Recently, we have proposed simple methodology to derive clearance and rate constant equations, independent of differential equations, based on Kirchhoff's Laws, a common methodology from physics used to describe rate-defining processes either in series or parallel. Our approach has been challenged in three recent publications, two published in this journal, but notably what is lacking is that none evaluate experimental pharmacokinetic data. As reviewed here, manuscripts from our laboratory have evaluated published experimental data, demonstrating that the Kirchhoff's Laws approach explains (1) why all of the experimental perfused liver clearance data appear to fit the equation that was previously believed to be the well-stirred model, (2) why linear pharmacokinetic systemic bioavailability determinations can be greater than 1, (3) why renal clearance can be a function of drug input processes, and (4) why statistically different bioavailability measures may be found for urinary excretion versus systemic concentration measurements. Our most recent paper demonstrates (5) how the universally accepted steady-state clearance approach used by the field for the past 50 years leads to unrealistic outcomes concerning the relationship between liver-to-blood and hepatic availability , highlighting the potential for errors in pharmacokinetic evaluations based on differential equations. The Kirchhoff's Laws approach is applicable to all pharmacokinetic analyses of quality experimental data, those that were previously adequately explained with present pharmacokinetic theory, and those that were not The publications that have attempted to rebut our position do not address unexplained experimental data, and we show here why their analyses are not valid. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The Kirchhoff's Laws approach to deriving clearance equations for linear systems in parallel or in series, independent of differential equations, successfully describes published pharmacokinetic data that has previously been unexplained. Three recent publications claim to refute our proposed methodology; these publications only make theoretical arguments, do not evaluate experimental data, and never demonstrate that the Kirchhoff methodology provides incorrect interpretations of experimental pharmacokinetic data, including statistically significant data not explained by present pharmacokinetic theory. We demonstrate why these analyses are invalid.