I fail to see how a post that can counteract someone's stuttering be in any way harmful or "wrong". Also, in the school of logic, you do not need to give justification for assumptions. You can assume that unicorns exist and you wouldn't need to justify it. The only part that requires justification is the conclusion. I didn't give a detailed justification as to how I concluded that this cures version x of stuttering I presented, but I gave a short outline. Also, someone does not need any form of speech therapy qualifications, as that is a credentials fallacy. A carpenter or a rocket scientist can both make arguments related to speech without having academic and / or field experience in speech pathology. Instead of saying that my post is harmful, you should instead address the post directly, instead of mentioning the original poster (by commenting on what you think is false). The implication is when event x takes place (the solution), problem A no longer occurs (stuttering). I never claimed event x has to do with every single person who has a speech impediment. I claimed event x has to do with the set of all people who are unable to formulate words / sentences correctly when they know they don't have any brain defects (it's pretty intuitive).