tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post3431385249462399054..comments2024-03-24T15:07:18.773+01:00Comments on The Stuttering Brain: Is TheStutteringBrain or StutterTalk not reputable?Tom Weidighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-1642799822923366962009-02-25T16:28:00.000+01:002009-02-25T16:28:00.000+01:00Hi James,Tammy actually emailed me about it, but I...Hi James,<BR/><BR/>Tammy actually emailed me about it, but I couldn't reply in time. They've got a good panel though, and I'm sure a good time (and education) will be had by all...Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06461391169646033150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-16051198835134245622009-02-24T23:01:00.000+01:002009-02-24T23:01:00.000+01:00Greg, how come you are not at the panel. You shoul...Greg, how come you are not at the panel. You should! So why don't you contact Tammy and try to get on. If you are serious stuttering researcher (what would you have to report to the public). Aren't you whistle blower like Tom???<BR/><BR/>JamesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-58994515941077662132009-02-24T22:33:00.000+01:002009-02-24T22:33:00.000+01:00Point well taken, Tom.GregPoint well taken, Tom.<BR/><BR/>GregGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06461391169646033150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-65234734904040451752009-02-24T12:46:00.000+01:002009-02-24T12:46:00.000+01:00Greg, I dont really have an issue with the meeting...Greg, I dont really have an issue with the meeting. In fact,I myself organised a similar one!!<BR/><BR/>It is a great idea...<BR/><BR/>However, my twist was on presenting science rather than science of treatments which is far more controversial. And claiming expertise is much more problematic.<BR/><BR/>TomTom Weidighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-33795353699109205802009-02-24T08:36:00.000+01:002009-02-24T08:36:00.000+01:00From first hand knowledge I know that 1) the infor...From first hand knowledge I know that 1) the information that Dr. Drayna shares with us is not 2 - 3 years old. He is sharing current information, he just won't be telling us the full details of story (i.e. they have found some variants, but won't tell us what gene(s) they are in). True it can take a bit of time to conduct research and analyze data, and there are journals that have a very long lag time from when an article is accepted until when it comes out in print. I know that for the most part it takes on the order of a couple of months to get an article published (often depending on the quality of work and any additional work reviewers want to see).<BR/><BR/>Second, Larry Molt has some interesting data regarding long term efficacy of SpeechEasy. There are many reasons why it takes time to publish research. Very often they (scientists, not just Molt) get interns to do some of the data coding and/or number crunching. It does happen that sometimes they make mistakes and those mistakes need to be fixed. His long term study that has taken several years and is still not published, actually does not give the SpeechEasy the best representation. (He presented his findings at ASHA Nov. 2008) One of the issues may also be the number of participants that dropped out over the course of 4 years. Participants do this for a number of reasons that do not reflect on the quality of the research.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, the manufacturer of SpeechEasy (Janus) recognizes that there has been a lot of heavily biased and hotly contented research published on the device. Janus now has a scientific research board that is beginning to fund better quality research to develop a better device. They seem to be doing their part to make the SpeechEasy better and also to produce more and better unbiased research of the device.<BR/><BR/>I think there are some good things that you mention in your blog Tom, but from someone who has spent a number of years pursuing an education and career based on the etiology and treatment of stuttering, I feel like you consistently miss the mark in a number of places, and it frustrates me. I keep trying to like your blog. I really want to. I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt. I keep wanting to not disagree with at least one thing in every post I've read. But I can't. I apologize. I really don't like to be critical in this way, but I couldn't sleep...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-4866859700805210022009-02-24T03:43:00.000+01:002009-02-24T03:43:00.000+01:00Lets say that a Speech Language Pathologist has pu...Lets say that a Speech Language Pathologist has pure motives for becoming a therapist, trained in the sciences and in therapeutic applications of what is known at the time. They specialize because of an interest in a particular area and get their Ph.D. and begin gathering data on a larger number or individuals, rather than just those in their caseload. (All teachers, therapists need to gather data on individuals they serve, baseline data, and effect of treatments-during sessions and through carryover strategies, etc...) Now say this therapist becomes recognized because of success. The money they need to continue to investigate the therapeutic techniques they use will not come from veterinary medicine, seismology etc... it will come from within their own field and associated areas like Dr. Maguire's pharmaceutical companies. What is needed is an FDA-like review of the research. It is unrealistic to think that their is a monetary comparison re: physicists with government funding with therapeutic interventions. I do not think there is the same level of interest outside the field itself. Perhaps it is different in countries with a nationalized health care system. The lack of rigorous review of therapeutic interventions is not always a result of sinister motives hiding real results. How would you fund research?<BR/>LynneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-57601402700335766602009-02-24T03:31:00.001+01:002009-02-24T03:31:00.001+01:00Must agree with the Anonymous II poster above. Th...Must agree with the Anonymous II poster above. <BR/><BR/>The agenda of the NSA has changed since John Ahlbach was forced out. The Reeves/Reardon/Yaruss group has taken over, and politics & $$$ are the focus of the organization. <BR/><BR/>To be an "expert" in the view of the NSA, a professional must have the Reeves/Yaruss/Reardon seal of approval. Only the SFA has had the nads to "push back" at these people. <BR/><BR/>Rumors of ethics violations and lawsuits were whispered of at one time... Any truth? Tell us!!!<BR/><BR/>To me, at the national level, they have made the NSA professional board "researcher approved" a farce. You gotta K the A of those three to get on the "approved" list. <BR/><BR/>Tom's comments regarding Sisskin, Molt, & Manning are well taken. All are "NSA Seal Approved"...<BR/><BR/>That said, nothing will change the NSA leadership. <BR/><BR/>The good stuff - the local chapters - still rule!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-91313535692505746522009-02-24T03:31:00.000+01:002009-02-24T03:31:00.000+01:00Tom-watching Big Bang Theory as I type. In any ev...Tom-watching Big Bang Theory as I type. In any event, I wish you'd kill this anonymous option; it seems to bring out the worst in people.<BR/><BR/>I don't see what the big deal is, to be honest. The NSA is a non-profit organization, so they can't pay any speaking fees. Further, they're not looking for hard-core researchers, pe-se; they're looking for people who can report the data to the general masses. Finally, they're trying to get some producers of research, rather than consumer/critique-ers of research. <BR/><BR/>I'm tempted to go through these people one at a time, but I'll pass on that. This is a self-help organization, not a true research symposium... so perhaps a little perspective may be warranted here... I feel quite certain that if you called Tammy and told her of your attendance, she could squeeze you on the panel as well; I just wouldn't read too much into this.<BR/><BR/>Greg<BR/>http://stuttering.meGreghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06461391169646033150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-45978656850357871602009-02-24T02:09:00.000+01:002009-02-24T02:09:00.000+01:00You said: "Lee Reeves is a Animal Veterarian who s...You said: "Lee Reeves is a Animal Veterarian who stutters and advertises himself as a leading expert in the field of stuttering."<BR/><BR/>Need explanation. Lee Reeves has selfish interests (married to Nina Reardon private SLP and stuttering expert). Lee Reeves is basically the King of the NSA....politics!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-22842085131382348982009-02-24T02:06:00.000+01:002009-02-24T02:06:00.000+01:00Tom, can you recount the story when a stuttering p...Tom, can you recount the story when a stuttering professor told you "what do you know with a PhD in Physics?"<BR/><BR/>True story? How did you reply?<BR/><BR/>(and what do you know "with a PhD in SLP")<BR/><BR/>Also....why so few female Nobel prize winners, less than 10 I think. Obviously, there is sexism. But just sexism and sexism only....<BR/><BR/>Women SLP scientists/professors = are they contributing to the problem....???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-23927076551101382472009-02-24T00:47:00.000+01:002009-02-24T00:47:00.000+01:00>>> You couldn't hack it in Science r...>>> You couldn't hack it in Science research in your area??? (not good enough to be faculty or Scientist?)<BR/><BR/>I decided to move after my post-doc into finance and worked for a big investment bank. And yes one of the reasons was that I felt that I could never be one of the top theoretical physicists. I was technically (mathematically that is) and in terms of focus not as good as the best of my generation. And that's not the easy undergrad maths but the really tough abstract stuff. But conceptually or intellectually I was up to anyone I ever met and I met many of the top names including Hawking and Brian Greene.<BR/><BR/>There is no more difficult area in whole science, except maybe abstract mathematics. Everything else is easy in comparison. And I could well have continued a career in science but most likely in a more applied area.Tom Weidighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-88067252581974792622009-02-24T00:33:00.000+01:002009-02-24T00:33:00.000+01:00Wait. I am not the one who wrote in the name of a ...Wait. I am not the one who wrote in the name of a national association and says that the people I invite are the experts in treatments and that the internet is not reputable. I am countering this assertion and put in nuances. I am sure they all have interesting things to say but they are not Gods but most are just average scientists. <BR/><BR/>I just speak for myself, and give my thoughts. You can do with them whatever you want.<BR/><BR/>I simply dispute that you can claim expertise in treatments and research, because it is such a vague area.<BR/><BR/>And regarding my PhD in physics, I am a trained scientist unlike most others who have trained as a clinician and now do research. I grow up with science and did nothing else than the most intellectually challenging stuff in challenging environments until 27 or so. You can never reach the same level by starting later in life.<BR/><BR/>That's like learning to play the piano at 25-30. It is too late.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, the importance is the strength of the argument and not who you are. I am listening to everyone... <BR/><BR/>And it is not up to me to critize myself, but for you the reader. But please do it intelligently with counterarguments and not by saying I just have a PhD in physics.Tom Weidighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-45521853590138405042009-02-24T00:13:00.000+01:002009-02-24T00:13:00.000+01:00The NSA professionals group is run by the Yaruss/R...The NSA professionals group is run by the Yaruss/Reardon faction of the SID #4 professionals. Sisskin is a Yaruss/Reardon "want to join your club" professional. Lee Reeves is a Animal Veterarian who stutters and advertises himself as a leading expert in the field of stuttering.<BR/><BR/>Go figure who the "experts" are...<BR/><BR/>I figure if a dog doctor can claim to be an expert in stuttering, a physicist can as well...<BR/><BR/>The NSA was a good self-help organization at one time for adults who stutter... Now -at the national level - it's a SID #4 professional group silently opposed to FRIENDS and the SFA organizations because of freakin' professional ego's and undermining by the SID #4 professionals runnin' the NSA nationally. You know... Lawsuits and such... Ask the "professional" board...<BR/><BR/>Tom - Keep doing what you want to do. I don't think all your stuff is "crap". Some, perhaps, but we all appear to have some ruffage, do we not?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-4204516960109379762009-02-23T21:42:00.000+01:002009-02-23T21:42:00.000+01:00Tom, what about you? How would you critique yourse...Tom, what about you? How would you critique yourself? <BR/><BR/>To be more blunt. You couldn't hack it in Science research in your area??? (not good enough to be faculty or Scientist?)<BR/><BR/>You have a PhD in Physics, and what are you doing now?<BR/><BR/>What have you published, RECENTLY?<BR/><BR/>It is only fair....you can talk crap about others, but what are your motivations? Why not goggle Vivian Sisskin? She is clearly not a Scientist, but does some work on stuttering and Asperger's....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com