(part 1) Hi, Thanks for your honest and clear answer, I really appreciate that. First of all, I am in no means want to be aggressive in my comments. However I can imagine that it can be perceived that way, but believe me my purpose and intentions are good: its really a strong passion in the hope to wake people up, especially in the field of science. Therefore I am really glad you took the time to answer me. I know what you mean by the quality of research. However, what is so frustrating for me is that, although the amount of people in the study was small, they did proven to be cured. The doctors described that the uncontrolled movements of the diaphragm were gone after the treatment. But for me, the most striking evidence is the empirical evidence as you mentioned. I really don't know any other method were I can hear people speaking 100% fluently for so long (years) then with this method. And I visited the DF institute a lot of times and I saw and hear with own eyes how many people got rid of their stammer. Especially because I experienced it myself as well. Before I started I was as skeptical as you but now I know that there are so many people outside that god rid of their stammer due this method but you don't hear them anymore. They live their life to the fullest and don't get involved in the world of stuttering anymore because they are ex-stutterers. The German TV looked up people from years ago to see if they would still speak fluently and they made a reportage about it which is on YouTube (see: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpNyCh8WiwY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpNyCh8WiwY) ) I believe that (not 100% though) that at the end they announce new research regarding this treatment and other treatment. Now back to the science again. >That is why we ALWAYS need research syntheses that aggregate effects from over 30-50 studies on the same treatment. Only THEN we can say if something really works and under which circumstances. I agree with you on this. But for DF I believe it does not matter perse because they already prove for themselves and see with their own eyes that the method really help people to 100% get rid of their stuttering problem. And I saw and see this happening to. Some people that follow the course don't get rid of their stammer. But this is most often I believe because they are unmotivated to apply the method every day in their life because again: I can not emphasize this enough, the DF diapgrahm training is not a miracle cure, its a way of speaking with the method in which nobody stammers when they apply the method. When you apply the method people need to breath in a certain way before they speak a sentence. When people do this correctly it is impossible to stammer, everyone, even the most skeptical people in the course agree with this. The thing is, you need to apply the method for at least weeks to months and this is really really hard work because you (temporary) cannot speak spontaneously anymore to people because you need to apply the method. A lot people are not willing to do this and expect a quick fix but that means - I am very convinced of this - is the cause that some people don't make it. If you don't do what they thought you to do they blame it on the method. I have seen a lot of people during the course that as soon they walked out the institute they just let go the method. That's really bothering because then you don't train the diaphragm to move up fluently. The method is unique because it if gives people a tool too be able to speak fluently in every occasion. So the mind learns and let go all of the fears of stuttering. The fair for letters, situations etc will vanish over time because the diaphragm does not respond to the fair anymore. The most striking and unique thing that makes this method (in my opinion) so important is that people can learn how to voluntarily control their diaphragm. They get in fact a weapon that they can pick up when they need to speak and want to be fluent. After al long period of training people can let go the method step by step. E.g. for me I let it go when I was with my family because that went good. After time I also let the method go during work and a few weeks later I let go the method completely and I achieved a personal (sorry for using the C-word again) c.u.r..e. The method is in fact a co-pilot. The co-pilot is present but eventually leaves the cockpit and people can fly around in life without crashing. That's my own metaphor regarding the method. And a funny fact is that their actually is one pilot who I know of, that was not pilot before the course of DF but after he cured himself from stuttering he went to fly-school and is no I a pilot without a stutter. Ok, not back to the research that was conducted long ago. You are right that DF was mentioned in the study but he was not involved in the science investigation in the way he could influence it I believe because he is not a scientist. If he was a doctor and carried out the research that would indeed mean the bakery judging their own bread. But you are a research PhD so you are more into the quality of research then I am but still. The most important thing that I cannot understand is that why the research is not focussing on the the science that at least shows that cure is not impossible perse. This makes me so angry. I totally agree with you that the sample size of the study is small but he: even if it was a case report were only 3 people were proven to be cured, why does this not open the eyes of others? Why not investigate this further? We all want to best for stuttering people don't we? If I was a scientist I would fly to Amsterdam the same week to visit the institute and see how they work. If somebody today would come up with a small size case study in which a certain medicine turned out to reverse dementia in that small study, would the science ignore this? Would the science and people get angry because a scientist dare to achieve this result? Would they consider them if they are somewhat insane? That would never happen with dementia - or an other disease if you will - I believe. instead, people would try to replicate the study, they would be very keen to find out what exactly was the mechanism behind this cure for dementia in this small sample study. Again there is no study like this about dementia of course its just hypothetical. But mr Del Ferro came up with a hypothesis as well in the 80ts. A hypothesis that was picked up by doctors and scientist and let them believe that people cured themselves of their stammers by the control of the diaphragm and that this has to due with using the breathing muscles the same way as you do with singing. That is what the doctors wrote to mr. Del Ferro. Let me give an other example of something that is happening nowadays. Take hiv/aids. For years and years the medical field thought it was impossible to cure this virus. The whole research agenda was for the most part focussed on finding medicine to improve life span etc. But that changed! Because one doctor (like Mr. Macklem, inspired by DF) came up with the idea to replace the immune system of a Berlin patient with hiv, with an immune system of somebody else which was due to his genetics not able to get hiv (people without the CCR5 receptor). After the Berlin patient underwent the immune stem cell transplentation the virus was gone. He was the first patient to be proven cured of the HIV virus. This was **only one person!** But still, this was big news and the whole medical field was changing the research by conducting research regarding the CCR5 receptor and this remarkable cure. Everybody knew that a - once thought impossible cure for hiv - was not impossible anymore. The patient was a groundbreaking case which opened the eyes of the medical field. And it didn't stopped here. See: [https://www.livescience.com/third-person-cured-hiv-stem-cell-transplant-from-cord-blood](https://www.livescience.com/third-person-cured-hiv-stem-cell-transplant-from-cord-blood) (end of part 1)