The title “Do they have a vested interest?” implies a conclusion of conflict or bias; the manuscript should use more neutral wording unless systematic evidence demonstrates that the guideline recommendations were actually influenced by financial interests. The authors should clearly distinguish declared industry relationships from demonstrated industry influence on recommendations. A financial conflict of interest does not, by itself, establish that a guideline is biased. Statements such as “these guidelines will always promote the hernia industry”, “guidelines are meaningless and industry-friendly,” and “industry funding may likely lead to less transparent clinical results” are overly categorical and should be supported by direct evidence or appropriately qualified. The manuscript should provide a systematic assessment of the HerniaSurge panel's individual conflicts of interest, including the type, magnitude, timing, and relevance of each relationship, rather than making broad statements about “most panel members.” The claim that industry funding was accepted for the guideline process should be documented with precise evidence, including the source and amount/type of funding, and clarification of whether industry had any role in evidence synthesis or recommendation formulation. The article should more carefully distinguish guideline recommendations from the authors' interpretation of those recommendations. In particular, claims that the guidelines “promote” mesh or minimally invasive surgery require direct comparison with the actual guideline recommendations. The discussion of mesh versus non-mesh repair is potentially unbalanced. The authors should acknowledge evidence supporting mesh repair, including recurrence reduction, while separately discussing chronic pain, mesh-related complications, and patient preferences. The statement that “clear-cut, hard-core level 1 evidence for the best groin hernia technique is still elusive” should be clarified because evidence may support different techniques for different patient groups; absence of a single universally superior technique is not equivalent to absence of high-quality evidence. The table comparing open, laparoscopic, and robotic repair is useful but oversimplified. Important outcomes such as recurrence, chronic pain, quality of life, complications, learning curve, and long-term follow-up should be supported by references. The assertion that robotic repair has “no proven superiority in major clinical outcomes” should be referenced to contemporary comparative evidence and should distinguish lack of demonstrated superiority from evidence demonstrating equivalence. The discussion of cost should incorporate healthcare-system differences and ideally include formal health-economic evidence rather than general statements about operative costs. The manuscript would benefit from explicitly acknowledging limitations of its own methodology. It appears to be a narrative/opinion-based critique rather than a systematic review, yet some conclusions are presented as established facts. Several quotations from Bendavid and other sources are rhetorically strong and may give the article an advocacy/opinion-piece character. The authors should ensure that these quotations are balanced by contemporary, objective evidence. The authors should discuss the 2023 HerniaSurge update in greater detail, including how its methodology addressed conflicts of interest, evidence grading, patient preferences, and multidisciplinary participation. Rather than concluding that current guidelines are “meaningless,” the authors could make a more scientifically defensible argument that guidelines should be continuously evaluated for transparency, independence, methodological rigor, and applicability to different patient populations. Overall critique The manuscript has a relevant and worthwhile subject, but its credibility would improve substantially with a more systematic and balanced evaluation of the HerniaSurge guidelines. The authors should replace allegations and categorical language with documented evidence, quantified conflict-of-interest analysis, transparent methodology, and appropriately cautious conclusions. The central argument—that guideline development should maximize independence, transparency, patient involvement, and rigorous evidence appraisal—is reasonable, but it should be separated clearly from claims that existing HerniaSurge recommendations are actually the product of industry influenc