I'm not impressed. He's made a straw man argument of the "people think stuttering is neurological". Firstly, he doesn't explain what he means by 'neurological.' Secondly, he does not account for features of speech that are undoubtedly neurological (e.g., the language part of speech, motor planning). He's basically boiling it down to this: stuttering is the physical manifestation of the fear to stutter. I don't buy it. There's a whole bunch of evidence that a) suggests the brains of people who stutter are anatomically and physiologically different than those who do not. b) There is behavioral data that the motor systems of people who stutter are different than normally fluent speakers. c) behavioral data also indicate there is a relationship between what words are likely to be stuttered and their linguistic function. I didn't listen enough to get a good sense for his approach to intervention. But a brief google scholar search tells me that his training and most of his publications are in voice disorders. I question his familiarity with the topic. He is not oft cited in the stuttering literature (I consider myself pretty familiar with the study of stuttering and I had to look him up). This is not to say I didn't like anything he said. I agreed with some of what he said -- his head nodding to temperament playing a role, that all speakers produce disfluencies etc. tl;dr -- there are better theories out there based in science and not conjecture. edit: grammar