tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post5261622856482581707..comments2024-03-24T15:07:18.773+01:00Comments on The Stuttering Brain: Stop Dr Brenda CareyTom Weidighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-73862809739416624592011-10-24T19:32:27.355+02:002011-10-24T19:32:27.355+02:00@Tom - You wrote "Just to clarify that I did ...@Tom - You wrote "Just to clarify that I did not call her behaviour criminal".<br /><br />When I mentioned "criminal", I was referring to the comment by Anonymous of October 22, who wrote "I think character assassination is not enough. I think a criminal investigation and revoking her degree are in order."Orahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07560420178241698669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-17706624913954882952011-10-24T15:29:27.373+02:002011-10-24T15:29:27.373+02:00A comment by Anonym that I had to censor.
She did...A comment by Anonym that I had to censor.<br /><br />She did change her site, but then you have to question what she's telling parents privately. I think she should still be investigated. The masses have oversimplified ideas of stuttering, essentially that with the right training anyone can recover. That is absolutely untrue and unethical speech therapists play upon their naivety.<br /><br />> REST IS CENSORED <Tom Weidighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-52324143888750771492011-10-24T08:57:58.879+02:002011-10-24T08:57:58.879+02:00@LastAnonym: I removed part of your post because y...@LastAnonym: I removed part of your post because you wrote "WHAT SHE DID IS A CRIME". In the future, please express your opinion and do not generalise and give reasons like "I believe she committed a crime, because A, B, C"<br /><br />The Australian lawyers have already tried to silence me once!<br /><br />@Ora: Just to clarify that I did not call her behaviour criminal, but unethical in my opinion. I wrote what I have in my mind. These are my opinions. Judy did not get the results. I did because of the public pressure.<br /><br />Once Brenda Carey has changed the website, I will change the post.Tom Weidighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-81284024483070184022011-10-23T17:48:31.799+02:002011-10-23T17:48:31.799+02:00To the most recent Anonymous ("I think a crim...To the most recent Anonymous ("I think a criminal investigation and revoking her degree are in order") and Michael L. ("unethical behavior"):<br /><br />Let's take a look at Brenda Carey's comment: "I certainly did not intend to mislead, and will be changing the wording of my site and its address promptly (as soon as I have the tech support)"<br /><br />People make mistakes or questionable judgments all the time. But well-intentioned, reasonable people reconsider their decisions when they're pointed out. It seems to me the fact that Brenda Carey readily and quickly agreed with the criticism suggests that this was not intentional. People should be allowed to correct their mistakes.<br /><br />Judy Kuster was not shaming others for confronting Brenda Carey. (In fact Judy did it herself.) She was disagreeing with people for their manner of the confrontation. <br /><br />Why do you (and Tom) prefer to use highly negative, inflammatory characterizations such as "unethical", "outrageously marketed", "highly irresponsible", "criminal", etc.?<br /><br />Michael L: You suggest that an ethically responsible person has an obligation to confront unethical behavior. Judy obviously agrees, and that's just what she did. She just did so differently. In this case, "Minnesota nice" got results.Orahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07560420178241698669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-42280054871078646962011-10-23T05:32:11.259+02:002011-10-23T05:32:11.259+02:00Judy, I strongly disagree. As the anon comment abo...Judy, I strongly disagree. As the anon comment above proposed, if a health practitioner makes false claims about a treatment that "stops" cancer, or stops mental illness, or stops multiple sclerosis, an ethically responsible person--whether a member of the media or just an individual observer--would absolutely have a moral obligation to point this out. The same goes for stuttering. The dangerous precedent which has been set (and insufficiently addressed) is that it is somehow less serious to make false claims about treating stuttering. I find this outlandish and morally reprehensible. <br /><br />And, quite frankly, having been both a Minnesotan and lifelong Midwesterner, I find it rather repulsive to use "Minnesota Nice" as a rationale for shaming others for confronting unethical behavior. Very disappointing.<br /><br />- Michael L.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-16347094112975403192011-10-22T22:07:08.812+02:002011-10-22T22:07:08.812+02:00I have another perspective. There is no cure for s...I have another perspective. There is no cure for stuttering and every speech pathologist knows that.There is also no cure for cancer and the medical community knows that. Do you think a doctor that advertises that he can cure cancer will stay a doctor for long? Do you think speech pathologists should be held to the same standards?<br /><br />I think character assassination is not enough. I think a criminal investigation and revoking her degree are in order.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-33789334849045153292011-10-22T00:27:47.364+02:002011-10-22T00:27:47.364+02:00Michael, I disagree that "what Tom did (and o...Michael, I disagree that "what Tom did (and often does) is a perfect example of .... the crucial role of blogs like yours: to draw attention to issues that hurt PWS, and give us a voice to challenge and correct these issues." If Tom had written his concerns to Brenda and if she didn't respond, had brought in another person or two, and she still didn't respond, THEN writing what I see as a "character assassination" might be in order. If an offense or problem can be resolved without potentially hurting another person's reputation, that is what should be done, in my opinion. Maybe I'm just too "Minnesota nice."Judy Kusternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-67543303074636697202011-10-21T19:57:27.827+02:002011-10-21T19:57:27.827+02:00Thanks for the kind offer, Tom--I'd love to. Y...Thanks for the kind offer, Tom--I'd love to. You have a great site, and you put out information that's important to the entire stuttering community (i.e., PWS, researchers, and therapists). As soon as I get some work stuff out of the way I'll definitely get in contact with you.<br /><br />Regarding Judy Kuster's post, it's great and encouraging news that Brenda Carey became informed of folks' legitimate concern. That's a perfect example of what I mean by the crucial role of blogs like yours: to draw attention to issues that hurt PWS, and give us a voice to challenge and correct these issues.<br /><br />If anything, I think that's an argument for you to keep this post up: it's important and inspiring for people to know that speaking up can make a positive difference. Of course, when Brenda makes the ethically responsible changes to her website, you can add that as an update acknowledging the correction.<br /><br />- Michael L.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-75953726235642341242011-10-21T18:00:45.058+02:002011-10-21T18:00:45.058+02:00Tom, I would suggest you remove this from your web...Tom, I would suggest you remove this from your website. Ora told me about it. He also posted a question on the Prof is In. I wrote to Brenda privately about his post on the Prof is In and she responded to me privately, thanking me for expressing my concerns and then posted "Ora, I do thank you for your helpful comments. I certainly did not intend to mislead, and will be changing the wording of my site and its address promptly (as soon as I have the tech support). Regards, Brenda Carey"Judy Kusternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-86798982468358807562011-10-16T06:02:08.769+02:002011-10-16T06:02:08.769+02:00I am surprised that people still find it in their ...I am surprised that people still find it in their heart to defend such unethical practices; may be this is why they hide behind "Anonymous" because they know they are supporting something patently unsupportable. <br />Every act has to be judged by intention- and in this case, it is: attract people and parents by giving them false hope. Sadly, world is full of people who will claim anything to make a fast buck. PWS and their families too are to be blamed for this- their gullibility and refusal to do a proper research..<br />Thanks Tom! for questioning such ads..Satyendrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03829552345809055365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-67663063649663991602011-10-15T08:46:15.828+02:002011-10-15T08:46:15.828+02:00@Michael L: Good point! If you ever want to write ...@Michael L: Good point! If you ever want to write a guest post, let me know!<br /><br />I would say that statements like "work effectively with", "reduce your stuttering" or "change your perspective" are borderline acceptable.<br /><br />Statements like "Work on your speech with", "consult a", "Improve your communication skills", "Give your child the best care", "Benefit from Dr Carey's experience" are acceptable to me.Tom Weidighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-19028087222107097192011-10-14T18:25:23.655+02:002011-10-14T18:25:23.655+02:00@Anon(16:16): You are making a distinction without...@Anon(16:16): You are making a distinction without a difference. As Tom and others have pointed out, it is completely irrelevant whether the claim is that the doctor stops one from stuttering, or one stops stuttering by virtue of working with the doctor. In either case, a false claim is made: that stuttering will *stop* after receiving treatment from a "professional". A false claim such as this is plainly unethical, and Tom is absolutely right for pointing it out.<br /><br />- Michael L.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-65177146351188850382011-10-14T17:07:12.107+02:002011-10-14T17:07:12.107+02:00So what exactly does it equate to then?? Please te...So what exactly does it equate to then?? Please tell us!!<br /><br />The issue is how the viewers read it, and they will likely read it as "this doctor promises me that she can make me stop stuttering".Tom Weidighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-58706392978301919812011-10-14T16:16:18.666+02:002011-10-14T16:16:18.666+02:00I don't know who you are or what's your ba...I don't know who you are or what's your background but it is quite plain and simple after reading your blog that you have misconstrued the meaning of "Stop Stuttering with Dr. Carey" or any other speech pathologist for that matter.<br /><br />If you are smart enough you will readily comprehend that by saying "stop stuttering with a particular doctor's name does not equate to the statement "the doctor can make you stop stuttering".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-53534258410246561902011-10-14T15:38:40.417+02:002011-10-14T15:38:40.417+02:00The BSA recently complained to the UK Advertising ...The BSA recently complained to the UK Advertising Standards Authority about a UK-based site which has the URL stutter-cure - which, most people would probably agree, is 'worse' than stop stuttering. I'm waiting to see what will happen. I don't know if there is an equivalent organisation in Australia which might be interested in Dr Carey's URL - but I will check this out. Incidentally, this is also a good time to point out that there is still no equivalent organisation in the States which acts on behalf of US consumers and others to ensure that advertised claims are legal, decent honest and truthful - unless someone knows something I don't know. You may remember that when we asked ASHA to help us reduce doubtful claims, worldwide, their now famous response was 'As I’m sure you know, when the product is not life threatening, advertising in the United States has a history of “buyers beware.”' However, Peter Reitzes drew my attention to a recent statement by Arlene Pietranton, the Executive Director of ASHA, affirming her organisation's commitment to 'a robust code of ethics' (see http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/ASHA_migrated/Pietranton-Dues-Renewal-Ethics-Code-Letter.pdf). This is very good news indeed and I'm sure that many professionals and stutterers in the States will want to support her efforts.Leys Geddeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126280579474478873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-39328168391371225632011-10-12T15:26:59.804+02:002011-10-12T15:26:59.804+02:00@Leys: Legally speaking, she can probably get away...@Leys: Legally speaking, she can probably get away with it, as you argue.<br /><br />But I am talking about the effect the sentence "Stop Stuttering with Dr Carey" has on parents and people who stutter. Namely that their mind reads "Dr Carey can make you stop stuttering".Tom Weidighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-62988016185221991732011-10-12T12:17:00.020+02:002011-10-12T12:17:00.020+02:00It is misleading, but does she actually claim that...It is misleading, but does she actually claim that she can, or will, stop you (or your child or whoever) stuttering? By calling the site 'Stop Stuttering'she will probably argue that she is merely reflecting a widespread hope, not promising a universal cure. There is a dentist near me who has a large sign outside his practice reading 'Teeth For Life'.Leys Geddeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04126280579474478873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-878459531184343972011-10-12T10:59:36.504+02:002011-10-12T10:59:36.504+02:00sadly enough she is one of many who falsely claims...sadly enough she is one of many who falsely claims to stop stuttering...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-82817316488558241092011-10-12T07:43:13.764+02:002011-10-12T07:43:13.764+02:00that is not true, because
you ignore the larger s...that is not true, because<br /><br />you ignore the larger statistical error due to small sample size<br /><br />you ignore the significant percent of drop-outs that could not be contacted any more<br /><br />you ignore other biases of the study<br /><br />you ignore measurement adaptation<br /><br /><br />So TELL ME. WHY DO THEY NEVER MENTION THIS STUDY. READ THE STUDY!!! I DID.Tom Weidighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084153394215001999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12602489.post-65216226856933791222011-10-12T00:46:57.156+02:002011-10-12T00:46:57.156+02:0084% of kids without relapse is not a "negativ...84% of kids without relapse is not a "negative" follow-up study, it is a very good outcome, and thus Lidcombe is correctly summarized as the treatment option with the most and best outcome data.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com