:::::: Well if we're going to use Kurlan2004, then we have to use Swedo2004  that was published in same issue. I highly recommend against using either and instead recommend we stick with our agreement from 2009 to use the neutral review by Pichichero2008 .  If the views aren't repeated, it could be for all sorts of reasons. 9 years of research is a good amount of time to add new thoughts and reflect on comments.  For example, I'm not seeing any of Hornig's or Yaddanapudi's work yet outside of Leckman's comments.  That's nice work too.