Post #2385575

2026-05-09 01:04 UTC

> The most rigorous evidence comes from a 2018 whole-population study tracking nearly half a million children born in Western Australia between 1980 and 2001. Of those, 1,870 developed schizophrenia, but not one of the 66 children with cortical blindness did. 1,870 / 500,000 = 0.374% of people in the general population 0.374% * 66 = 0.25 Not particularly rigorous.

Replies (2)

@BlueEther@no.lastname.nz 2026-05-09 01:20

>This is because, as a simple calculation demonstrates, a case of congenital blindness and schizophrenia would be extremely rare even if there was no protective effect of blindness: if schizophrenia occurs at a rate of 0.72% in the population (McGrath et al., 2008) and congenital blindness occurs at an estimated rate of 0.03% in people born in the 1970s and 1980s (based on Robinson et al., 1987), then the joint probability of a person having both conditions, if the two are independent, would be 0.0002% or 2 out of every 1 million people. Although this is a low prevalence rate, it is equal to or higher than the rates for several other well-known conditions (e.g., Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, hereditary spastic paraplegia, Hermansky-Pudlak Syndrome). Based on this estimated prevalence rate, in the United States alone (with a population of 311, 591, 917, as of July 2011, according the US census), there should be approximately 620 congenitally blind people with schizophrenia. When cases of blindness with an onset in the first year of life (i.e., early blindness) are taken into account, the percentage would be larger. Therefore, it is remarkable that in over 60 years, and with several investigations [including several before DSM-III (1980) when criteria for schizophrenia were broader than at present], not a single case of a C/E blind schizophrenia patient has been reported. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00157/full

Open ##2385596
@givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2026-05-09 04:48

> Not particularly rigorous. Nah, because of the numbers, only 1k people is enough of a sample size for every human. It's exponital increase, not a flat increase... 1,000 isn't even close to the minimum, it's just a nice round number and it's not difficult to reach. It's easily provable by finding any "sample size calculator" and **trying** to get it to tell you to go over that mark. The standard 5% confidence interval is really what's at play. But sample size is day 1 stuff, trying to explain it isn't going to work just play with the calculators and see it's impossible.

Open ##2385597