Reply to "Spin-statistics connection for dyonium"

It is indicated that, despite the existence of unit vector $\hat{n}$, our previous conclusion that the dyonium model of Barut is invalidated remains unaltered, contrary to the claims of the preceding paper. Also, we point out that the assertions contained in the preceding paper forbid the existence of triplet states of two protons and allow only a singlet state, contradicting experimental facts. Other related aspects are discussed.