Letter--The Authors Respond

The authors respond to Egilman.

Dr. Egilman highlights the need for testing of chemicals prior to their use by workers and consumption by the public [Egilman, 2014]. We agree that the demonstrated toxicity of diacetyl illustrates the need for testing and great vigilance regarding diacetyl substitutes, other flavoring chemicals, and chemicals involved in flavor manufacture, and that such an approach would better ensure the saf...

Letter to the Editor: Authors' Response.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the concerns of Dr Reneman and colleagues about our paper, Kersnovske et al. [13]. Dr Reneman and colleagues have raised two issues that we address below. Their first concern relates to the use of experts for the purpose of validation. We assume the authors are not concerned with the use of experts as a method of content validation, per se, as this is...

Letter to the editor: Authors' reply

To the Editor: We welcome the interest and enthusiasm of Halber et aL (1997) in the nonparametric randomization test that we described (Holmes et aL, 1996) not least because they called their program 'Sherlock', However, as the great detective would surely have pointed out, there are a num­ ber of flaws in the article that led the authors to an incorrect primary conclusion, that our test "is a ...

Authors' response to letter to the editor.

We thank Drs. Mandal and Goel for their interest in our work, but we disagree with their interpretation of the literature compared with our findings. While Waldert and associates did indeed find a correlation between a longer delay to nephroureterectomy (NUx) and more advanced stage, they did not report metastasis-free survival. Moreover, they found no difference in cancer-specific survival. Th...

Debating The Supply Of Physicans : The Authors Respond