To the Editor: Regarding the comments of Dr. Maj, we stipulated in our article that the prevalence of rapid cycling in patients with bipolar patients on the basis of data from case control or other nonrandom subject selection is invalid: "A rapid-cycling course was found in 24.2% of the patients, but this rate was probably inflated by selection of rapid-cycling cases in some studies…that had unusually high proportions of such cases (40.5%–55.8%)" (p. 1435). This rate averaged to a mean of 16.3% (SD=2.82) in unselected samples versus an obviously inflated mean of 46.1% (SD=9.03) in selected groups (F=49.4, df=1, 8, p=0.0001). In addition, in Dr. Maj’s cited study, whereas the prevalence of rapid cycling among all patients with bipolar disorder was 13.6%, in those with data regarding cycling status and sex, it was 33.3% (37 out of 111), as stated (table 1). However, estimating the prevalence of rapid cycling among patients with bipolar disorder, or even absolute, sex-based, rapid-cycling rates (also highly variable and possibly unreliable), was not the purpose of our report.