Monday, September 27, 2010
A non-informative and insulting reply to Ingham's reply.
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Ingham's behaviorist view is outdated, and it is fortunately being overcome by the burgeoning data that support that stuttering can be treated through pharmaceutical means.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.
by Tom Weidig