The information of your offered website is kinda out-of-date,even in the last century psychogenic stutter was legitimated as well as neurologically traumatic(like stroke,brain injury,epilepsia and etc.)stutter. One way to judge if you are a psychogenic PWS or neurological PWS in my humble perspective is to retrospect if you started stuttering in your childhood 'for no reasons seemingly'(you can assure the revelant details through your parents and relatives).If not,then you are likely to be a psychogenic PWS(actually I'd rather call it 'environmental' PWS,not entirely induced by natal different brain structures or similar stuffs). Also in the last century,a Japanese scientific paper reported that imitation is one of causes of stutter although the relevant statistics are likely to be very vague: [https://www.r-gscefs.jp/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/%E3%82%B3%E3%82%A2%E3%83%BB%E3%82%A8%E3%82%B7%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B915%E5%8F%B7\_12\_%E6%A9%8B%E6%9C%AC%EF%BC%88%E8%AB%96%E6%96%87%EF%BC%89.pdf](https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjlp/57/1/57_7/_pdf/-char/ja) Here is the illustration: 外国の専門家の調べたところによりますと、真実に吃を真似て、吃になつた人は約 10％内外といふことにな つてゐます。 ,in English,the general translation:The exotic experts have investigated that PWS whose stutters are induced by imitation are sharing approxiately 10% portion of the whole sample . But to my disappointment,the original paper didn't point out the source of this investigation,otherwise that'll help us a lot. But ecopipam is on clinic trial recruiting volunteers from July in last year to the end of this year and the clinic trial is applying the placebo group,large sample size,double blind and etc. into itself,which can warrant a high credibility and efficacy:(although ecopipam was proven having positive impacts,especially on mild PWS,the last clinic trial was conducted under the sample of only 5 volunteers...) [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04492956](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04492956) Also bear in mind so-called 'associational websites' or similar things are bs not more than just unrealistic encouragements,crude and old conclusions,and crowdfunds(but indeed I hope the crowdfunds are really supportive of increasing human society's emphasis..). The most relible resources IMO are NCBI and similar scholastic searching websites and even articles contained in them are not relible enough cuz some of them were finished under a very small sample size and they were very crude.