Today’s episode presents an extensive cross-examination of a systematic review concerning interventions based on Gestalt Language Processing (GLP) and Natural Language Acquisition (NLA), specifically critiquing a paper by Bryant et al. and a corresponding Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) podcast. The author of the source article, Dr. Jaime Hoerricks, alleges “perjury of method,” arguing that the review’s authors intentionally used narrow methodological criteria (excluding qualitative, descriptive, and non-English studies) to guarantee an “absence of evidence” verdict, which they then used as an ethical caution against GLP. Through a mock courtroom hearing format, Dr. Hoerricks highlights contradictions between the published paper’s strict exclusions and the podcast’s softer admissions, further asserting that the review misaligned outcome metrics and conflated the developmental description (GLP) with a commercial protocol (NLA) to discredit the entire framework. Finally, her rebuttal testimony as an autistic GLP expert reframes the “absence” as the observers’ failure to recognise valid, neurodiversity-affirming data.

Here’s the link to the source article: https://open.substack.com/pub/autside/p/cross-examining-the-evidence-gestalt

Let me know what you think.

The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit autside.substack.com/subscribe