For the typical reader of HN, phylogenetic trees would be far easier to figure out in a few days than how neurons work, especially as "how neurons work" isn't even established.
Yes, I'm sure you could know exactly how the well-studied synaptophysin, synaptobrevin, neuroligin and PSD95 cooperate to control neurons in a day or two. Particularly in the context of schizophrenia.
Easy as pie.
Edit: Here's a freely available relatively recent article on just one aspect of neurons, the synaptic proteome, which contains about 1,466 proteins [0].
I will check back in a few days once you've figured out how they all work together.
If I was interested in this paper, I would read it and understand it like I do with all the bio papers I read…all research papers do is narrow in on something highly specific, they aren’t hard to understand once you have the vocabulary down. It’s like reading someone else’s code. And I highly doubt your so called trusted “experts” like Fauci understand any of it
Understanding what a paper says is considerably easier that understanding its limitations. See the questions I asked in the sibling thread for a taste of the difference.
Or think in terms of code: it is easy to understand what some code does, but to understand why it is like that you need to know a lot more about the context surrounding the problem.