Response to “A paradigm shift in eye banking: how new models are challenging the status quo by Moshirfar et al&rdquo

Majid Moshirfar1–31HDR Research Center, Hoopes Vision, Draper, UT, USA; 2Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, John A. Moran Eye Center, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT, USA; 3Utah Lions Eye Bank, John Moran Eye Center, Murray, UT, USAI thank Dr. Mannis for his reply to our perspective editorial concerning the Paradigm Shift in Eye Banking. As mentioned in our abstract the goal of this article is to create a platform to promote further discussions. There are indeed 14, not 11, paragraphs in this article and CorneaGen has been mentioned, not necessarily supported, in 11, not 6, of the paragraphs. This correction may seem petty, but the number of paragraphs is no way a reflection of a bias. I must start by stating that none of the authors in this manuscript has any financial interest in SightLife or CorneaGen, and we have never obtained cornea tissue from CorneaGen. I am the co-director of a local community Eye Bank and I do take my role quite seriously concerning this noble and important cause for our community. In another words, Dr. Mannis, I am on the same side with you concerning this dilemma. You are accusing us of being biased in our editorial but fail to actually specify our biased comments. What comment was erroneous and biased in your opinion? As mentioned, we simply wanted to create a platform for both sides for further dialogue without adopting a reprimanding tone or trying to state if one side is more righteous than the other. View the original paper by Moshirfar and colleagues This is in response to the Letter to the Editor