A published paper about it which sounds sort of anecdotally pretty convincing, although I will admit that it’s one of the weirdest papers I have ever seen in an apparently-peer-reviewed journal.
A paper specifically examining the question of, is this a real thing or just a statistical artifact to be expected based on the individual rarity of the two conditions. The results are inconclusive either way unfortunately.
I won’t say that that somewhat-less-than-airtight collection of links somehow proves that it’s real, but it’s also not just something that this weird random web site came up with.
Child-onset schizophrenics lose 10% of their brains ( this has been known since the 1920’s, so doctors rejecting that it is brain-injury, & remaining adamant that it is “illness of mind” of the child, has been gaslighting the subjects/patients for an entire century, and I’d found a PubMed paper which admitted that it had been known since the 1920’s, so it isn’t just Google Scholar that said such is the case ).
A researcher named Thompson, iirc, did mapping of the brain-loss process, showing where the cortex loses 20%, where it loses 15%, etc, down to 5%, vs where no tissue-loss appeared.
He said it took 5y for the wave of brain-loss to go through, & it looked like a slow-motion “forest fire”.
It may simply be that people born-blind have more spare-brain to repurpose, so they don’t get the mental-illness symptom from the brain-loss wave.
Whereas kids with all their brain being at-its-limit, and then being brain-decimated, they are psychically-butchered.
Notice that recently somebody published that living with cats doubles the child-onset schizophrenia-rate, so toxoplasmosis is implicated in the brain-injury/brain-loss, too.
That newsletter hardly seems like a qualified medical journal. The quoted study doesn’t go beyond central Australia and makes no correlation claims.
A published paper about it which sounds sort of anecdotally pretty convincing, although I will admit that it’s one of the weirdest papers I have ever seen in an apparently-peer-reviewed journal.
Some pop science articles about it from Vice and Psychology Today.
A paper specifically examining the question of, is this a real thing or just a statistical artifact to be expected based on the individual rarity of the two conditions. The results are inconclusive either way unfortunately.
I won’t say that that somewhat-less-than-airtight collection of links somehow proves that it’s real, but it’s also not just something that this weird random web site came up with.
My first instinct is answer B.
Child-onset schizophrenics lose 10% of their brains ( this has been known since the 1920’s, so doctors rejecting that it is brain-injury, & remaining adamant that it is “illness of mind” of the child, has been gaslighting the subjects/patients for an entire century, and I’d found a PubMed paper which admitted that it had been known since the 1920’s, so it isn’t just Google Scholar that said such is the case ).
A researcher named Thompson, iirc, did mapping of the brain-loss process, showing where the cortex loses 20%, where it loses 15%, etc, down to 5%, vs where no tissue-loss appeared.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.201243998
He said it took 5y for the wave of brain-loss to go through, & it looked like a slow-motion “forest fire”.
It may simply be that people born-blind have more spare-brain to repurpose, so they don’t get the mental-illness symptom from the brain-loss wave.
Whereas kids with all their brain being at-its-limit, and then being brain-decimated, they are psychically-butchered.
Notice that recently somebody published that living with cats doubles the child-onset schizophrenia-rate, so toxoplasmosis is implicated in the brain-injury/brain-loss, too.
Interesting angle…
Thank you for posting this, eh?
_ /\ _