The figure above represents the sum total of Michelle Dawson's ABA experience and expertise. Despite her voluminous writings (mis-characterizations) of ABA she has not, to my knowledge , indicated that she has any actual experience or expertise with ABA. Given her lack of actual involvement with ABA has her years long crusade against ABA intervention for autistic children been done in good faith? Is it ethical for her to appear in legal, political and media forums in an effort to keep OTHER PEOPLE's autistic children from receiving the benefit of ABA?
Ms Dawson brought a human rights complaint against Canada Post where she was employed as a letter carrier. Her complaint was based on Canada Post's failure to accommodate her disability as a person with an autism disorder. Some of her allegations against Canada Post were dismissed but she was successful in arguing that some Canada Post management employees had harassed her. In making that complaint Michelle Dawson, who the evidence showed was a very good letter carrier, and who has demonstrated considerable intelligence in fashioning a career as a researcher, still considered her autism disorder to be a disability that required accommodation.
In the course of that hearing Ms Dawson testified concerning her own self injurious behavior over a period of at least 9 years from 1990 to 1999. The mysterious Dr. "M", a colleague and co-author of papers with Ms Dawson, also testified concerning Ms Dawson's self injurious behavior and made it clear that self injurious behavior is directly linked to autism [paragraph 103]. Dr. M testified specifically about Michelle Dawson's self injurious behavior:
 The record shows that the second letter refers to Ms. Dawson self-inflicted wounds. In his letter, Dr. M. restates that Ms. Dawson is autistic and refers to the fact that Ms. Dawson’s psychological equilibrium is maintained through acts of self-injury performed at home, that it is a way for her to cope psychologically with intense emotional reactions and should not be seen as an expression of anger.
 Dr. M. testified that Ms. Dawson had told him that the injury that she self-inflicted helped her psychologically. For Dr. M., Ms. Dawson had the habit of self-injuring. Dr. M. interpreted these acts of self-injury as a sign of major psychological suffering, a way for autistic individuals to cope with anxiety. He stated in his testimony that he personally saw one of the wounds that Ms. Dawson had inflicted upon herself and stated that the wound was impressive, and would have been impressive for her coworkers.
In the case Ms Dawson also gave considerable evidence about how best to communicate with autistic persons, not just her as an autistic persons, but autistic persons generally. No authorities, studies, Random controlled trials or any other "science" are cited in support of her opinions.
Michelle Dawson has first hand knowledge of the serious self injury that some autistic persons inflict on themselves. Reducing self injurious behavior, not conforming to an abstract social norm, but reducing self injurious behavior, is one of the well documented results that people who actually work with ABA and autistic children have achieved ... the self injurious behavior which is directly linked to autism as Dr. "M" testified.
In my view it is bad faith, and it is unethical, for Michelle Dawson to oppose efforts to reduce self injurious behavior in autistic children via ABA. For a period of at least 9 years she was obviously not successful at eliminating her own serious self injury. And yet she has opposed ABA interventions for other people's autistic children even though it has been used by professionals and parents to help autistic children reduce such self injurious behavior. She does so despite a complete lack of expertise and experience with ABA and despite having no other solution to offer parents trying desperately to help their children.