Response to the Letter to the Editor

This paper has attracted interest around the world from the media (both TV and newspapers). In addition, we have received letters, emails and telephone calls. One of our favorites was a voicemail message asking us to return a call to Australia at which point we would learn who really killed JFK. We welcome the opportunity to respond to the letter to the editor from Mr. Fiorentino. Mr. Fiorentino claims that our ``statement relating to the likelihood of a second assassin based on the premise of three or more separate bullets is demonstrably false.'' In response we would like to simply quote from page 327 of Gerald Posner's book Case Closed, one of the most well known works supporting the single assassin theory: ``If Connally was hit by another bullet, it had to be fired from a second shooter, since the Warren Commission's own reconstructions showed that Oswald could not have operated the bolt and refired in 1.4 seconds.'' Mr. Fiorentino also claims that the ``second fatal flaw is the use of a rather uncomplicated formula based on Bayes Theorem.'' Let $E$ denote the evidence and $T$ denote the theory that there were just two bullets (and hence a single shooter). We used Bayes Theorem to hypothetically calculate $P(T|E)$ from $P(E|T)$ and the prior probability $P(T)$. In order to make $P(T|E)$ ten times more likely than $P(\bar{T}|E)$, the ratio of the prior probabilities [i.e., $P(T) / P(\bar{T})$] would have to be greater than 15. Thus, we again conclude that this casts serious doubt on Dr. Guinn's conclusion that the evidence supported just two bullets. Sadly, this is far from the first time that probability has been misunderstood and/or misapplied in a case of public interest. A notable British example is the Clark case. See Nobles and Schiff (2005) for details. Finally, we welcome and, in fact, encourage members of the scientific community to provide alternative analyses of the data.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/07-AOAS154 the Annals of Applied Statistics (http://www.imstat.org/aoas/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Response to letter to the editor by Jan Kühnisch

n/

Response to Letter to the Editor

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/89557/1/j.1399-0012.2011.01437.x.pd

Response to Letter to the Editor

This is a letter responding to a a reply to a literature review about tardive dyskinesia-like syndromes due to drugs that do not block dopamine receptors. The authors are skeptical that many primary dystonias are being misdiagnosed, but certainly think it possible, and agree that dystonia must be considered in the differential diagnosis

Author Response to Letter to the Editor

This is an author response to the letter by doctors Nicholas Doher and Harsh V Gupta. Despite the narrow indication for the dopamine transporter (DAT) scan to distinguish essential tremor from Parkinsonian syndromes, as approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), DAT imaging is utilised for various other clinical symptoms in patients with parkinsonism. DAT scan is the only non-invasive modality developed to assess functional integrity of the dopaminergic system currently used in clinical practice, and could give valuable clinical information for selected patients. The authors believe that the approved indication of the DAT scan will be broadened to meet its versatile diagnostic potential