> but the pattern holds across more than 70 years of evidence

No, those are also stupidly small samples. Look at the papers I listed.

> That 2014 study you linked is noting that it does happen with other kinds of blindness

Yes, from 1950 till 2014, as more and more kinds of blindness were found with schizophrenia, the type of blindness has been dwindling to smaller and smaller classes, ensuring there is not enough predictive power in the claims. Again, look at the papers I listed. ALL of this is covered.

> Isn't that saying the same thing the article does.

The article says lots of nonsense, like the most likely outcome of data is somehow the best evidence for an unproven claim. It implies the Australia study says a thing it DOES NOT SAY. Is this not enough bad reporting to question the accuracy of the article?

> What am I missing?

Simply look at the papers I posted. They are right there for you to read. The article is click bait trying to claim there is some surprising scientific claim that HAS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

Yeah the article is terrible. There was a much better one on schizophrenia a while back called The Insanity Virus https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-insanity-virus-02-16990