Ive 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 longterm 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 dont 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 dont 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