D.V. Cicchetti, A.S. Kaufman, and S.S. Sparrow (this issue) examine various technical issues related to six studies of perinatal PCB exposure and neurodevelopment and one study of adult PCB exposure and motor function. They raise questions about possible imperfections of the studies, but many of their assertions are unsupported or frankly incorrect, and they do little to assess the potential impact of the issues that they raise; we find none of their arguments about flaws in our study compelling. Their stated purpose is to scientifically evaluate the body of literature, but their narrow focus does not allow a genuine evaluation of the scientific evidence.