To the top ^^ Close ^^

Pseudoscience and NUTS

Pseudoscience and NUTS

Published in the December 2025 issue of the ISHA Voice.

By Dr. Eileen Brann, member of Evidence-Based Practice Committee

Our current mainstream and social media is filled with claims that may lack a scientific basis. One example is that acetaminophen is associated with causing autism when taken by pregnant women, a notion put forth by the Department of Health and Human Services in September of 2025. Critics of this claim reminded the public that correlation does not equal causation. Also, the anti-vaccine community appears to be leading the public health programs in the United States, but public health experts question the science behind some claims.

In my recent readings in the field of public health, I learned two new concepts. The first is misinformation, which is incorrect facts that may be spread unintentionally. The second concept is disinformation, which is false information spread intentionally.

How can we apply this knowledge to our own field in terms of science and versus pseudoscience?  Dr. Liz Pena recently posted on social media about novel unproven treatments(NUTS) in the fields of speech-language pathology and audiology and suggested that we have to equip students to recognize these.

Although SLPs and students in research method courses are equipped to determine what is and is not EBP, how do we explain our position against pseudoscience treatments to our clients and their families?

 First, we will review ASHA’s positions on non-EBP treatments. Then, we will look at Dr. Carl Sagan’s work on the fine art of baloney detection. Finally, we will examine possible ways that we can discuss science vs. pseudoscience with our clients who ask us about the evidence supporting speech-language or hearing treatments.

Pseudoscience from the perspective of SLP’s and audiologists

ASHA has taken a stance against some of the long-standing pseudoscience treatments in our field, which are: Facilitated Communication, Rapid Prompting and Auditory Integration. Lately, we find that there are some new pseudoscientific treatments that affect our clients, namely telepathic communication in autistic individuals. Ky Dickens’ podcast presents stories of individuals who seem to communicate telepathically with their parents or caregivers. Critics feel that the podcasts are harmful to the autistic community, since the content consists of stories of unproven supernatural occurrences, which is misinformation. Scientific evidence is excluded, all for entertainment purposes. One controversial topic Dickens discusses is the therapy technique of facilitated communication, which has long been discredited as pseudoscience.

ASHA’s webinar on “Tips for recognizing Pseudoscience in Communication Disorders" reviews the evidence (or lack thereof) regarding these and other treatments. The webinar presenters state that some of the warning signs of pseudoscience is that proponents explain away negative evidence against the treatment and make claims that exceed the available evidence. Treatment claims are presented via non-peer reviewed means (i.e. social media) and presented to the public first instead of to the scientific community. Claims of treatment efficacy also may not take into account well established facts or previous evidence.

The fine art of baloney detection

I always go back to and reread Dr. Carl Sagan's work on his baloney detection kit when I teach courses in research methods. We will find that many of Dr Sagan's ideas are applicable to our field:

Tools for a baloney detection kit:

  1. Whenever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
  2. Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view; he meant by experts on the subject
  3. In science there are no authorities (who have made mistakes in the past) at most there are only experts
  4. Spin more than one hypothesis. Think of all the different ways it could be explained. Think of tests to systematically disprove each of the alternatives. Whichever survives has a better chance of being the right answer
  5.  We should not get attached to a hypothesis, but compare it fairly with alternative hypotheses.
  6. Quantify. If whatever it is you're explaining has some measure of numerical quantity you'll be able to discriminate against amongst competing hypotheses. Qualitative data is open to many explanations.
  7.  If there's a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work, including the promise, not just most of them.
  8. Occam’s Razor: the rule of thumb is when faced with two hypotheses that explains the data equally well, choose the simpler one.
  9. Always ask whether the hypotheses can be falsified. Propositions that are untestable are not worth much.  (Sagan, 1997)

Explaining pseudoscience to clients and their families

SLPs and audiologists are frequently asked if new treatment programs are evidence-based. We can suggest that our clients look for numerical data, not qualitative data. We can explain that opinions and anecdotal reports are the lowest level of evidence and case studies are medium levels of evidence. As Dr. Sagan suggests, we need well designed and controlled studies that give numerical data to assess the evidence of a given treatment program. Finally, we can share with clients that the simplest explanation is the best explanation, or Occam' s Razor. 

One of my favorite graphics to discuss pseudoscience is Dr. Greg Lof's chart on how to tell science from pseudoscience. This may be useful to share with our clients and their families: (https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/autismconference2021/96/44.%20Handout%202.pdf

Specific to facilitated communication and rapid prompting, and also possibly to Dickens’ telepathic communication in autistic individuals, Lof states that pseudoscientific claims promote effectiveness for a wide range of clients with unrelated problems, or one size fits all. Proponents of pseudoscience often have disdain for researchers and overly rely on clinical judgement and experience. The debates about a treatment method are not about data, but instead about beliefs and opinions.

Due to our training in identifying scientific claims and distinguishing the claims from pseudoscience, and continuously adding to our own baloney detection skills, SLPs and audiologists are well-equipped to help our clients navigate the numerous NUTS in the world. It takes training to identify misinformation from disinformation, but we can do it. 

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). Tips for recognizing pseudoscience in communication sciences and disorders. ASHA. https://stream.asha.org/tips-for-recognizing-pseudoscience-in-communication-sciences-and-disorders

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018). Rapid prompting method [Position Statement]. Available from www.asha.org/policy/

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2018). Facilitated communication [Position Statement]. Retrieved from www.asha.org/policy/

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Auditory integration training [Position Statement]. Available from www.asha.org/policy.

Dickens, K. (Host). (2025, October 23). Preview: Ask me anything with Ky Dickens [Audio podcast episode]. In Ask Me Anything with Ky Dickens. Apple Podcasts.https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/preview-ask-me-anything-with-ky-dickens/id1766382649?i=1000733079601&r=283

Lof, Greg (2012). Poster presented at ASHA convention.                      https://static.sched.com/hosted_files/autismconference2021/96/44.%20Handout%202.pdf

Sagan, C. (1997). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. Random House Publishing.