Ok, don’t get me wrong. I agrew with you 100% on this. The strength of evidence is altough not strong according scientific standards but at the same time: also not to be ignored. Because the people involved were no standard doctors but - in the case of mr.Macklem, one of the topdoctors and specialists (within their field of medicine) of the world. So thats the context that I want to offer as well. And I am not promoting it persè. Its just that people can decide whether they want to give it a try or not. Because lets put is the other way around: all the other methods that are clearly being promote here as well, they lack evidence AT All. This method has at least some evidence. I l don’t know any other method that achieved this impressive results - which I saw and continue to see (e.g. the hundreds reviews on their website by people that are so happy that they not stammer for years now anymore) by yourself. See as well on YouTube/TV-reportage (google). And there are no commercial intentions perse. People can go the the clinic during an cost-free information evening where the method is applied on them so they can see and experience whether this truely works or not. After that they can always decide not to follow the course. And I find it remarkable that you get a negative taste surrounding this method because of me. It's not me who is behind this method. I didn't invented it, I was not involved in the science but I was a stutterer and now I am stutter free since the age of 17 (now 32years old red.). My comments here offer hope. When all the big health insurance cover the costs for this method for 100% that means something to. They are not doing this for other methods. The investigated it themselves with no conflict of interest because for them it was investing the method and see whether this method resulted in a cure or not. It proved for them that for many it did resulted in a total remission (won't use the C word again here ) And lastly (not meant to attack you): if you are consistent with ‘promoting a method with such amount of evidence’, one could argue that the same goes for promoting all the other (mcquire etc) methods here and elsewere. Because they are based solely and exclusive upon anecdotical stories/ and don't contain any published research regarding the effects of their method.