We commend Drs Mohr and Doerschug1 on their well-constructed argument in favor of antipyretic therapy for patients with septic shock. However, based on current evidence, we adamantly maintain that fever should not routinely be treated in all patients with septic shock. Although both our groups seem to agree that pharmacologic antipyretic therapy is unlikely to benefit these patients, we differ in our interpretation of the clinical evidence regarding external cooling. Only one large clinical trial specifically designed to investigate the benefit of external cooling in patients with septic shock exists. Schortgen et al2 randomized 200 febrile patients with severe septic shock to 48 h of external cooling or to no fever control. The number of patients with at least a 50% vasopressor dose reduction at 12 h was greater in the group that received external cooling. Although there was a nonsignificant trend toward decreased ICU mortality in the external cooling group, there was no difference in mortality at hospital discharge. Based on these results, Drs Mohr and Doerschug conclude that “febrile patients with septic shock should be cooled using external cooling to normothermia to optimize clinical outcome.”1 We respectfully disagree.