[Skip to Navigation]
[Skip to Navigation Landing]
Article
June 1987

Incorrect Priority Claim for the DNA-Damage Hypothesis-Reply

Author Affiliations

Dermatology Branch National Cancer Institute National Institutes of Health Bethesda, Md 20892

Arch Neurol. 1987;44(6):581-583. doi:10.1001/archneur.1987.00520180007006
Abstract

In Reply.  —Within three months of publication of Bradley and Krasin's1 1982 article in the Archives, I sent the Chief Editor, as well as Bradley and Krasin, documentation of their article's incorrect priority claims. I was reluctant, however, to publish it until October 1985, when the Chief Editor offered me the right to comment on any reply from Bradley and Krasin. Their reply does not adequately deal with my assertions, does not correctly report cited publications, and omits critically relevant published data.Bradley and Krasin misstate in their reply what I assert in my letter. My letter asserts that they published as "new" and as their own the hypothesis, which my colleagues and I had previously published, that unrepaired DNA damage could be the cause of human neurodegenerative disease. As clearly detailed in the second paragraph of my letter, defective DNA repair is the essential feature of our DNA-damage hypothesis. Nowhere

×