Abstract
We agree with both Goedbloed and Lifschitz (whom we will refer to as GL) and Ruderman, Goossens and Zhelyazkov (RGZ) that the apparent violation of quasi‐neutrality in Ref. is not a true problem and rescind this particular argument against MHD. However, the rest of the discussion in our paper is independent of this argument regarding quasi‐neutrality, and as discussed below, the conclusions in Ref. about the validity of MHD, about compressibility versus incompressibility, and about Alfvén resonance remain valid.