—It was kind of Dr McCarl to read my efforts with such meticulous scrutiny. I will endeavor to respond to his well-thought-out criticisms.
The first comment that McCarl makes is that the article was "obviously biased." Indeed, I have many shortcomings, and, although I have never previously been accused of bias in favor of a result that turned out to be pro-FDA, this certainly should be considered thoughtfully. On rereading my original manuscript, I see that I have used such descriptive terms as "fiasco" and "debacle" to describe FDA machinations in other areas. I realize now that perhaps I have been overly subtle and veiled, and I shall strive to be more lucid in the future. It may be that Dr McCarl is able to speak from a less-biased vantage point than I. If so, I will humbly submit to his casting the first stone.
I wholeheartedly agree that oral
Catalano P. In Support of Hexachlorophene-Reply. Arch Dermatol. 1976;112(7):1032–1033. doi:10.1001/archderm.1976.01630310078024
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: