deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_C18_We_agree_with__.tex b/textbf_C18_We_agree_with__.tex  index e6afe52..69b1779 100644  --- a/textbf_C18_We_agree_with__.tex  +++ b/textbf_C18_We_agree_with__.tex 
...
\textbf{[C20].} Reiterating again: the reservoir pressure is assumed to be a summation waveform with wave properties. It is approximately equal to twice the backward pressure during diastole but is very different from the backward pressure during systole.  \textbf{[C21].} The repetition of a fallacy does not make it true. iFR is a ratio of pressures, not a ratio of pressure and flow, and it does not give nonsensical results. Our preliminary clinical studies have shown that it is at least as effective as FFR as in indication for stenting coronary stenoses and there can be no question about that it is easier to measure iFR than FFR, simply because it avoids the need for administration of Adenosine. Neither the reservoir pressure nor the iFR, as originally defined, are physically incorrect. If anything needs to be abandoned, it is the factually incorrect representation of reservoir pressure and iFR presented  in this paper.