  We reply to the critiques of our paper arXiv:1210.5501 by the DAMA
collaboration which appeared in arXiv:1210.6199 and arXiv:1211.6346. Our
original claim that the observed background levels are likely to require a
large modulation fraction of any putative signal holds. In fact, in light of
DAMA's recent comment our claim is further corroborated. We identify the source
of the discrepancy between our own analysis and DAMA's claimed levels of
unmodulated background. Our analysis indicates that the background in the
signal region as reported by DAMA is indeed likely underestimated.
