There's also Neuroskeptic's hilarious argument: > As for the “excessive synaptic pruning” model, it’s very far from new: it was proposed in 1983 and has since

There's also Neuroskeptic's hilarious argument: > As for the “excessive synaptic pruning” model, it’s very far from new: it was proposed in 1983 and has since been discussed in 3580 papers. So it’s simply untrue to imply that Sekar et al. are the first to shine light into a biological “black box” Yeah, people have been running their mouths for a century proposing hundreds of radically different schizophrenia theories. It's different to propose yet another one, and to show that one out of the hundreds is genuinely part of schizophrenia! Contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism.