A Reply to 'More Myths in International Health Planning'

The article offers a response to Roger England's commentary on the mythology of international health planning. He points out that England has chosen to argue against his self-selected myths. On the issue of prioritizing the rural areas, he clarifies that the prioritization argument is only a means of redressing existing unequal and inefficient patterns of resource allocation in the health sectors. On the conceptual models of simple prevention and easy treatment, he asserts that the mythology discussion on such models has not been clear enough.