`::: Williams 2006 does not contradict the ``has never allowed`` part, since it did not assess the effectiveness of Son-Rise on autistic children; it simply reanalyzed data taken around 1998, data which were taken for another purpose. This does not demonstrate the Son-Rise program's facilitation of serious research on effectiveness. The NAS article is a source in its own right. It's far more reliable than a blog: the NAS is the premier UK charity for ASD and we should not be second-guessing their information article on Son-Rise unless there are reliable sources to the contrary. In particular, there is no reason to doubt their assertion that Son-Rise has turned down external researchers' requests. Williams 2006 says that it will be difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of Son-Rise, which is certainly relevant to the topic of effectiveness. Given that Son-Rise has six paragraphs that are positive on the program, it doesn't seem out of place to have a couple of paragraphs that have a more-critical eye, particularly given that the program is so controversial, and it would be out of place to condense all the criticism down to a single sentence. If anything, the overall POV in the article is currently biased more for Son-Rise than against it.     `