[ Contents | Search | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Grant Meredith
Date: 04 Oct 2012
Time: 18:42:11 -0500
Remote Name: 219.129.250.215
Thanks for your feedback and thoughts Ed. I tend to see that professional associations usually do not have the global reach, financial means or staffing to combat these sites alone. If the sites were hosted in a particular country that the association was located within then perhaps under their country's laws and policies there may be a fight. I do not think that the evidence of long term proof would be an issue because some techniques do have long term studies attributed to them for which these scam sites do not. I think if push came to shove and by some mirace Scammer "A" was in court with SLP association "B" (based upon evidence-based practice and peer reviewed literaturs), then SLP association "B" would win hands down. I also agree that 3rd parties are always a great evaluation move though. Hard to find perhaps truely independent ones thoug without biase. Would have to be perhaps outside of the speech area altogether. One test as you mentioned is long term transference and this really at times is not a technique issue but the attitude and perserverance of the client PWS. Often scam sites who attack me in private say "Our pre-course videos and post (3 days later) videos are proof that it works". I reply that I see the same results with almost every technique I have ever had contact with pre & post. Hell I reckon I can get a PWS very fluent myself at home with me (I stutter with little control) and still post the same video. That is not proof at all. Also who is to say that these people on the videos indeed stutter? I have seem some very shonky looking pre-videos and then incredibly fluent post ones (no secondary beaviours even)