Beyond the Brain: A Critical Look at "Spelling to Communicate"

The Story

On the February 6, 2026 episode of Coast to Coast AM, host Richard Syrett introduced Katie Asher with a dramatic frame: "A mother, a silent son, and the question science can't answer." Katie shared the story of her son Houston, who was diagnosed with severe autism following what she described as a "catastrophic vaccine injury" from a DTP shot.

For years, Houston was nonverbal and given an IQ score around 45. Then, when Houston was 17, Katie discovered "spelling to communicate" (S2C)—a technique where a coach helps guide a person's hand or provides verbal prompts while they point to letters on a board. Through this method, Houston allegedly spelled out: "I'm in here."

What followed, according to Katie, was remarkable: Houston began communicating complex thoughts, demonstrating knowledge of advanced mathematics he'd never been taught, reciting the Gettysburg Address, and eventually describing spiritual experiences including encounters with Jesus and angels. The family's story became the book The Book of Heaven.

"He described encounters with Jesus, angelic presence, a structured reality beyond physical life, and a consciousness that exists independently of the brain."
— Richard Syrett, introducing the segment

The Science Problem

Here's what wasn't discussed on the show: "Spelling to Communicate" and its predecessor "Rapid Prompting Method" (RPM) are considered by major scientific and medical organizations to be variants of Facilitated Communication (FC)—a technique that has been extensively studied and repeatedly debunked over three decades of research.

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) has issued position statements calling FC a "discredited technique" and warning that it "should not be used as an intervention to support communication."

The American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and numerous other medical bodies have reached the same conclusion: in controlled studies where the facilitator is "blinded" (doesn't know the information being tested), the person being facilitated consistently cannot communicate that information.

⚠️ The Ideomotor Effect

Scientists attribute FC's apparent success to the ideomotor effect—the same phenomenon behind Ouija boards. The facilitator unconsciously guides the person's hand based on their own expectations, without being aware they're doing so. This isn't fraud or deception—it's a well-documented psychological phenomenon where the facilitator genuinely believes the communication is coming from the other person.

Red Flags in the Asher Story

Several elements of the narrative presented on Coast to Coast match patterns that researchers have identified as indicators of facilitator influence:

🚩 Sudden, Unexplained Literacy

Houston allegedly demonstrated knowledge of advanced calculus and historical documents despite never receiving education in these subjects. In three decades of FC research, there has never been a verified case of "unexpected literacy"—hidden intelligence that only emerges through facilitation. As researchers note, it's "curious" that such abilities only appear when a facilitator is present.

🚩 Telepathic Claims

Katie described Houston reading her thoughts, sensing when people are pregnant, and receiving spiritual visions. These extraordinary claims actually serve as red flags in FC analysis—when facilitated messages venture into telepathy and spiritual revelation, they often reflect the facilitator's beliefs and desires projected onto the person being facilitated.

🚩 Coach Dependency

Katie herself acknowledged that Houston is "so dependent on the 'coach' for interpretation" that influence is always a risk. In legitimate augmentative communication (AAC), the goal is independence—the person should eventually communicate without assistance. In FC, this independence never materializes.

🚩 Avoiding Controlled Testing

When researchers have subjected S2C and RPM to controlled "message-passing" tests (where the facilitator doesn't know what information the person should communicate), the methods consistently fail. Proponents often dismiss these failures as "performance anxiety" or claim that testing destroys the necessary "trust"—but skeptics view this as avoiding objective scrutiny.

The Real Harm

This isn't just an academic debate. Facilitated Communication has caused documented harm:

False abuse allegations: FC has been used to generate accusations of sexual abuse against family members—accusations that were later proven to originate from the facilitator, not the person with disabilities. Families have been torn apart.
The Anna Stubblefield case: A Rutgers professor was convicted of sexually assaulting a nonverbal man after claiming, through FC, that he had consented to a relationship. The documentary Tell Them You Love Me (2024) chronicles this disturbing case.
Denial of effective treatment: When families invest in FC, they may miss opportunities to provide their loved ones with evidence-based augmentative communication methods that actually work.
Stolen voices: Perhaps most troubling, FC doesn't give voice to disabled people—it gives voice to their facilitators while claiming it's the disabled person speaking. Scientists call this "the stolen voices of the disabled."

The 1993 PBS Frontline documentary Prisoners of Silence exposed these issues three decades ago. Yet the techniques continue to be promoted under new names.

What Coast to Coast Didn't Say

Richard Syrett introduced this segment as "the question science can't answer"—but that framing is misleading. Science has answered the question of whether FC works. The answer, replicated across dozens of controlled studies, is no.

The show presented Katie Asher's emotional story without any counterbalancing scientific perspective. No skeptics were interviewed. The scientific consensus against FC wasn't mentioned. The documented harms weren't discussed.

This is a recurring pattern on Coast to Coast AM: extraordinary claims are presented sympathetically while the scientific evidence against them goes unexamined.

A Note on Compassion

None of this is meant to attack Katie Asher personally. Parents of children with severe disabilities face unimaginable challenges. The desire to connect with a nonverbal child is deeply human. When FC appears to provide that connection, it's understandable why families embrace it.

But compassion for families doesn't mean accepting false claims. The ideomotor effect is powerful precisely because it operates unconsciously—facilitators genuinely believe they're helping their loved ones communicate. They're not lying. They're victims of their own desperate hopes and a psychological phenomenon they don't understand.

The scientific consensus isn't cruel. It's protective. It says: these communications aren't coming from your loved one, and believing they are may prevent you from finding methods that actually work.