Rapid responses are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on thebmj.com. Although a selection of rapid responses will be included online and in print as readers' letters, their first appearance online means that they are published articles. If you need the url (web address) of an individual response, perhaps for citation purposes, simply click on the response headline and copy the url from the browser window. Letters are indexed in PubMed.
I was the first to write about the elevated cost of Lifebox pulse oximeters. 
I was the first who provided evidence for the existence of other, FDA approved, CE marked, TUV certified, high quality pulse oximeters which sell for 15 pounds, with free packing and postage to any Country in the World.
I was the first who proposed a change of provider, in order for the BMJ to help even more doctors in Developing Countries, for the same amount of money.
I was the first to report that rechargeable devices (like Lifebox pulse oximeter) are not very practical in a setting where electricity is often generator-produced, for only some hours in a day.
I was the first to answer to various Lifebox trustees who erroneously stated that their efficiency-safety-durability and accuracy tests were superior to those performed by the FDA, CE and TUV, for the other oximeters in the market.
And yet, for the BMJ’s printed edition you selected Dr Anne Savage’s later, but also excellent, letter  and not any of mine.
I wonder why.
 Stavros Saripanidis' Rapid Response, dated 20 December 2011, but mailed 10 days prior: