again, you're refusing to engage with the claim you made. currently, you're merging these questions: 1) what causes stuttering? 2) what helps people cope or function? 3) what should people be allowed to try? however, i only disputed your answer to #1. furthermore, you've said these three things 1) “we’re not denying neurological origin” 2) “majority is psychological” 3) “origin doesn’t matter” that are blatantly contradictory. pick one! if origin doesn't matter, then stop making casual claims about it. if neurological origin is real, don't say majority of stuttering is psychological. if psychology is just a management layer, say that and stop overstating it. your diet analogy would work if you were saying "just try these harmless techniques." but that's not what you said. you went on to assert that these techniques prove that majority of stuttering is psychologically and you dismissed science. if a certain diet helps symptoms of a disease, does that mean that the disease is dietary? no. stuttering research is limited, but desensitization/nervous system regulation/confidence building are studied. the outcomes are generally positive for quality of life but partial for fluency. there is no strong evidence for “great improvements in speech” universally. i don't think exposure, CBT, or desensitization are definitively harmless. it all depends on how they're framed. regardless, i never said people shouldn't try these techniques. p.s. there is no anger in any of my replies. someone disagreeing with you and calling out your misinformation is not "anger." if we're on the same team, we have to be on the same page about the basics.