We thought that our editorial was carefully worded to clarify that it should not be read as a criticism of the innovative work done by this group of respected researchers. We clearly stated that their research exemplified what we viewed as being appropriate, in that it was a hypothesis-driven protocol, which stated a clear scientific purpose, had been approved by an institutional review board, had given an honest and open presentation to the patients’ families, and had defined the goal of research. Such studies, as pointed out in their letter, generate new knowledge and open new horizons. We, therefore, do not think that these studies are inherently inappropriate, as previously discussed in the literature alluded to by Dr. Regamy and colleagues.3–4 We wrote the following: “The comments that follow express our thoughts on the state of EBB in pediatric bronchoscopy, in both research and clinical practice, as it emerges from this study in the wider context of recent literature and not limited to CF [cystic fibrosis].” The message to the wider pediatric bronchoscopy community should be that their work is not be interpreted as legitimizing or giving license to EBB. Generalization of the use of EBB should be advocated when its diagnostic and therapeutic edge over existing practices will have been defined within a carefully regulated research environment.