deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_The_fundamental_errors_The__.tex b/textbf_The_fundamental_errors_The__.tex  index a863eda..462b9e2 100644  --- a/textbf_The_fundamental_errors_The__.tex  +++ b/textbf_The_fundamental_errors_The__.tex 
...
\textbf{The fundamental errors}  The first major error is the assumption that RWC and iFR are directly related and that conclusions drawn fromour work on  the two ideas can be related to each other directly. treated as one.  This assumption is not stated directly overtly  but it permeates almost all of their discussion. In fact, iFR makes no use of the reservoir-wave concept and none we are unaware  of our papers any publications before WSW that  imply that it does. We did look into the idea of applying the reservoir pressure using measured pressure and flow velocity  to our coronary measurements and very quickly decided that it added nothing to the wave intensity analysis based on the measured pressures. analysis.  It is my belief, and that of most of my colleagues, our belief  that the reservoir pressure hypothesis is very likely to fail be inappropriate  in the coronary arteries because of their limited compliance and their  proximity tothe  terminal reflection sites. sites and other sources of backward travelling waves.  We have used reservoir pressure analysis of pressure measured in various distal locations, e.g. the radial artery in the analysis of the CAFE measurements study  and while we have some reservations about their interpretation in relation to current theories about  the validity of those calculations theoretically, reservoir,  one cannot contest their epidemiological predictive power. Conversely, iFR played no role in the develpment development  of the reservoir-wave hypothesis which antedated iFR by more than a decade. After the development of iFR there has never been any attempt to apply that principle to Pr. Examples of this basic error will be discussed at various points in the following discussion which concentrates on first Pr and then iFR.