This is why I think the Valsalva hypothesis is an insufficient explanation of stuttering (and a poor therapy approach) -- His assertion that consonants are not the source of disfluencies but vowels are is misguided. It is not one or the other -- it's both. And logically, if it's a difficulty programming the onset of voicing then moments of stuttering should only occur when the vocal folds begin to vibrate. That being after consonants that don't use voicing (e.g., /p/, /t/, /k/, /s/ etc) and before initial consonants that do use voicing (e.g., /b/, /d/, /g/, /z/ etc). But i'm sure as many of us can attest, this is simply not the case. (e.g., we will block on the initial production of a /p/ " .......... Peter", and we will stutter after a voiced consonant "b-b-b-ball") For example, all of the speech sounds in my name are voiced. Thus, once I get started my voice is on and it stays on. Therefore, I shouldn't have any stuttering once I get going -- the vocal folds continue to vibrate throughout my name. However I still stutter on my name. The quick witted reader might point out that maybe I'm stuttering to get the voice started for the /b/. Okay then, what about housing my name in the phrase, "My name is 'iciaguy'". All of the sounds in this sentence use voicing, so once I get going I shouldn't have a problem -- because it's turning on the voice that's the problem, right? Ah, but I still stutter on my name when I do this (I do -- for real, I'm not contriving this at all, this happens to me most of the time I introduce myself). Again, you witty ready points out, "well maybe you're turning your voice off and so you have to start it again" Well yes -- absolutely, if I"m not producing speech my voice is not likely on. But did turning the voice off cause the stuttering or did the stuttering cause the voice to turn off? We have a problem of whether the chicken or the egg came first. We don't actually know. If stuttering is a physiological deficit (Like Parry would suggest) we might conclude that turning the voice off cause the stuttering. However, if we conclude stuttering is a neurological deficit and is a problem in programming the movements (Like Anne Smith at Purdue might suggest) or language planning (Like Nan Bernsetin Ratner at Maryland might suggest) we could conclude that the stuttering caused the voice to turn off. I'm inclined to think it's a neurological deficit. If it's a physiological deficit then why does it come and go? If it's a feature of how the body works situation and environment shouldn't matter. But situation and environment do matter. And given people who stutter don't stutter on every word, in every situation, in every environment we can reasonably conclude that there is nothing wrong with the muscles, structures or peripheral nerves (from the brainstem/spinal cord to the muscles). But this really is a moot point. His therapy works. That's the point of this post, right? Well his therapy is basically going to be slowing the initiation of voicing and keeping the voice on throughout the utterance. -- so what the "experts" might call "easy onsets" and "continuous voicing." Two components of "Fluency Shaping." His therapy is old wine in new bottles. (I'll be honest, I haven't had the patience to read his book or really delve into his therapy approach. but based on the "science" he presented, I'm willing to bet a fair sum of money this is a big chunk of his therapy). Hopefully that didn't sound like I was pissed off or annoyed. I'm not. I'm just not impressed by his hypothesis about stuttering. It doesn't pass my sniff test. But if it works for you, keep on doing what you're doing. I'm just not sure we need to endorse it. (and I'd be against this subreddit endorsing any treatment over others)