Chris is not suitable for academic study

So when I first encountered Christory, I went searching for some kind of academic paper or case study on him. I basically wanted some doctor or actual expert to provide a no-shit explanation of what was wrong with him. The closest thing I could find were some opinion pieces on YouTube. And I know I am not the only person who has asked about this. So after having some time to digest this, I wanted to explain why we will never see any authoritative or research-focused case study on Chris.

First, no professional will diagnose or write a case study about Chris without having personally examined him. And any case study of Chris would be immediately recognizable to the readers. Since I doubt Chris can reliably consent to publicly releasing his information (given his history of indiscriminately releasing private information) I don't think there is an ethical way to share Chris' case.

Second, I don't think Chris actually has that much to teach us. At this point, autism is well documented and well understood. Our current research focus is on the origins of autism and the treatment. Unless someone miraculously invents a cure for all of Chris' problems, documenting the case doesn't add anything new to the literature.

Lastly, Chris is too contaminated to be a viable research subject. Psychologists always want to isolate the variables, which is why they obsess over things like twin studies. Chris is nothing but a walking bag of confounding variables. It is impossible at this point to untangle the effects of his inherent disabilities from the effects of his bad environment and malicious trolling.

The only relevant research I have seen is people looking at KiwiFarms itself as a sociological (rather than psychological or psychiatric) phenomenon.