Quite the opposite -- there is some evidence that disfluencies are good. Here is a study hinting that disfluencies improve recall:<p>Study: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencedirect.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;article&#x2F;pii&#x2F;S0749596X11000234" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencedirect.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;article&#x2F;pii&#x2F;S0749596X11...</a><p>&gt; these results suggest an attentional orienting account in which fillers direct attention to the speech stream but do not always result in specific predictions about upcoming material.<p>Article with commentary: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;nautil.us&#x2F;blog&#x2F;your-speech-is-packed-with-misunderstood-unconscious-messages" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;nautil.us&#x2F;blog&#x2F;your-speech-is-packed-with-misundersto...</a><p>&gt; They found that hearers remembered plot points better after listening to the disfluent versions, with enhanced memory apparent even for plot points that weren’t preceded by a disfluency. Stripping a speech of ums and uhs, as Toastmasters are intent on doing, appears to be doing listeners no favors.<p>On the other hand, if you want to give a powerful, short speech you may care less about people remembering specific content details and more about people remembering that you gave a good speech. In that case you may want to spend some time removing the disfluencies in your speech.