Reply to "Comments on \´Statistics of the Degree of Polarization\´"

For comment paper see L. Tao, ibid., p.3085-3086, (2008). For original paper see V. Santalla del Rio et. al., ibid., vol.54, no.7, p.2173-2175, (2006). The author claims that the sample estimator of the degree of polarization is not its maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) based on several wrong statements. First the author argues: "since the different Stokes parameters are not independent and the degree of polarization and Stokes parameters have no relation of one to one, the sample estimator is no longer a MLE". Finally, the author concludes that the estimator he obtained is the MLE because its bias is lower than the bias of the sample estimator. It is false that the MLE is the minimum bias estimator.