`  :::I've given this some more thought and I wanted to point out that the section under ``Prognosis`` that talks about the ``World Health Organization`` taking couple of ``long-term`` studies.  In that case, the information suggested that there is some link to developed nations and schizophrenia.  Yet, nothing more is said about the link or whether it was proven or disproven.  Yet we consider the source to be reliable.  Most likely that same standard would eliminate large chunks of this article.  There is no precedent for not including data simply because we don't personally think it is legitimate.  Information that is early or speculative but authoritative should be included, but with a proper explanation.  If it turns out the viral link was wrong, well then it is an interesting historical fact.  If it turns out that the link is something, well we don't want to miss out on that either.  The same could be said about the studies I mentioned at the start of this post.  For all we know it is just errors in methodology, but maybe not.    :::Given I just read your post as I was typing the above, I will say this:  Why is the World Health Organization study still included then?  `