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