Monday, September 27, 2010

A non-informative and insulting reply to Ingham's reply.

In my last post, I have cited Ingham's comment to the Phase IIa article. Maguire, Riley and Franklin's reply is non-informative and insulting. Here are a few extracts and my comments on how NOT to reply to a journal comment.

The authors thank Dr. Ingham for his reply. Unfortunately, the authors think that he is mistaken in most of his assertions.

That is just an insulting way to start a reply, and adds absolutely nothing to the reply. A reply to a comment is not a blog post!


Pagoclone results in improved fluency with at least a 40% reduction in stuttering severity..

Well, and how about the placebo group's improvement? How about the variability in fluency? If it worked so great, why does the much larger Phase IIb does not have a good positive effect?

Ingham's behaviorist view is outdated, and it is fortunately being overcome by the burgeoning data that support that stuttering can be treated through pharmaceutical means.

What a ridiculous statement! First of all, it's off topic as it's Ingham who criticises the trial design. So they should reply on his criticism on their design. Second, I am not sure what this behaviorist view should be. Ingham's conviction that everything should be objectionably measurable? Again, who cares. They should counter his arguments. Third, where is this burgeoning data that support pharmaceutical intervention? I don't see it. I just see: you shake up the neurotransmitters and some are more fluent or dysfluent for some time. But no long-term trial has showed efficacy.

thankful to the Journal for supporting such an open debate.


which open debate?

It is our goal to combine efforts with the speech-language pathology community to better treat stuttering using all effective means possible.

That is a typical phrase from politics. First, it's off topic and does not address the trial design. Second, it's very vague on "efforts" and "all effective means possible". Third, the sentence propagates this myth of "if we work hard on it with all means, we will succeed". An empty statement.

as we strive to take the treatment of the millions of people who stutter from darkness to light.

What does that mean? Reminds me of Star Wars. Not sure why.

Summary: The reply is just idiotic. And to be honest, Jerry's style is different, and his reasoning is more intelligent than this reply. So I am wondering if one of the other two has written the response. My guess: Riley.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

“That is just an insulting way to start a reply “

“What a ridiculous statement! “

“The reply is just idiotic.”


You’re burning your bridges with Maguire when you comment this way. Why do you do it? Your readers may find it entertaining, but wouldn't it be much more productive for you to maintain good relations with the leaders in the field, rather than to entertain your readers? In the long run you’d do your readers a greater service by maintaining good relations and good lines of communication and good sources of information, rather than insulting people so that they stop talking with you.

דני said...

I agree with the previous comment.
Dr. Mcguire is not an enemy he represent hope. Why using this terminology ?
Danny Goldman

Anonymous said...

Some PWS do not want to practice and practice so called speech techniques. If a pill gives them confidence and/or reduces stuttering in some situation, that is good!

It is like diet pill to lose weight. Yes, you can exercise or you can take a pill or gastric by-pass surgery. We are talking about personal choice and freedom and options to reduce stuttering.

I was confused when they said Ingham was an investigator but his name was not in the list of authors.

So is it possible that Ingham's intention was for Revenge. Money, money, money....the root of al evil.

A second point. Didn't you get free room and board with the Inghams when you visited them in Santa Barbara....how many nights did you sleep with them?

How do we (the readers) know that you are 100% objective and not biased?

And there are pictures of you and Kehoe together (the guy who hates the Speech Easy, but sells a $2495 device). So isn't Kehoe a hypocrite.

It was an exploratory study. Pagoclone may help some, or it may not. Frankly, some PWS may have some benefit from taking it just for the placebo effect (a self-confidence effect).

For example: "I took this pill and I am eloquent superman."

Anonymous said...

This confirms my suspicions. Ingham, Maguire, Riley --- all major contributors to the continuing ongoing expansion of the complete dumbing down further of professional "idiots" in the field of stuttering.

On a side note to Ingham - 90% improvement of speech performance by numerous behavioral programs??? REALLY? No, C'mon now, seriously - I mean REEEAAALLLLYYY???

Pass me some of that CA lettuce you all been bogarting...

There isn't any stinking REVENGE among ASHA professionals ever.

And Tom, you ain't sleeping with the Inghams, are you? Say it ain't so!

Anonymous said...

Why did you guess Riley?

Let's ask Jerry who wrote the reply to Ingham?

Jerry is first author....


Summary: The reply is just idiotic. And to be honest, Jerry's style is different, and his reasoning is more intelligent than this reply. So I am wondering if one of the other two has written the response. My guess: Riley.

Tom Weidig said...

@Anonym1:

>> You’re burning your bridges with Maguire when you comment this way. Why do you do it?

I am expressing my opinion irrespective of the social consequences.

Should I change or suppress my opinion out of fear that someone is not talking to me any more.

A true friend tells you his opinion!

@Mark.

>> Dr. Maguire is not an enemy he represent hope. Why using this terminology ?

You are in some kind of war perspective. I am NOT. I am attacking a reply to a comment, and brand it as insulting, uninformative, and off-topic.

Hope does not materialise if the thinking is the way the reply is. Hope translates into improvements with a constructive scientific debate and not this pseudo stuff.

@Anonym2:

Yes, I did spend a night at their house at Santa Barbara. And they did serve me food. Even though I absolutely hated the cold Mexican soup... arrggg ;-)

BUT I was also invited by Jerry Maguire to attend the opening of the center! Which in financial terms was definitely the greater amount!

Again, I am expressing my independent opinion. I am NO-ONE's puddle!

@Anonym3:

I guessed Riley, because of the way he comes across when talking to other people. And the reply is written in a similar way. Jerry is far smoother... But I could be wrong.

Anonymous said...

It good you let all who write on your blog express their opinion irrespective of the social consequences.

Perhaps you are kinda Inghams Puddle!

Anonymous said...

(From Anonymous 1)

"Should I change or suppress my opinion out of fear that someone is not talking to me any more.... A true friend tells you his opinion!"

A true friend tells you his opinion privately.

John in Virginia said...

I'm currently taking 5mg/daily of abilify and my stuttering has gone away. Maybe 95% reduced. So I'm not clear why Tom is so reluctant to believe that medication can have an effect. I agree that it only works for certain subgroups of stutterers, but it works nonetheless.

They key is to find a way to identify the subgroups, and treat accordingly. Some subgroups may respond to speech therapy while others respond to certain tailored medications. For example, some stutterers speak better after a few drinks of alcohol and others have more disfluency - perhaps that is the identifier of one such subgroup?

Personally I am a strong supporter of McGuire's work and wish him success.

Tom Weidig said...

@John in Virgina:

In this post, I criticized the way they responded to the comment. They are leaving a serious scientific debate for lobbying efforts with meaningless argument.

I never said that medication cannot have an effect on an individual person. However, so far no medication for stuttering has been approved by the FDA.

Regarding individual effects, I for example have experienced a lot of fluency in the last months (as told by my girlfriend) and I didn't do anything at all. So if I had been part of the trial, I would have attributed this to the medication. So I am saying we need to be extra careful.

I support Jerry Maguire's work and obviously wish him success. But I also very clearly that no clear success has been shown.

Tom Weidig said...

>> A true friend tells you his opinion privately.

In most circumstances yes.

But the effect of their careless attitude is very dangerous for true scientific debate. Effectively, they told him to fuck off without addressing his arguments (however wrong, correct, or irrelevant they might be.)

So I tell them off publicly.

Peter Louw said...

"I'm currently taking 5mg/daily of abilify and my stuttering has gone away. Maybe 95% reduced."

I'm sure some medications improve fluency because they reduce stress and tension levels. I have often found that certain pain pills improve my fluency because of stress reduction. If a cheap medicine can be found that reduces stress without any side effects, I'm sure it would benefit many people though it would not be a cure.