{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01805869074492099, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.72258064516129, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Estimating Peer Effects in Health Outcomes: Replies and Corrections to Fowler and Christakis

In this note, we address several issues in the Fowler and Christakis (FC) comment on our JHE paper (CCF). This type of situation is conducive to vigorous academic debate - and we appreciate a number of the points that FC raise about our study. Several points are potentially valid and could benefit from in-depth discussion. However, a second aspect the FC paper is the inclusion of slights that speak both to our professional conduct and competence and move beyond professional debate. We address both the issues raised about our results and further clarify additional aspects of the FC comment. We further note that regardless of the points of dispute between CCF and FC, the FC results should not be thought of as causal because FC provides no empirical solution to the reflection problem.