<blockquote>
pachyderm: My impression is that there is some useful information there, but also that there is so much "information" that one can easily get swamped. How much of it is information and how much "noise"?

I suspect that in 100 years the headlines will still be the same -- someone will have discovered a new gene or a new chromosome or a new way of interpreting some old study, all of which promises a breakthrough treatment... viritually any day.

This is why I've focused on those who are producing recovery. I don't care how many studies you've done -- what's your recovery rate? I don't care how fancy your hypothesis -- what's your recovery rate? I don't care if you spent 24 years immersed in twin studies -- what's your recovery rate? Without recovery, it's all noise.

Meantime, when E. Fuller Torrey can produce a recovery rate in the range of 85% -- and by that, I do mean full recovery -- I will personally kiss his ***.