  Kedem's Comment [arXiv:1402.1352] on our Letter [PRL 112, 040406 (2014)]
contains only the criticism that we did not consider complex weak values. We
point out follow-up work which uses the same analysis as in our Letter,
includes any type of weak values and draws the same conclusion. Vaidman's
Comment [arXiv:1402.0199] on our Letter can be deconstructed in to two distinct
logical fallacies.
