Drs. Curlee and Yairi’s (1997)  recent paper provided some interesting and provocative comments regarding treatment for children who have been stuttering for less than approximately 2 years. Their paper raised several issues that were important, complex, and fully deserving of critical assessment. It was accompanied by two “Second Opinion” commentaries (Bernstein Ratner, 1997; Zebrowski, 1997), each of which addressed some additional pieces of this complex area, and each of which essentially agreed with Curlee and Yairi on two general points: that some children who stutter may not need clinical services, and that we have reason to be dissatisfied with the available evidence about treatment effectiveness for children who stutter. We do not entirely disagree, but the purpose of this response is to present an opinion about Curlee and Yairi’s paper that challenges their premises and their conclusions in several areas. These areas include the incidence and prevalence of stuttering, and whether those data provide evidence of high recovery rates; several issues related to determining whether treatments are effective and whether they should be recommended; and several issues related to the experimental evaluation of treatment effectiveness.