an advocate, but as a parent who spent years searching for a way to communicate more fully with his son. Like so many families, he had tried countless interventions and became understandably guarded against anything that might offer false hope. That experience felt especially relevant after the New York Times published an opinion essay titled Profound Autism is Difficult Enough without this Debunked Method. It was written by the mother of an autistic non speaking son and she argued that facilitated communication or rapid prompting method or spelling to communicate or anything like that does not produce autonomous communication. The piece claimed that the messages are consciously or unconsciously influenced by facilitators. She pointed to the historical message passing studies in which a non speaker's response appeared to reflect information seen by the facilitator instead of themselves, which honestly could be looked at as an astounding telepathy test. She also argued that spelling offers families false hope, can override a non speaker's independently expressed preferences and diverts attention and resources away from other forms of support. The article raised many of the same questions we've explored throughout the show, but it relied on older studies and on assumptions that continued to be repeated as settled science to reinforce a particular conclusion about spelling based communication. It also gave little attention to newer research, eye tracking research, the recent shocking findings of explicit bias and undisclosed conflicts of interest in autism research, or the growing number of non speakers, families and practitioners reporting very different experiences. So we invited David to share what communication has made possible for his son Stone, and to offer his perspective on the claims raised in the piece. So David, before We get into the debate itself. I'd love for you to introduce yourself and tell us a bit more about Stone and your family's experience and, you know, what was life like before he could communicate with you and how did you even hear about or discover spelling in the first place?

[B]

Yeah, I'm David Coffer. I'm the father of 20 year old twin boys, one of whom is non speaking autistic. Stone, he has a great twin brother, Ty, who's wrapping up his sophomore year at University of Washington. And the journey really started when Stone was diagnosed on the spectrum just before their third birthday. And like so many others, you know, we did all the early intervention stuff, got him enrolled in the special preschool, started with speech therapy, eventually did ABA therapy. He was in public school, the special ed program, which is a whole nother story. And during this time we knew that he, you know, his biggest challenge was communication. He was essentially non speaking and couldn't really communicate his needs. And that was the most frustrating part. My background professionally is in communications. I majored in journalism. I worked in public relations. And so I used to say, how ironic is it that I'm a communicator and he can't communicate? But that was the part that eventually became unlocked. You know, we talk about kind of like life before communication for Stone and then there's life after and it's. Couldn't it be more polar opposite?

[A]

Yeah. Which, you know, is what we hear so often. And how did that unlock first occur?

[B]

That happened in September 2022. I was introduced to the book Underestimated. You know, J.B. hanley's great book that introduced so many to spelling, to communicate in the world of spelling. And I happened to have a friend who was family friends with them and she had followed our journey and reached out and said, hey, you might want to look into this. And I was like, all right. I actually had bought the book already and was sitting on a shelf for months because I was like against so many other parents by this time, when he was 16, almost 17, we had tried so many things. You don't lose hope, but you're a lot more skeptical and you're just kind of like, yeah, you know, I'll get to it when I can. You kind of get used to this life that you're living with someone with such low expectations from society, from schools and all that. But I sat down and read it and, you know, was blown away by their experience and then was fortunate enough to be able to connect with JB personally. And he was just like, dude, you got to do it. He's like, you know, believe me. And he was like, here's what you need to do. Go down there, do this immersion. I'm like, okay, okay. And he's like, in six months, you know, you guys are going to be talking about college choices. And I'm sitting there and I was just thinking, man, I'll just be happy if he could tell me what he wants for dinner. Let's just get to the basic level of wants and needs. And once that door was kicked open, he went flying through it and progressed through the boards, as they said, became an open speller very quickly. It created, like I said, life after spelling, which was amazing. I liken it to falling in love and a honeymoon. It was just so beautiful to finally be able to communicate. And JB was right. Wasn't quite six months, but it wasn't long, you know, until we actually had those dreams and said, you know what? This can happen. And he's on that path now. He's going to graduate in a year. We're going to start sending out college applications this fall. Never, ever would have dreamt this would happen. Never.

[A]

And so once Stone became an open speller and you began to understand, you know, the depth of his inner world and his intelligence, how did that change the way you saw education and, you know, the opportunities that he was being given in the outside world?

[B]

Within just a couple of months, we were having these great conversations and it was clear that he was, of course, way smarter than the schools thought. You know, I had visited his classroom, this was supposed to be his junior year. And they had him counting coins, you know, which was an activity I remember him doing in elementary school. And I couldn't believe it. So my wife and I requested letterboards in the school, say, hey, at least allow him to communicate. Let's try to get him some age appropriate curriculum. We were denied like so many others also. And that really kind of started the fight. I mean, I couldn't believe that we were denied that fundamental right. I understand it. They specifically cited ASHA as the reason they were denying ashes. You know, very visible statement of opposition that they, that they use.

[A]

And for those who don't know, ASHA A S H A stands for the American Speech Language Hearing association. And it's probably one of the most prominent anti spelling organizations. Its position is that facilitated communication of any sort is a discredited technique that should not be used. And that quote is information obtained through the use of FC should not be considered as the communication of the person with a Disability, end quote.

[B]

At the time, Stone was still going to speech therapy. We had a speech therapist who brought me the ashes statement, you know, tried to tell me the harm that I was going to do to Stone. So she was on board with that propaganda. But you know, we kept going obviously and couldn't imagine not doing it. But like I said, the school would not relent and we hired an attorney who specialized in education law. She had not had experience with non speakers or with this particular area, so she was intrigued. She took it on and we started the fight against the school district and eventually reached a settlement where they were willing to pay for Stone's education. We had pulled him out of his school. Once it became clear that we weren't going to make any progress in terms of getting him age appropriate curriculum, he was begging not to go back there. And we found this great school that provided one on one support. The director of the school was willing to allow letterboards. He met with Step Stone individually and he was blown away by his capabilities and we were off and running. And after that point, that really kind of committed me to the cause. I could see obviously the profound change it had for Stone. I mean, to say it's life changing is still a huge understatement. And realizing as I got more and more involved in the spelling community and with others and the non speaking community, you know, this is a big, big problem. You know, communication. This is a fundamental human right. And there's so many that are being denied this, this human right that just I figured I had to do something. And so I want to utilize my communication, my pr, my writing background and that's what kind of started the substack and publishing articles there and Facebook and, and all that.

[A]

Yeah. You know, and it's something we've heard so often from so many and why we wanted to bring you in for this conversation. So I guess, you know, when you first heard about the pushback from Asha and others, you know, was there ever time where you yourself had hesitation or doubt, you know, if this was a real communication?

[B]

No, never. I mean, the only doubt I had was again, similar to other parents ahead of time, just the whole, I don't know if this will work with, with our kid, sort of that approach. Right. Like because you hear stories throughout the years of oh, try this Biomed or try this whatever. Right. And this has worked great for my kids. So you try it and you know, same old result or whatever or no result and you get guarded in terms of having that level of hope. I was cautiously optimistic when we flew to San Diego for the initial immersion with, with Don Marie.

[A]

Okay, and just pause for a second. So Dawn Marie Gavin is amazing and she's the creator of the Speller's Method and leads workshops to get people spelling. So you go for a course and what was it like?

[B]

It was six sessions over three days. And I figured, worst case, you know, we're going to hang out in San Diego for three days. But best case, you know, we'll see where this goes. And blew me away beyond expectations. So once, I mean, literally that first session, I was on board. Like it was just once you see it, you can't unsee it.

[A]

Yeah. And that's where something like the New York Times piece is so interesting because not all skepticism comes from the same place. Right. Like, some of it come from people with no connection to this community at all. But this piece was written by the mother of a non speaking child, someone who in many ways seems to share the same fear and frustration you once felt, which I think we all can understand. Right? The fear of being misled or given false hope. And so, you know, when that criticism comes from another parent who believes, you know, strongly they're protecting their child. I'm just curious, like, what your experience was reading that piece.

[B]

Well, I, you know, I had two initial reactions reading that. First was kind of a, a level of sadness, frankly, for her and, and for her son that she thinks that his potential is so limited that she's already reached that conclusion and she has every right to do that. It's her child. I do not know her son at all. We're all in our own situation, so I respect that. But I still think it's kind of sad because I'm a big proponent of reaching your potential, whatever that may be. And I think that message kind of came through, which is unfortunate, but it made me angry that she, you know, conflated so much and leaned on these really outdated and not very like scientifically proven studies. And that's where I also kind of have said, you know, shame on the New York Times for platforming this, this level of an opinion without at least providing someone else to counter it. I mean, this isn't just like a small fringe group we're talking about, as you know. I mean, there are thousands and thousands now of families of, you know, spellers, typers, use whatever terminology you want to do, non speakers who are communicating using some form in this methodology. This isn't just like a handful. You know, we've got university graduates, we've got, you know, Those with masters. And for her to not acknowledge any of that. Right. It was such a blanket statement like, this is preposterous. This can't be happening. And essentially, you know, you just have a group of parents like me that were too naive to understand that, like, we're just being conned somehow.

[A]

Yeah. And I don't want to focus, you know, too narrowly on her because like you said, we don't know her or where she's coming from. But these arguments reflect much more broadly on the pushback against spelling based communication. And the two central claims, you know, made in that piece are that one, science doesn't support it, and two, when communication does occur, the facilitator may be consciously or unconsciously influencing what's spelling spelled? Which is hard to fathom, I think for many people who actually watch it and watch someone typing without anyone touching them.

[B]

Well, they always like to point to, and I say they. You know, there's a group whom she's among the members. There's kind of a hardcore group of these almost professional skeptics that like to use the same talking points over and over, saying that it's not scientifically proven. Well, it hasn't been scientifically disproven either. I mean, you could kind of flip it around that way.

[A]

We've all had those nights, the ones where you laugh until the sun comes up, where conversations go places they've never gone before. And you walk away feeling closer to the people around you than you ever have in years. And one thing that can help a night like that along is psilocybin. It doesn't just open doors in your mind, it opens them between people. This episode is brought to you by Schedule 35, the most trusted name in psilocybin products. Whether you're microdosing for focus and clarity or taking a full recreational dose to reconnect with life, Schedule 35 makes every experience intentional, consistent and precisely dosed. These aren't party drugs. They're connection tools for your mind, your creativity, your relationships, and honestly, maybe a little bit for your soul. One of my favorite products from Schedule 35 is their microdosing tea. And it's really easy to use. And the first time I used it, I had a good friend in town who was going through a lot of stuff, and we filled up our tumblers with hot water, just put in the tea bag, and it's just such a mellow, connective present experience that the tea brings about. We went for a wonderful walk in the woods and mountains, and we're so Able to connect and talk deeply about all of the things going on in our lives, our fears, our struggles, our hopes, without any pretense and without any distraction. And I think that's the thing in my life right now. It's so hard just to be fully present with someone without phones pinging or noticing something or you know, something coming in the way. And the gift of the Schedule 35T, which is just a tiny microdose, is that you can feel fully present with someone so deeply engaged that everything you're doing, you're enjoying and you're just dialed in. The other thing, outside of the teas that I love using are their little microdose gummies. Lately I have been swamped and kind of overwhelmed trying to work on season three of the telepathy tapes. It's a huge subject matter which everyone will be hearing about soon. And I'm trying to go through, you know, 60 years of books and journals and two or three years of interviews on our end to put it all together. And sometimes I just get lost in it and I've been taking a little gummy and then it's just like the story like clicks into place and part of it is just cause I'm so focused, I'm so dialed in, I'm so able to parse out like the bad stuff from the good. And it's just been a godsend for my own personal focus. So go to schedule 35 CO and use code tapes for 15% off your first order. That's schedule 35 code tapes for 15% off. I love the ritual of coffee. The smell, the warmth, the first cozy sip. But sometimes the caffeine sends my nervous system into overdrive. That's why I've been loving Mud Water. It has functional mushrooms and adaptogens and about 1/7 the caffeine of coffee. So I get steady focus and energy without the jitters or crash. I've been drinking their original blend. It's cacao chai, turmeric and functional mushrooms. Like a spicy hot cocoa, warm grounding and actually satisfying. For coffee shop lovers who just can't handle the full caffeine load anymore. Mud Water is the version of your morning drink that you didn't know existed. Their starter kit is designed to give you everything you need to actually build the habit. You get a full size tin in your choice of OG coffee, matcha or turmeric, plus a free rechargeable frother, free gifts and free shipping. Ready to make the switch to cleaner Energy? Go to mudwtr.com tapes and grab the starter kit. Use code tapes and you'll get 43% off. The frother alone is worth it. That's right up to 43% off with code tapes. @mudwtr.com after you purchase, they'll ask how you found out about them. Please show your support and let them know we send you.

[B]

Why is there this barrier in the first place for non speakers to have to prove their authorship when we don't place that same type of burden on speakers? And they'll say, well we know that there were these cases back in the 1990s where XYZ happened, these false sex abuse accusations, like how horrible it is. Well, but you never hear about all of the false sex abuse accusations that happen in the speaking world. You know, we don't force people to take lie detector tests before they're admitted to certain levels of high school to say, okay, are you going to cheat? You know, we don't put these kinds of barriers. But yet that's what they are asking to be done for again, all non speakers who are using this level of communication. So you know, as far as the science and one of the levels of evidence that's actually used on the ASHA website is experience. Like practice, experience counts as one of the three levels of evidence that they say should, you know, should be considered. That's always ignored.

[A]

What David is pointing to is that Ash's evidence based practice framework includes three distinct components. The best available internal and external evidence, the clinical expertise of the practitioner and the perspectives, values, needs and experiences of the clients and caregivers. These components are not at all the same as scientific research, but ASHA says they should be considered together when making evidence based clinical decisions. So the experiences being reported by non speakers and families and practitioners and coaches and paraprofessionals and principals are not meant to replace research, but they're meant to be part of the broader conversation.

[B]

Yeah. So kind of basically the argument is if you don't have a lot of scientific studies in the situation, and this is a perfect example, but you have a lot of evidence in terms of experience, people who are utilizing whatever the methodology that counts as evidence. So in our case, you know, when we have, like I said, thousands of non speakers doing the same thing and parents reporting the same thing, practitioners, when there's this level of consistency, there's a level of scientific evidence that needs to be considered at least to say, hey, there's something here. Right. Not to rule it out. So absolutely, as they tend to do.

[A]

So you've said this And I've heard many people say this, that the studies often cited in like anti spelling debates are outdated. And I know you've written extensively about how they continue to shape the conversation. Can you walk us through how the research has evolved, you know, from the early studies on facilitated communication to the work being done today on spelling methods where people are not touched and where you think the evidence currently stands.

[B]

When we pull ourselves back and kind of look at the world of autism in general, that's kind of a relatively new area to be studying for us to be understanding, to be considering as a society for so many of us. You know, I'm the Gen x, I'm, I'm 60. I remember when Rain man came out and for me and so many others, we had never heard of autism. So that was really eye opening. And for so many, right, that was the base level of, you'd hear autism, people would think of Rain man. And that was 30, 40 years ago, not a very long time in the scheme of things. So now you kind of layer in, you know, non speaking autism with that. And the work that particularly has been done building on facilitated communication, which really started and grew in the 90s and was becoming pretty accepted in a lot of areas, including academic areas, Syracuse among them, until there was this pushback, until there were these small studies and some of these controversies that essentially kind of squashed it and tainted the terminology and the practice, which I know families that use it because they have non speakers who do require that level of support, and that level of support is what gets attacked. Even though again, with so many other disabilities, support isn't attacked in the same way.

[A]

Yeah, it's so true. And in so many other instances, the same standard is not applied. Right. So there's countless examples.

[B]

You know, there's so many. But I think the one that, that a lot of people can relate to is, you know, if someone's using a walker or you know, requires assistance with a walker, and then you took it away and said, okay, now walk for me. And you know, they, they couldn't. You'd be like, oh, well, you never could walk in the first place. You know, like this isn't really, you're, you know, you can't really do that.

[A]

I mean, I even think about physical therapy when you're first rehabilitating, you know, a serious injury and moving your foot that's maybe been a cast for months, you know, and you need physical therapy or a doctor to help you touch your toes or to activate that part of your body, there's the need for physical intervention. And we don't question it.

[B]

Yeah, you don't even think about it. Right. It just comes with it. The whole idea of prompting as well, or like you said, support. You see it in all forms of, like you said, whether it's physical therapy, speech therapy, you know, there's, there are times when they actually manipulate the mouth. You know, they have to try to get them to form words, but no one cries out like, oh, they're influencing them. You know, that's part of, you know, that's part of the therapy.

[A]

Yeah, I mean it really does seem like a double standard. And I want to give you a chance to speak about one of the central studies cited in the New York times article. A 1995, like 30 year old message passing study involving seven adults that is still frequently presented as definitive evidence against authorship. Meaning, who's writing the words? Just to summarize for people out there, the non speaking participant and the facilitator were sometimes shown different images. In one example, the participant saw a telephone while the facilitator saw a hat. And when the participant was asked to identify what they'd seen, the response was hat, the image shown to the facilitator. And researchers interpret that result as evidence that the facilitator was, you know, directing the communication. But from your perspective, how do you understand the result of those earlier studies? And why might a non speaking person, you know, not be able to demonstrate authorship under those testing conditions?

[B]

There's a lot of reasons why it doesn't happen. Again, the neurology for autistic individuals and particularly for non speaking individuals is frankly just really different than a lot of neurotypicals. One of the reasons that they struggle with speech in the first place is apraxia. And you know, in general terms that's a brain body disconnect where basically the body doesn't do what the brain wants it to do, or vice versa. The body will be doing things that the brain doesn't want it to. And it's something that you hear non speakers, including my son, talk about all the time. And I think it's those who are familiar with autism also are familiar with how important regulation plays in terms of their performance and being able to focus on certain tasks. And again, this is presuming competence, understanding that they understand that they're being tested. So once again, this environment, it's very easy for that support to collapse and for them to not be able to execute these motor skills that ordinarily they would be able to do. And the analogy I would use is someone who can make 50 free throws in practice, but then in the big game it's time for a game winning free throw and they clank it because the pressure is on and they're not able to do it. Now there's other factors. I'll give you a quick story in terms of how this played out for us. Because when we were fighting our school district, in our school, in our situation, they tried to implement the message passing test with Stone. So we went through the whole drill and what was interesting was when we got home, I asked Stone, how do you think it went? And he said, I, I think it went great. I said, well, why, why do you think that? He said, well, I got them all wrong. I said, so you intentionally got them wrong? I said, why did you do that? And he said, because I don't want to go back to school there. Like I don't, you know, I don't want to be there.

[A]

That's so funny, right?

[B]

Like that's very strategic. And again, he had a very good reason not to want to go back.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

If he hadn't done that, all those other factors would have held true that, look, this is a very stressful situation. Imagine being unable to communicate for 16 years or however many years depending on the non speaker, and you're finally unlocked, you're finally found this tool, you're able to point to letters, you're able to talk about all these things you've been unable to for your whole life. And then someone comes along and says, I don't believe you, I don't think you're actually doing that. You have to prove that you're actually capable of doing this 100% on your own. And if you're unable to do this in this test, we're going to deny you that. Right. Forever. That's how you think most people would respond to that type of a pressure situation, regardless of their neurological wiring, as we have talked about, that puts them under severe stress.

[A]

And one more interesting thing to note about that 1995 study is that while some interpret the non speaker spelling with a facilitator saw as evidence of facilitator influence, many others see it as evidence of telepathy. Like it seemed weird because it was actually showing telepathy. So yeah. Do you have any thoughts on that?

[B]

You hear reports of that. Like you said, it kind of opens up conversations about telepathy whether or not there's some type of, you know, non local communication that could potentially be happening. Is it, are they just on the same wavelength, are they, you know, there's like a lot of questions there. I don't think they're necessarily answers. I would turn it around and say we know that there are multiple situations, again including Stone, where he has shown the ability to work with multiple communication partners and answer questions and not just answer questions, more importantly, compose original works, creative works, songs, poems, all kinds of things that are uniquely his voice. And that's what I look at. Like again, it'd be the consistency of someone's voice. Kind of similar to what I think you have to do now in the AI age, particularly in the academic world, is when they're reading papers, they're like, okay, does this sound like them? Does this sound like their level of work? Are they capable of this? Or is there a reason for a red flag? Basically, is what I'm saying.

[A]

Okay, and then another point in the article that I love your response to is it attributes facilitator influence to what is known as the ideomotor effect, right? Like this idea that a person can make small unconscious movements that guide an outcome without realizing they're doing it. Which for anyone who knows, anyone with apraxia, even huge clues or cues, vocal cues, pushes, grabs to help someone stand or move forward, you know, gentle, of course, aren't responded to. So I guess the idea that someone with apraxia could be cued subtly is such a disconnect to like what the issues in the body are and what the reality is. But anyway, I digress. David, can you share your thoughts about whether the ideomotor effect has actually been shown to explain what is happening between a non speaker and a communication partner?

[B]

I feel like that that's not very strong argument because it's one of those things that's similar to the message passing test. And when people call it the so called gold standard, it's just because you say it enough times, it doesn't make it true. If you really look at what the idiomotor effect is and what the studies have shown, it hasn't really proven anything in terms of influence from one individual to another. It was really focused on your own effect on yourself in terms of the idiomotor effect. And so like there's one study which basically the researchers said there's just not enough there to conclude that there could be influence. But it's been spoken about so often that again, people kind of take it as the gospel, like, oh, of course, you know, there's got to be some type of, of subconscious influence that's going on there, you know, like your eyes are, you know, you roll to the right, roll to the left. I mean, they take it to the level that's just, I think, absurd. Let me back up and put this way. So you don't think that the non speaker is competent enough to spell on their own or author their own thoughts, but somehow they're sophisticated enough to interpret these uber sensitive cues that no one else is picking up on. Like, they haven't been proven, but yet somehow, like you have this unspoken language. Like, again, it makes, it makes no sense.

[A]

And so beyond questioning whether the ideomotor effect can actually explain this communication, there's also research that looks more directly at whether non speakers are selecting the letters themselves. And I mean, in the Telepathy Davis film, which will be coming out, you know, in the next six months, we follow people learning to spell who actually, like, say, the letters. They're learning it and they're pointing. It's pretty hard to hand wave away someone who's looking at a letter, pointing to it and saying it out loud.

[B]

Yeah. And the one point I do also want to make again regarding the message passing test tonight, I know that she referenced this one study. I mean, there's lots of other studies that you can reference. You know, there's the eye gazing study that Jazwell did a few years ago at University of Virginia that supports the argument that non speakers authoring their own communication using the letterboards.

[A]

Okay. And that's in reference to the 2020 University of Virginia study which used eye tracking with nine experienced non speaking, you know, letterboard users who pointed independently while an assistant held the board. And participants often looked toward the correct letter before pointing to it. And researchers found that the speed, accuracy, timing, and gaze patterns made facilitator cueing unlikely. And those conducting the research suggested that the participants were actively selecting their own responses.

[B]

There's a lot of different studies out there. It just depends on where you want to look. But they love to talk about the message passing test and call it the gold standard. But it's, it's not, it's not even a validated study. I mean, it's not even included in the mental measurements yearbook. And what's considered to be one of the key guides regarding psychological and similar assessments and tests. It's not listed. It's never been listed in there. So you can't go online and find, you know, what's the proper way of administering this test there, because it doesn't exist. There is no standard. There's no ideal scoring Metrics or anything like that. So they lean on this because they talk about how this is the gold standard. But as I talked about earlier, if, you know you're dealing with a population who has extreme issues and challenges with their motor control already, if they're already struggling with this and you know that when they're put in stressful situations, it's more than likely that this motor control is going to collapse. Well, the message passing test is like the perfect test because it looks good on the surface, but you know that probably 95, 100 times they're not going to be able to do it the first go around. Now, I will say it's not to say it hasn't and isn't passed over time. There are examples of non speakers who have passed it, you know, and sometimes it takes practice just like anything else. Right. You have to be put in that situation, that unique situation, before you feel comfortable and confident enough in it. So it does happen. But like I said, if you want a great one off, hey, let's put these kids in a really stressful situation. Tell them this is going to be their one shot to communicate. And if they don't, ha. We showed them. Even though, again, like I said, it's not even accepted anywhere. And they're the ones who love to cry out pseudoscience. You know, this is, this is the epitome of pseudoscience.

[A]

Yeah. Okay. And then another huge important component to these discussions when we're told to, you know, quote, unquote, trust the research, is to ask a very important question. Question, who's behind the research? Right. And who's funding the studies? It has made me so confused and it honestly just boggles my mind that there's not more people and journalists like uncovering the money behind this research and the stakes at, at keeping spelling down.

[B]

Absolutely.

[A]

That question, I think feels especially important in light of a new study published in April that examined 119 autism intervention papers published across eight applied behavior analysis journals. And it found that 93% of the studies included at least one author who also worked as a paid ABA provider or consultant. Yet only 8% disclosed any conflict of interest. And among the papers that explicitly stated there were no conflicts, researchers identified undisclosed clinical or consultancy ties in 93%. To me, that's a staggering unethical thing that is being overlooked when we look at who is funding some of the research around autism and spelling. And obviously a conflict of interest does not necessarily mean that a study's findings are false, but it does show why we need to look beyond the phrase the science says and ask who is producing the research, what financial or institutional incentives may be present and which of those outcomes and questions may support the organization? Who is paying for the research? So how closely do you think we need to follow the money, you know, when evaluating the research shaping the lives of non speaking autistic people?

[B]

I've talked about this more in conversations, I don't think I've written about it. But, but as far as studies and pointing to these big academic studies, I think people need to realize, like you said, who funds them. And it's not to say that they're all bad or they're all necessarily biased, but when you're looking at, I'm calling it an industry, a community as relatively young as the non speaking, the Spelling to Communicate industry, I kind of liken it to a startup industry versus these, you know, the big industry titans. So they're, you know, most Spelling to communicate or spelling methodology or RPM practitioners, these are individual practitioners. You know, they're not part of some big VZ backed or corporate backed conglomerate raking in hours and hours and hours of billable money that's being, you know, funneled through insurance, anything like that. These are just individuals. So these are really kind of startups scattered around the country and now around the world. But they're not the ones who are going to have the money to be able to get together and say, hey, let's, you know, let's work with UC Davis and do this study to try to show that our kids really are authoring their own communication, whatever that looks like. It takes money to do these studies.

[A]

Right? And I think this points to a larger tension that we return to often on the show. Scientific testing can serve a really important purpose, but in a strictly materialist framework, only things that we know how to measure or understand and can be looked at as real or meaningful. And so when we do that, we risk overlooking, you know, the lived experience or the lived evidence unfolding in front of us, you know, which is like changes in a person's happiness in a family, diagnoses coming through. When someone's writing about what hurts their tummy or what they want to eat or their fears, it can deeply impact someone's confidence, their relationships, what they're engaged in, what they want to study, their sense of self and the self diagnosis that I've seen over and over again. You know, working with so many different non speakers on set and on the show, when it's like I need to go outside, I need to go have a drink of water. This is hurting my stomach. I shouldn't have this. I want to go. I mean, those things are so important and you can't just ignore them. One thing I've been trying to do lately is buy fewer things, but buy better things. I'd much rather have a handful of pieces that I wear over and over again than a closet full of clothes I never reach for. That's exactly why I've become such a fan of Quince. The piece I've been wearing the most this summer is their lightweight cotton cashmere Relax sweater tee. It's incredibly soft, it's beautifully made and somehow works whether I'm headed to the studio, traveling or just throwing something on to run errands. And I want to emphasize the travel part, I cannot stand unpacking a bunch of wrinkled clothes. And the cashmere Relax sweater tee doesn't wrinkle. It's such a versatile piece. It's something I reach for without ever thinking. And what I love most about Quince is that everything feels elevated without the luxury price tag. They offer premium essentials from organic cotton and Mongolian cashmere to premium stretch denim starting at just $50. And because they work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen, their prices are 50 to 80% less than similar brands. And it's not just clothing. They have beautiful bedding, bath essentials, kitchen pieces and home goods that have the same timeless, high quality feel. Upgrade your everyday Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to quince.com tapes. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns now available in Canada and the UK too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com tapes as a small business owner, sometimes it feels like no matter how much planning you do, there's always surprises like an urgent, expensive repair. But here's a surprise you will like with progressive Small business owners save 13% on their commercial auto insurance when they pay in full. So enjoy a surprise for once. Get a quote in as little as 8 [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates discounts not available in all states or situations.

[B]

This podcast is sponsored by Talkspace. Last year I went through many different life changes. I needed to take a pause and examine how I was feeling in the inside to better show up for the ones who need me to be my best version of myself. When you're navigating life's changes, Talkspace can help. TalkSpace is the number one rated online therapy bringing you professional support from licensed therapists and psychiatry providers that you can access anytime, anywhere. Living a busy life, navigating a long distance relationship, becoming a first stepfather. Talkspace made all of those journeys possible. I could speak with my therapist in the office. I could speak of my therapist in the comfort of my home. I was never alone. Talkspace works with most major insurers and most insured members have a zero dollar copay. No insurance, no problem. Now get $80 off your first month with promo code space80 when you go to talkspace.com match with a licensed therapist today at talkspace.com save $80 with code [e-mail]. You can look at these arguments, the naysayers, the skeptics, they point to these individual cases or individual studies. But the one thing again that's not brought up, and I think about this every day because I live it, you can't fake happiness, you can't fake confidence. And when I talked earlier about how life changing it's been for Stone, of course it's been life changing. Because of the school axis. He's getting a 3.85 GPA in high school level education. That alone is reason to celebrate. But beyond that, the joy that he brings to this world now, the way that he shows up, he used to be one of those kids, and I'll blame him. He would sit in the living room by himself with his iPad, watching YouTube videos because that was his world and he knew he had no way of accessing relationships with others. He has that now and everyone who sees him and meets him sees that, I mean, because he spreads that joy. The other point I just wanted to make is, you know, we talk about the role of influence in communication and whether it's facilitated communication or again, when there's a communication partner. And I just want to reinforce that influence is always at play at any level of communication. But I think the key is having guardrails in place and having really strong methodologies, having strong ethics in place. I don't know a single parent that would want to be influencing their kids communication. What's the point? You know, I, I think I calculated I've spent something like 2000 hours at least with Stone since he began communicating. That's an incredible investment and I'm so grateful for it. But do you really think I would be doing that if I just felt like we're just sitting here and I'm just, hey, Stone, why don't you say this? I mean, I don't even know how that would work, you know what I mean? There's so much investment that goes into this and so much reward that you just, like I said, you can't. You can't fake that.

[A]

Yeah. So were there any experiences that you maybe had in early days when you were communicating and he said something that you were like, you know, surprised by or thought, whoa, that is definitely not my thought.

[B]

Oh, yeah. When he really became open and, you know, one of the things I'd always been interested in was what is he passionate about? Right. That was a great frustration. Is, like I said, he was a kid who. Who basically kind of sat on the couch and had his iPad, and I wanted to unlock what is his passion. And so once he was able to communicate, that was one of the first questions. And he said, my passion is learning. Not what I expected, you know, he said, I love to learn. I want to learn more. I said, oh, that's great. Well, I'll help you with that. What are your goals with education? And he said, I want to go to Harvard. And I was like, harvard? I mean, like, Harvard's great, you know, great. But, like, we had never talked about Harvard. I'm an Oregon Duck. My wife is a Wisconsin Badger. Like, you know, we're a big sport. That was out of the blue as far as I was concerned. And again, it was so early in the journey at that time that even though I'd presume competence, I mean, I was still, it. It took a while, you know, honestly, to ramp up just, like, how aware, how smart, like, how dialed into life he had been, because there was just that systemic bias that even I had a certain degree. So it's part of me. I'm like, wow, I can't even believe he even knows about Harvard, let alone the prestige and all that, which is, again, so bad in hindsight. But that's, to me, a perfect example of, like, I was not expecting that.

[A]

I'm curious if his knowledge is contained to what he's learning in the school system or if it's ever, you know, kind of surprised you by extending beyond what he's learning.

[B]

That's a great way to phrase it. I'll answer it this way again. His depth of knowledge and breadth of knowledge has surprised me at various times. Whether that's telepathy, whatever you want to say, accessing information somehow. It's. We know that he didn't get it in school. Like I said, he was in this inclusive, you know, quote unquote, intensive ed environment where there was no education going on, so he wasn't taught anything. Now he's Learning all kinds of things academically, but he did certainly have knowledge of things that I, you know, I had no idea that he would have had. The best example for that was early first lesson, his spelling lesson with Don Marie. It was about Benjamin Franklin. So, you know, he was going through the typical S2C spelling words, answering, kind of known, like, what did Benjamin Franklin fly when he discovered electricity? He spelled kite or something like that. That. But then she asked him the question that wasn't in the lesson, which was, you know, who were we fighting in the revolution? And he spelled out the British. And that was Mike. My. Oh, wow. That was the moment. Like, this is crazy. He is so smart. Like I said, we were off and running. That's what that was. Convinced me, like, how much he's been absorbing learning somehow some way that again, we had no idea because we were just oblivious to everything.

[A]

So awesome. And then were there any other things that you learned about once he was openly spelling that maybe shocked you or surprised you?

[B]

Yeah, right before. All I knew is that he really loves spending a lot of Time on YouTube. Primarily his friends were the little Einsteins. They were Disney Junior characters. But what was cool is so we would notice, though, and he's. He subsequently shown us this, that he was learning foreign languages while he was watching Little Einstein's. So we would notice Little Einstein's in Russian or Spanish or different languages. And I was like, well, I wonder if he's kind of teaching himself, you know, these languages. Because I knew that he'd already memorized them by then because he'd watched them so often and was probably trying to figure out a way to apply, you know, and he said, yeah, he's told us later. Yeah, that's exactly what I was doing.

[A]

Oh, gosh, it never gets old. So he was teaching himself languages and then, I mean, how cool that you could actually verify that once he was

[B]

open, you know, I always felt horrible in terms of not being able to connect from a conversational style. But my wife and I, we never stopped talking to him. You know, I used to tell him, you know, someday, because I did believe that I knew that there were cases, not necessarily with spelling, but I knew there were cases of non speakers who were able to communicate. Later. I said, you know, we're going to find a way. It's going to get better, it's going to get better. You just got to keep believing as much as possible. Even when times I wasn't sure if I believed it because again, it was. It was hard. I won't. I Won't deny that, but having those conversations, and we just did a lot of stuff together. He loves the beach, loves the water. So just having that, that time together, I think helped really build that foundational relationship that's just exploded now, now that I'm his primary communication partner. And what we're able to talk about and share and all of that is special. I mean, it's beyond words. It really is.

[A]

And then on that note, you know, we get so many emails in our inbox from people who are really desperate for, you know, hope and really struggling. And I'm just curious if you have anything you'd want to share to those who are still searching for. To connect and to communicate?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I would say, you know, to the parents, the relatives, the loved ones, and also to the non speakers. I know that you are going to be listening to this, you know, whether it's in the car with your parents driving around or whatever. Absolutely. Keep the hope. I mean, it's possible. Like I've said earlier, there was a time I didn't necessarily believe or think that this would be happening at all. I can't emphasize that enough, and I don't want to say that it's going to happen 100 of the time. I can't make that guarantee. I don't know all the situations and there's a lot of variables, but I do know so many success stories at this point. I've been so lucky to have connected with hundreds of other non speakers and their families and hearing these similar stories, as I'm sure you have, you know, over and over. It never. It never gets old. It's so incredibly special to hear when the breakthrough happens. And because I go back to like in. It's just that's. That's humanity. Like we are meant to connect with each other and to communicate. You know, just keep trying, believe in it. Sometimes the path takes a lot longer than you'd like, than any of us would like, but, you know, you can definitely get there. And conversely, I would say to the skeptics, why are you so passionately against this? Why not give it an opportunity, really? What do you have to lose? Because on a more serious note, can you think about. It's not only humanity that we're talking about and communication being a fundamental human right, we're also talking about health and safety. And it's a proven fact. Statistically, there are studies have shown that up to 75% of autistic individuals have reported being abused. And that that figure is especially high when you're talking about non speakers. This is the most vulnerable population. Why are you worried about potential false sexual abuse accusations? That makes no sense. You should be more worried about these thousands of kids who are locked in classrooms, locked in other facilities with people who may have the opportunity to abuse them. And if they do, these kids have no way to report it, no way to communicate it. That is the scary proposition that I put out there. And that's not hyperbole. That's just a proven fact. And so from a father standpoint, from a human standpoint, think about that. When you jump on your soapbox and scream about how they have to jump through these hurdles to have their voice heard. No, no, they need to have their voice heard. They deserve that. They deserve that dignity.

[A]

I think that the work you're doing with your writing and advocacy is really helping pave the way and push us all in that direction. Like, you are just a hero to, I think so many, like so many

[B]

others, I try to take the attitude of, hey, if I just help one family, that's worth it. That's one more voice unlocked. That's one more dream that can come true. And you can't. You can't put a price on that.

[A]

Yeah. And I mean, thank you so much for taking the time to share this. And I'm just curious if there's anything that Stone would want to add.

[B]

Let me ask. Let me say, hey, Stone.

[A]

And then Stone was able to interview with our producer. So, Selena, go ahead and take it from here. Hi, Stone.

[B]

Yeah, she be.

[A]

It's so nice to meet you.

[B]

And again, if we're transparent, here's the keyboard that we use. Awesome.

[A]

And for the audience, you're holding up a QWERTY keyboard.

[B]

Yes.

[A]

Well, Stone, is there anything you want to say to start off a day,

[B]

two a day?

[A]

Stone is spelling and David will read his response.

[B]

The Stone said, yes, I'm totally excited.

[A]

Oh, we're so excited. Yes.

[B]

And he said, I'm thinking this will help people.

[A]

I think that you're right. I mean, I really hope so.

[B]

That's right.

[A]

And is there anything that you want to say to the audience?

[B]

Stone said, yes, I'm more motivated to help non speakers than ever.

[A]

I'm so happy to hear that. And on that note, is there a message that you have for non speakers who might be listening?

[B]

Yes. I want to tell them to keep up their hopes, to communicate

[A]

well. Thank you, Stone. I'm also curious if you have anything you want to say in response to the New York Times piece to that too.

[B]

Yes. I think they need to do a better job of showing non speakers totally can communicate.

[A]

Yeah, absolutely. Well, thanks so much Stone and David for sharing. And Kai, back to you. Well, David, just thank you and thank Stone for me. I know that so many people, including us, are just grateful for both of you. You're doing so much to move this movement forward.

[B]

I am honored. Thank you guys. I appreciate the platform. I appreciate the work that you guys have done to bring visibility to this community is huge. There's no other way to put it. And for better and for worse. Right. We know that it's brought controversy as well as support, but I believe that the support and the visibility is so worth it that we're having these types of conversations that we're making progress with communication rights bills like the one that's going on in New York State, which is huge. I mean that's a whole another show. But. But these things are happening and that's so exciting and it's so needed.

[A]

Yeah. And then since you mentioned the communication bill of Rights in New York, maybe just as a final note to send off people with an empowering way they can get involved or act. Can you just give us a quick update on where that bill stands and how people can get involved?

[B]

Yeah, I mean, it's kind of in flux, but in New York State last summer the state legislature passed a bill to, to basically recognize all forms of communication for all residents. And that included letterboards, AAC devices, communication partners. And it passed the legislature 159 to 0, unanimous. Like what in the world can do that today in this political age? I don't care the state or whatever. Right. So it moved to the Senate to vote on it in the Senate for the next session, which is. They're still currently in session, it's currently stalled right now because the head of the disability committee for the New York Senate, her name is Senator Fahey, unexpectedly at the last minute, while it was still in committee review, inserted two amendments into the bill which said that it must be quote, unquote, valid communication method, which the definition, when there was follow up questions, what does that mean? Apparently that meant having a billing, insurance billing code for it which doesn't exist for spelling to communicate or these are the methodologies because it's so new. Then of course insurance companies aren't rushing to embrace. So that excludes this very population that was meant to be included in the first place. So right now they haven't put it up to a vote for the Senate. The House reinforced their commitment to it and now we're waiting. We're asking residents from New York but beyond to reach out to senators in the state, including Senator Fahey, to say, look, remove these amendments, bring this to the Senate in its original form, the bill. You cannot get a stronger consensus than 159. This is obviously the will of the people. Let the will of the people speak, not whatever special interests may have whispered in your ear at the last minute.

[A]

Yeah, that was a perfect summary. Thank you so much.

[B]

Oh, you're welcome.

[A]

And for people who want to learn more, you have a substack that is so interesting and I'm always amazed at, you know, what you're publishing there and how often. So where's your substack?

[B]

Yeah, it's coffer insights and we'll link

[A]

to that in the show notes.

[B]

Okay, great. Yeah. And I've been doing my own podcast, which is the lighter side of the spectrum because not everyone has the time or patience to read these 2,000 word essays.

[A]

All right, awesome. Well, thank you so much.

[B]

It's been such a pleasure.

[A]

Okay, bye. Bye. That's it for this episode of the Talk Tracks, but new episodes will be released every Wednesday, so stay tuned as we work to unravel all the threats, heads, even the veiled ones that knit together our reality. And please remember to stay kind, stay curious, and that being a true skeptic requires an open mind to dive in deeper. Subscribe to our Backstage Pass by visiting our website. With it, you'll unlock access to bonus content like telepathy tests, ask me anything, interviews with myself and guests. You'll be able to enjoy the podcast ad free, connect with other members on our Telepathy Tribe Discord and hear and see exclusive content from the Telepathy Tapes vault. Visit our [e-mail] for more info on how to subscribe to our Backstage Pass. Thank you to my amazing collaborators, producers Kathryn Ellis and Selena Kennedy. Technical directing, audio mix and finishing by Jeremy Cole, Opening and closing music by Elizabeth PW and original logo and cover art by Ben Condora. Design. I'm Kai Dickens, your executive producer, writer and host. And thank you again to the sponsor of this episode. Schedule 35. As a small business owner, sometimes it feels like no matter how much planning you do, there's always surprises, like an urgent, expensive repair. But here's a surprise you will like with progressive small business owners save 13% on their commercial auto insurance when they pay in full. So enjoy a surprise for once. Get a quote in as little as 8 [e-mail] progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates. Discounts not available in all states or situations.