Title: Patterns of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use among Individuals with Reported Positive Exceptional Experiences in Relation to Cancer

Conclusion: The conclusion should report what is learned from this study. The issue about patient safety was not investigated; it is speculation about a possible implication. This statement does not belong in the conclusion section. We agree with this criticism and have deleted this sentence from the abstract. The phrases ‘specific CAM’, ‘different CAM’, ‘three CAM’, ‘seven CAM’ should probably be ‘specific CAM therapy’ , ‘different CAM therapies’, ‘three CAM therapies’, ‘seven CAM therapies’ We thank the reviewer for noticing these unfortunate formulations. Revisions have been made accordingly. First paragraph of findings has 26 of the participants with breast or gynecologic tumors, and Table 2 has 17 + 7 = 24. We appreciate this observation, that allowed us to correct the mistake. We have now revised these figures according to original data. Based on the biplot, I would group energy ther, spiritual lit and biobased into one category, manip body and mind body into a second, and treat cent and altmed into a third. In addition, the length of the vectors in the biplot indicate the relative variability of the different categories. Except for including the BioBased therapies with SpiritualLit and EnergyTher, we have come to the same conclusion (p.12/13 of the original manuscript). However, we feel that while BioBased is indeed most closely correlated with the pair SpiritualLit/EnergyTher, it is correlated with ManipBody/MindBody to an only marginally lesser degree. In the revised manuscript, we clarify these relationships on page 13.