Authors’ response to comments from Nachman KE et al.

Authors’ response to comments from Nachman KE et al.

Authors' response to comments letter to the editor from Nachman KE et al.

Authors' Response to Zimmer et al

Khush Mittal I read the paper by Chi et al. with interest. The authors found a greater hypoxia response gene expression in carcinomas than stromal cells grown in vitro, but were not sure of the underlying explanation (see Discussion in [1]). The underlying explanation may be the difference in mitotic activity and hence metabolic activity between these two cell types, such that hypoxia may be pr...

Response to Comments on Brandão et al. (2005)

Arsenic Levels in Chicken: Nachman et al. Respond

The correspondence section is a public forum and, as such, is not peer-reviewed. EHP is not responsible for the accuracy, currency, or reliability of personal opinion expressed herein; it is the sole responsibility of the authors. EHP neither endorses nor disputes their published commentary. I commend Nachman et al. (2013) on their careful study of arsenic content in market samples of chicken a...

Authors' reply to letters from Egilman et al and Oliver et al

Dr Egilman and colleagues claim our report 1 implies that chrysotile does not cause mesothelioma. So did the International Chrysotile Association, the website of which highlighted our paper with the misleading headline 'reliable scientific data confirms negligible role of chryso-tile in UK patients with asbestos-related lung disease'. 2 Our results are consistent with the strong evidence that c...