  After our publication of the observed first indication for neutrinoless
double beta decay in [KK-Evid01], a number of papers have been published
[KK-Sar_Evid01,KK2-Sar_Evid01,KK3-Sar_Evid01,Ma02-Ev,Barg02-Ev,Ueh02-Ev,Mi
n-Evid02,Chat-Evid02,Xing-Evid02,Ham-Evid02,Ahl-Kirch-Evid02,Ma-Evid2-02,Hab-Su
z02,Mohap02-Evid,Kays02-Evid,Fodor02-Evid,Pakv02-Evid,Rodej02-Evid,Kowal02,Niel
s02,He02-Evid,Josh02-Evid,Bran02-Evid,Cheng02-Evid,Smirn02-Evid,Wiss-Evid02]
discussing its implications. In addition a 'Comment' has been put to the
Internet February 7, 2002, [Comm-Evid02] ({\it version 1}) critisizing our
publication [KK-Evid01]. (Meanwhile six of the nine claims in the 'Comment'
have been withdrawn [Comm-Evid02] ({\it version 3}).) It is the purpose of this
note to show that none of their claims is justified (the same is true, from the
same arguments, for the criticism raised recently in [Harn-Id02]). We shall
show this by answering this 'Comment' point by point.
