Cooper et al. were asked to respond to this Letter, and did so as follows:

Response to letter of Vahle et al.

several important points that deserve comment. The primary objective of our paper was to report the results of a standard two-year rat carcinogenicity study conducted with recombinant full-length human PTH (1-84) to comply with international regulatory guidelines. Dr. Vahle et al. are correct that our study did not directly compare the carcinogenic potential of PTH (1-84) and PTH (1-34), that i...

Clayton et al. respond.

Lusk et al. respond.

We thank Schimek for his thoughtful letter. We agree that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) encourages bike paths; however, AASHTO’s definition of a bike path is a shared use path for pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other nonmotorized users. AASHTO discourages bicycle-only cycle tracks because, as noted by Schimek, AASHTO discou...

Letter to the Editor Wolf Subspecies: Reply to Weckworth et al. and Fredrickson et al

Colleagues disagree with statements in our discussion (Cronin et al. 2015) regarding subspecies taxonomy of wolves (Canis lupus) in southeast Alaska (Weckworth et al. 2015) and the southwest United States (Fredrickson et al. 2015). Following the presentation of results of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) variation in several populations of wolves in North America, we discussed other genetic...

Becofsky et al. respond to "Misclassifying fitness and depression".

We appreciate Dr. Mukamal’s thoughtful commentary (1) on our paper (2). We are in agreement with Dr. Mukamal on a number of points, but wish to re-affirm and clarify our stance on others. In his commentary, Dr. Mukamal says, “To some degree, this [fit versus fat] debate is poorly suited to epidemiologic inquiry” (1, p. 321). He stresses that it is difficult to ascertain repeated, quality measur...