Apparently Reddit's formatting gets messed up when I copy and paste something I typed from Word. But yeah my point is the functionality behind computer hardware isn't able to get altered by anything that happens in the browser, the same way how consciousness itself, being a product OF the brain, isn't able to change any form of biological processes that take place in the brain. The brain ---> Consciousness The brain looks in front of consciousness, can alter consciousness. Consciousness can't look behind itself, can't alter the brain. My definition of fluency is being able to talk without speech blocks / stuttering, so it matches yours. However, a good measure of this is to purposely increase the rate at which someone talks. If someone claims they don't have any speech blocks yet when they try to talk faster they run into trouble, then are they really fluent? Obviously I'm not talking about a 200% speech speed increase, I'm rather referring to a 120% speech speed increase. I personally spoke fast in the video just to show that what I'm doing does work, even though there was also some indirect humor with it (just because I think it sounds funny when someone talks fast). Also, I already said that there are a lot of different causes to stuttering, which means there are lot of different types of stuttering. When I use the word "cure", I'm referring to a select set of people that have similar histories such as having no genetic brain defects or environmental brain impairments (Stuttering can't possibly be a brain impairment for these people if their fluency is inconsistent - some days someone can speak well, other days no. Sometimes it's more consistent, but if it improves, this shows brain impairments causing is completely out of the picture for again, the specific set of people I'm referring to. I do not need to present research papers to back up my claims because research papers are the same - people who come together, use information they learned from the environment to try to get to some kind of a conclusion from one or more premises. I'm doing literally the same thing. There are researchers out there who don't even get their work published for various different reasons. Not having a publication doesn't mean that person's research is faulty in any way. The only times people ask to present a source is because they automatically assume what the person is saying is false, so they want to try to counter that person by asking for a source. it would be better if you assumed what i was saying wasn't nonsense, instead of saying "There's people out here that need help" when I'm giving a potential solution to their very problem. This is a massive contradiction on your part, based on appeal to emotion, because you never specified any potential flaws regarding my methodology.