  The comment criticisms (cond-mat/0501288) are completely out of line with the
context of the commented theory (Phys. Rev. Lett. v.93, 217002 (2004)). The
comment neglected essential parts of the theory, which actually addressed all
relevant experimental observations. I argue that the coexistence of the large
Nernst signal and the insulating-like in-plane resistivity in underdoped
cuprates rules out the vortex scenario, but agrees remarkably well with our
theory.
