deletions | additions       diff --git a/textbf_The_fundamental_errors_The__.tex b/textbf_The_fundamental_errors_The__.tex  index 462b9e2..018903f 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 from either of  the two ideas can be treated as one. directly applied to the other.  This assumption is not stated overtly but it permeates almost all of their discussion. In fact, iFR makes no use of the reservoir-wave concept and we are unaware of any publications before WSW that imply that it does. We did look into the idea of applying the reservoir pressureusing measured pressure and flow velocity  to our coronary measurements and very quickly decided that it added nothing to the wave intensity analysis. analysis based on the measured pressure and flow.  It is our belief that the reservoir pressure hypothesis is very likely to be inappropriate in the coronary arteries because of their limited compliance and their proximity to terminal reflection 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 study and while we have some reservations about their interpretation in relation to current theories about the reservoir, reservoir pressure,  one cannot contest their epidemiological predictive power. Conversely, iFR played no role in the 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. 
...