Printer Friendly Version  |  Contact Dave Gorman  









































































































































































































































































































































    Awareness of the phenomenon that I'll call "the child for life syndrome" hit me fully one day in December of 2005, although once it did I realized that the concept had actually been sinking into my subconscious for years.
    While watching a TV show on the band "Linkin Park" I was confused about the ages of the band members. Not one single member of the band was a grown man - clearly they were all still children, each looking about 17 years old. But if they were 17 now, that would put them at 12 when the band released its first album 5 years earlier, and that definitely wasn’t the case. They looked about 17 then, too.
    A couple of minutes later an online search gave me the band members’ ages as ranging between 26 and 29, answering the problem in the only way that made any sense - that every member of the band was of an adult age, but in a physical sense was stuck in a weird sort of perpetual adolescence. For a second I wondered whether the guys might have all grown up (in a manner of speaking) in the same neighborhood right beside a nuclear power plant, before I started to see the bigger picture. The guys from “Linkin Park” were no different from just about every musician, male or female, that was their age or younger. Mentally going through the list of the famous musicians who I figured were under 30, I could only think up a couple of examples of people who had actually grown into adulthood. From the males - “Sum 41”, “Good Charlotte”, “Simple Plan”, Usher, Chingy, Pharrell, Omarion, Justin Timberlake, John Mayer; to the females - Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Jessica Simpson, Mandy Moore, Avril Lavigne, Alicia Keys, Kelly Clarkson, Michelle Branch; it was one adult-aged child after another.

    The lack of physical maturity in the young musicians was confirmed by a comparison with the musicians who are now in their 30’s or 40’s back when they were in their 20’s and in some cases even their teens. A look at the musicians who I estimated were born before 1975 showed a huge difference from the musicians born later. From the males - “Nickleback”, “Korn”, “Nirvana”, “The Red Hot Chili Peppers”, Dr. Dre, Snoop, Kid Rock, etc; to the females - Madonna, Gwen Stefani, Alanis Morissette, Mariah Carey, “The Spice Girls”, etc; examples showing an enormous difference in the level of physical maturity between the two age groups just kept on coming. Another online search for some birth dates and the years that certain music videos were made showed that just about every single male musician that I had thought of from the older age group had physically matured into adulthood by the time they made their first music video, which in every case was by their mid-20's, and often significantly earlier. The females had also physically matured into adulthood by the time of their first music videos, and on average they made the videos at an even younger age. In fact, Alanis Morissette made her first music video when she was just 17, and having seen the video as recently as a few months earlier I knew that at the time she was without question physically mature enough to be considered a grown woman. A very young woman, but a woman none the less.
    Something weird, to say the least, was going on in the world of music, but the idea that the phenomenon could somehow be restricted so that only musicians were affected obviously didn't make any sense, so I decided to look over another big group of people in the public eye - actors and actresses. It was in thinking about the world famous movie and TV stars that I started to realize the size of the problem, as the syndrome didn’t appear to be affecting them less frequently than the musicians, but more. Tracking down the needed statistics online showed that actors and actresses were failing to physically mature into adulthood with even fewer exceptions than there were with the musicians (it took me more than an hour before I found even one). Online searching also showed that there are more famous actors and actresses than there are famous musicians - so many more that I won’t name even a few at this point. Since a huge number of actors and actresses, and musicians will be listed with their relevant data a bit later on, giving a partial list now would be too redundant.

    Establishing that nearly every single famous young musician, actor and actress was a victim of the syndrome, regardless of whether they were from the U.S., Canada, Europe or Australia, and apparently regardless of where within those countries they were from, meant that the syndrome was affecting a huge area of the planet, and possibly even the whole thing. Being from Toronto, a city which not only is located in the area known to be affected but which is also the birthplace and in some cases the home of some of the affected celebrities, and being that I was born in 1976, making me younger than many of the affected celebrities, I didn’t really have much choice but to make the next group scrutinized myself and the people of the right age that I knew personally. This group’s results were the most interesting. For one thing, despite the literally hundreds of people that I was able to think of there wasn’t even one single exception to the child for life rule. Myself included. The handful of affected entertainers from Toronto were no fluke - none of the city's young people, or at least none of the young people that I knew, had physically matured into adulthood. But just as interesting was the clear relationship between the year of a person’s birth and to what degree they’re affected. In Toronto, the syndrome doesn't make its first appearance at full strength, but instead begins by only mildly affecting those born sometime in the early 1970's, then progressively it gets worse. On average, those born in 1975 are slightly more physically mature than those born in 1976, and so on, until about 1980, at which point it seems to level off.

    I’d now taken a look at musicians, actors and actresses, and the people that I know personally from Toronto, and almost every single young person had failed to physically mature into adulthood. The situation was getting weirder by the minute. It was weird, interesting, a little disturbing, and even kind of funny in a sick sort of way, but for some reason it wasn’t surprising. It seemed the more I learned about the syndrome the more I realized that on some level I had already known it all along. The full child for life concept was just now being realized, but living in a world surrounded by adult-age children for so many years hadn’t gone totally unnoticed. I guess a person can only see so many 27 year old dental hygienists who look like they’re in grade 11 before at least a part of their brain realizes that something isn’t quite right. Especially when they themselves are not an exception to the strange new norm. Why it took the rest of my brain as long as it did to figure it out it’s hard to say, but whatever the reason, better late than never.

    It was around this point that I got the idea of putting out a website on the phenomenon. Keeping quiet about something like this would have to be a mistake. The urge to write about the situation was being fueled by the strangeness and the gravity of the syndrome, but it was being fueled almost as much by the strangeness of the fact that I had never once heard even one person mention the problem. No one on TV, no one in a newspaper or a magazine, no one in real life. Very often people would say things which indicated that they were aware of the problem existing in an individual, a person I know making a comment about a girl looking exactly the same at the age of 22 as she did when she was 14, or a film critic remarking that a 26 year old actor didn’t have the “heft” to play a cop, but no one had seemed to put the entire puzzle together. No one had noticed that these physically immature individuals were no different from just about everyone else their age. People were seeing underdeveloped individuals, but not seeing the pattern of underdevelopment. Since it took me years to finally clue in to the syndrome I can relate to those who are unaware of the problem, or at least think they're unaware, and since I eventually made the jump from seeing underdeveloped individuals to seeing the pattern I have to assume that others have as well. The problem is so blatantly obvious to me now that it seems extremely unlikely that there aren’t many others who have also figured the whole thing out. For some reason, however, none of these clued in people have decided to put out a website on the subject. At least not that I’m aware of, anyway, and I have looked - on the day the concept hit me and since. Maybe none of these people see the situation as horrible enough, weird enough, or even funny enough to warrant the effort that a website takes. They just can’t be bothered. On the other hand I do see the situation as horrible, weird, and funny enough to warrant the effort, so putting out a website seemed like a good move.

    This essay will leave no doubt whatsoever that the child for life syndrome is for real. The syndrome, essentially a failure to complete the process of physical maturation and reach adulthood, first began to affect those born sometime in the late 1960’s, and progressed to the point where almost everyone is affected who was born past 1975 in an area of the world which includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia. This will be proven by analysing the physical maturity of 294 of the world’s most well known actors and actresses, and musicians, in what I‘m calling “the celebrity comparison”. The celebrities included in the comparison were born from 1946 - 1986, allowing younger celebrities to be compared to older ones. In a vacuum it's difficult to say whether or not Orlando Bloom is physically immature for a 28 year old, but comparing him to older male celebrities back when they were 28 years old or younger gives us perspective. People born in areas of the world other than the ones mentioned may also be suffering from the syndrome, but finding celebrities from these areas that would be known to more than a very small percentage of the people who might read this essay would probably be impossible. Various issues involving the child for life syndrome will also be discussed, including the aging process, and the syndrome’s possible causes.

    Whether this website will have an impact on the child for life syndrome is hard to say. It isn’t totally impossible that it will ignite a world wide uproar of people outraged and panicked by the thought of a nearly adult-free world, forcing a full scale effort on the part of the global scientific community, who are able to detect and then completely eliminate the cause of the syndrome. It also isn’t totally impossible that this essay won’t be read by more than a handful of people, everyone else scared off by the word “syndrome” in the title. Either way, a kid’s got to take a shot.
    Before proving the syndrome’s existence with the celebrity comparison, there are a few subjects that first need to be addressed. To start with, it’s a good idea to take a quick look at the aging process, specifically the way the facial structure changes as a child becomes an adult. An adult’s face isn’t just bigger than an infant’s, it’s also very different structurally. Throughout the entire growth process from infancy right up until full adulthood the face is continually evolving and transforming in a number of different ways.

    Here is a rundown of the various changes to the facial structure that take place during the transition from infant to adult.

  1. The cranium expands.
  2. The face shape becomes more oval and less round.
  3. The face shape broadens and lengthens, especially the lower half.
  4. The jaw becomes larger and more squared/angled.
  5. The amount of “baby fat” throughout the face reduces, resulting in more distinctive features.
  6. The cheekbones take on more prominence.
  7. The chin becomes more clearly defined.
  8. The eyes narrow.
  9. The eyes appear less “wide open”.
  10. The nose lengthens.
  11. The bridge of the nose rises.
  12. The mouth widens.
  13. (In males) More prominent brow ridges develop, resulting in deep set appearing eyes.

    These many structural changes cause the face to take on a very different appearance from that of early childhood. That’s why a person who is shown randomly mixed headshots of 8 year old boys and clean shaven 38 year old men would have no trouble telling apart one from the other, even if the photos were done so that all of the faces were the exact same size. The human eye is very good at instinctively, unconsciously recognizing these differences, and separating the men from the boys and the women from the girls.

    At least, it is when it doesn’t have to contend with distractions, which is another subject that needs going over before the celebrity comparison. When factors other than the simple appearance of the face are brought into the equation, factors such as clothes, hair, whether the person is sitting behind the reception desk in a doctor’s office, etc, some people seem to get confused. A huge part of the reason that the child for life syndrome has done such a good job of avoiding detection undoubtedly is that people can find telling the difference between a child and an adult more difficult when the child has taken on adult roles and traits. Physically immature or not, when people get to be a certain age they usually begin to live adult-type lives, which, to some, automatically makes them seem like adults. Adult-type superficialities drawing attention away from child-like faces. A common reaction for those watching 28 year old child actress Reese Witherspoon in the movie “Walk the Line” probably went something like - “she’s dating Johnny Cash and she’s a mother of three. Therefore, she has to be a woman.” The underdevelopment of her face going undetected as the instinctive ability to separate the women from the girls is rendered inactive by irrelevant and often deceptive characteristics. Those without a sharp enough eye will see a sheep wearing a saddle and call it a horse. This kind of thing probably happens to many people several times a day, tricked by this smoke and mirrors type illusion at work, at the doctor’s office, and while flipping through the channels on TV.
    Underneath these grown-up roles, however, often are faces that would look much more appropriate in the halls of a high school. The 27 year old behind the counter at the DMV is in all likelihood just a child, with the facial structure to prove it.

     Though deceptive grown-up roles isn’t the only factor distracting people from noticing the syndrome. Also confusing the ability of many to separate the adult from the child is the fact that a lot of today’s young people seem to have grown-up bodies. But having an adult body alone by no means qualifies a person as an adult.
    The most obvious way to judge the physical maturity of the body is by measuring height, and a person’s height has very little, if anything at all, to do with whether or not they should be considered an adult. Many 13 year old boys in grade 8 are 6 feet tall, and they very clearly don’t look like adults - they just look like really tall kids. If a 13 year old boy who’s 6 feet tall walks into a bar, guess what happens to him? He gets asked for his ID. Included in the celebrity comparison is the height of every actor and actress and almost all of the musicians. The data shows that the males born before 1975 are taller than the ones born in 1975 or later, but only by an extremely small and insignificant amount, while the females from the older group are significantly taller than their younger counterparts. The height data also proves the complete lack of a connection between a person’s height and whether or not they are physically mature enough to qualify as an adult. Two perfect examples of this - one male, one female - are found comparing 6’3” Ashton Kutcher with 5’7” Tom Cruise, and 5’8” Katie Holmes with 5’1” Patricia Arquette. As of Oct 1, 2006 Ashton Kutcher was 28 and Katie Holmes was 27, and at that time both still looked like they were in their late teens - neither one had reached an adult level of physical maturity. On the other hand, Tom Cruise was just 26 in “Born on the Fourth of July” and Patricia Arquette was just 24 in “True Romance”, and in those movies both were without question fully grown adults. The 8” and 7” height differences don’t seem to have had even the slightest affect on the appearance of physical maturity.
    The other obvious way of judging the physical maturity of the body is by looking at the body’s shape. Certain physical characteristics either begin to develop or increase their level of development in the latter part of the body’s maturation process, and some of these changes cause the body to take on a different shape from that of early childhood. In males the most blatantly visible quality which defines maturity of the body is the width of the shoulders, and in females it’s the curves - the hips and the breasts. And just like in the case of height these qualities, even when extremely well developed, have almost nothing to do with whether or not a person looks like an adult. It’s not uncommon for 14 year old boys to have very broad shoulders, and although this makes them look more well developed physically than many of their peers, it doesn’t cause them to be mistaken for 36 year old men. That they are children is still very apparent. The same thing is true of young girls with curves. Many 14 year old girls have full hips and big breasts, more well developed in these areas than 90% of adult women, and although this causes them to look a little older than they really are, maybe as old as 16 or 17, it’s still clear with just a glance that they’re not yet adults. The reverse is also true. Adult men with extremely narrow shoulders and adult women with narrow hips and small breasts don’t look 13 years old, they instead look like fully grown adult men and women with poorly developed bodies.
    Other changes also take place in the latter part of the body’s maturation process, but these less obvious qualities have just as little relevance in terms of the appearance of full adulthood.
    A person whose body is fully matured, but whose face isn’t, looks like a child. A person whose face is fully matured, but whose body isn’t, looks like an adult. The body, regardless of how tall or how well developed, does not play a role in the appearance of full adulthood. This therefore means that the sole indicator of full adulthood has to be the face.
    A tall and well developed body can, however, especially under the right set of circumstances, work well to distract some people from noticing the syndrome. Everyone easily recognizes that the 14 year olds with the grown up bodies are still just kids, but when the faces look slightly older the job becomes a bit more difficult. Add to the equation the “grown-up roles” factor and the job becomes more difficult still. When a 28 year old male is 6 feet tall, works a “grown-up job”, and is married, the fact that he has the face of a 17 year old boy may go unnoticed by the less observant.
    A grown-up looking body can make noticing the underdevelopment of an individual more difficult, but where the grown-up bodies factor really has an affect is in hiding the pattern of underdevelopment - hiding the child for life syndrome. If 95% of 28 year old males were 4’10” or shorter everyone would realize that something very weird was going on, but 95% of 28 year old males with 17 year old faces is a problem somewhat more subtle and less demanding of attention. Even for those that have no difficulty at all recognizing a juvenile face, regardless of whether or not it’s sitting on top of a fully grown body, it still might take some time to recognize the pattern of underdevelopment when the bodies of quite a few young people are a well developed size and shape.
    I think that probably played a role in keeping the pattern so well hidden from me for so long. I saw the problem in the individuals, but the pattern, or at least the scope of the pattern, took a while to click. The syndrome obscured by the occasional 6’3” male and the occasional curvy female. Qualities which, in reality, are almost as irrelevant as clothes and jobs when it comes to signifying full adulthood.

    At first glance relying on a celebrity comparison to prove the existence of a phenomenon as important and as serious as this might seem like an odd and maybe even superficial choice. But after looking at the situation a little longer it should be clear that, short of lab work, what other choice is there? Celebrities are the only people known to a large percentage of the population, or more accurately put they’re the only people known to more than a miniscule percentage of the population, so if the case is going to be made to a wide spread audience that the syndrome has dramatically affected people in a clearly visible way, centering the argument around celebrities is the only option. Using non-famous people, the people that I know personally, as examples might be helpful in a supporting role, but they of course couldn’t really prove the syndrome to those who have never seen them. Fascinating results from the lab would obviously be nice, but strange as it might seem, hard scientific data supporting the existence of the syndrome might actually be less convincing than the celebrity comparison to most people. If you couldn’t see the syndrome for yourself you might just think that the scientific data was flawed. And conversely, if you could see the syndrome for yourself it wouldn’t matter if all the scientific data in the world claimed the syndrome didn’t exist. You would know with complete certainty that the scientists had just missed something.
    Although the value of a celebrity comparison is dependent upon how many celebrities are included. Not much can be proven with a study of 2 people, or 4, or even 10, but a study of 300 people is a different story. Think of it this way - imagine the celebrity comparison showed that 145 of the most famous 150 actors who were born from 1970-1980 grew to be no taller than 4’10”, while not even 1 of the most famous 150 actors who were born from 1946-1965 was shorter than 5’2”. Because of the huge number of people involved in the comparison the chances of it not indicating a problem in the greater population would be next to nothing.
    The celebrity comparison does, however, have one drawback. It requires that the reader has the ability to distinguish between adult and child, physically mature and physically immature. If a person can’t recognize that a 26 year old Matthew McConaughey looks like a grown man while a 28 year old Tobey Maguire isn’t even close, then to them the celebrity comparison will fall flat. I can see the physical maturity difference between the two as easily as I can see that they’re both over 4 years old - there’s no effort, it’s just the most obvious thing in the world staring me right in the face. This almost has to mean that many others will be able to see the difference just as easily, and that most others, if not everyone else, will be able to see at least some clear difference. But there’s also the real possibility that some people won’t be able to notice any difference at all. For them scientific data would be the only evidence to have an impact, and since this website will contain none which proves the syndrome's existence it will no doubt leave these visionless people unconvinced. Happy to continue thinking of Natalie Portman as a stunning example of womanhood.

    To help people evaluate the celebrities for themselves the point needs to be made that watching a person on videotape is a much better way of judging their level of physical maturity than looking at them in a photograph. For this reason the celebrity comparison uses only video evidence to judge a celebrity’s level of physical maturity. Before watching any of the TV show “Lost” I saw a picture of Evangeline Lilly in a magazine that made her look just like a fully grown woman. It wasn’t a tiny, out of focus shot of her profile while she was wearing sunglasses, but a clear, medium-sized shot of her staring right into the camera. Never having seen her before I just assumed that the picture was telling me the truth, so when a child who looked a lot like the woman from the picture walked on to the screen in the show’s first episode I was given a perfect example of exactly how deceptive a photo can be. Lighting, the angle of the shot, and even a facial expression can work to conceal and distort the subject of a photograph’s real appearance. Photos certainly provide enough information to distinguish between an 8 year old boy and a clean shaven 38 year old man, but it’s possible that a photo done in just the right way might make it difficult to distinguish between a 16 year old boy and a 38 year old man. If photos were used exclusively to analyse the celebrities the syndrome’s existence would still be proven beyond any doubt, but it wouldn’t seem as dramatic. In a couple of cases a child might even wind up being classified as a marginal adult. But video shows people in such clarity that it can accurately convey a person’s level of physical maturity. It provides enough information to make the magnitude of the syndrome perfectly visible, and prevent even a single celebrity from being mistakenly placed in the wrong category.

    It needs to be made perfectly clear that the celebrities chosen to be used in the comparison weren’t handpicked to support the child for life syndrome. Manipulating the comparison would have been completely transparent and totally unnecessary. A fair and honest evaluation produces such an overwhelming amount of evidence that there’s no need for a con game. The system that was used to select which celebrities would be included in the comparison was very simple - everyone was included. At least, every young person who is famous enough to be reasonably well known. Listing every older person who was reasonably well known at a young enough age to be used would turn this website into primarily an almanac of data on old celebrities. So for the older celebrities the fame requirement had to be a little higher. Although it should be pointed out that the older celebrities who aren’t as famous prove the syndrome’s existence just as well.

    The celebrity comparison is divided into two categories: actors and actresses, and musicians. The two categories are both divided into four smaller groups - male adults, male children, female adults, and female children. The adult/child distinction is made based on my assessment of the celebrity’s level of physical maturity.
    The celebrities listed are accompanied by their birthdate, in almost every case their height, and occasionally by a comment. Each celebrity is also accompanied by the name of at least one key piece of video evidence in which they appear - movie, TV show, or music video. All of the pieces of video evidence named are at least reasonably well known, as video evidence that very few people have seen isn’t of much value.
    Which pieces of video evidence were selected for the celebrities depended on whether they are deemed to be an adult or a child. For adults the game is to try and find the earliest evidence of their being an adult, and for children the game is to try and find the most recent evidence of their being a child. Showing that Julia Roberts was an adult by age 28, and that Rachel McAdams was still a child at age 22, doesn’t do much to prove the syndrome’s existence, as it leaves open the possibility that Julia didn’t become an adult until sometime after she was 22, and that Rachel may well have become an adult since she was 22. Maybe there was no difference whatsoever in the maturity rates for the two, and maybe Rachel actually reached adulthood first. But showing that Julia was an adult by age 22 when she made “Pretty Woman” and that Rachel was still a child at age 28 when she made “The Wedding Crashers” shows a huge difference between the way the two physically matured. A.K.A. - there’s something very wrong with Rachel. Prove that this isn’t an isolated case but a wide spread pattern with very few exceptions, and you prove the syndrome.
    At least, you prove that some sort of syndrome is affecting young people, but you don’t actually prove the “child for life” syndrome, since the “for life” part would technically still be in question. To eliminate the far-fetched possibility that the syndrome is only drastically slowing down the rate at which young people are physically maturing, and that they may yet grow into adulthood at some freakishly late age, it’s essential to establish that those affected have completely stopped physically maturing. Doing this requires an additional piece of video evidence for the victims of the syndrome, the earliest example of the celebrity looking exactly the same in terms of physical maturity as they did in their most recent video evidence. The maturity completion confirming piece of video evidence has to have been made a minimum of three years before the most recent video evidence. This video evidence is given for most of the child actors and actresses, whenever possible, but not for any of the child musicians. Unlike movies and TV shows, music videos don’t always make for great video evidence, as proper shots of the musicians lasting longer than a couple of seconds aren’t always easy to come by. So establishing the age at which the people affected by the syndrome stop physically maturing is best done with actors and actresses, where the video evidence chosen is always perfect.

    That music videos often make for inadequate video evidence also meant that with some bands certain members had to be left out of the comparison. Finding video evidence of solo artists and the lead singers of bands that’s at least good enough to be usable is almost always possible, but when it comes to non-front man band members sometimes there’s just nothing conclusive.

    Inclusion as an adult in the celebrity comparison requires video evidence showing that the celebrity was an adult before they were 30 years old. Showing that a celebrity had physically matured into adulthood by the age of 50 does nothing to prove the existence of the syndrome, as none of the children have yet reached 50, making the 50 year old adult useless as a comparison. Of course, there is no maximum age allowed for the children in the comparison, as the older the child the more it demonstrates that something is wrong, but there is a minimum age requirement. The children have to be at least 20 years old in their most recent video evidence. Many of those classified as adults have video evidence of their being an adult by the age of 20, so including children as young as 20 is fair. Especially considering that many of the children in the celebrity comparison are confirmed to have stopped physically maturing before they were 20.

    The celebrities chosen for the comparison were all born after 1945, the oldest being Diane Keaton, born in 1946. Older celebrities weren’t included for many reasons. One being the quality of the video evidence. Most old movies made after 1935 have good picture clarity, but even the ones made in colour don’t have quite the same look as the more modern movies. “A Time to Kill” made in 1996 has exactly the same picture quality as “Spiderman 2” made in 2004, so the blatant physical maturity difference between Matthew McConaughey and Tobey Maguire can’t be explained away with an argument about how picture quality is to blame for any perceived difference between the two actors.
    Another reason is that most, if not all of the older celebrities would be completely unrecognizable to the majority of young people. Since they typically don’t watch old movies, most young people probably wouldn’t know more than a few old-time film stars, if that many.
    Excluding the older celebrities also allows for a greater focus to be placed on the period of time when the syndrome begins to show itself, without increasing the overall number of celebrities in the comparison. This emphasizes the syndrome’s starting point and helps to show exactly how it progressed.

    It should also be noted that in the celebrity comparison movies are considered to have been made in the year before they were released in theaters, and TV shows and music videos in the same year that they first aired. The celebrity comparison can only use these types of video evidence, though in most cases the most recent video evidence of a celebrity will actually be an appearance on some kind of TV talk show or entertainment show. But because these types of TV appearances are never seen by a large enough amount of viewers, and just as importantly, because they can’t easily be viewed after they first air, they can’t be included in the comparison.

    All that said and out of the way, here it is. The celebrity comparison.

    The results of the celebrity comparison are conclusive. 294 of the world’s most famous actors and actresses, and musicians prove beyond any doubt the existence of the child for life syndrome. Examining these celebrities shows to what degree the syndrome prevents those affected from physically maturing, how frequently people are affected, when the syndrome began, and how it progressed.

    Of all the celebrities included in the comparison, the first victim of the syndrome is Michael Imperioli, who was born on March 26, 1966. This doesn’t necessarily mean that Michael is the first celebrity in the comparison to have had his physical maturation limited by whatever is causing the syndrome, but he is the first to be affected so severely that he didn’t physically mature to the point where he can be considered an adult. There are two reasons why he should be judged the syndrome’s first casualty. One is because 43 people were included in the comparison who were born before Michael and every single one of them physically matured to adulthood, all having done so long before they were Michael’s age in his most recent video evidence, which was 39. Even if we remove the musicians in order to rely exclusively on perfect video evidence, that still leaves 31 actors and actresses. The second reason, working in partnership with the first, is that many of those born soon after Michael also failed to reach adulthood. Focusing only on the actors and actresses, the next oldest is Jack Black, who was born in 1969. Then comes Johnny Knoxville and Jared Leto, both born in 1971. Followed by Jennifer Garner and Selma Blair, both born in 1972, and Shannon Elizabeth and Neve Campbell, both born in 1973. 8 born in 1974 failed to reach adulthood. If there had been a 10 year gap between Michael Imperioli’s birth and the flood of adult-aged children, then he could just be written off as a genetic fluke. But Michael starts the trickle which quickly leads to the flood, making him the comparison’s first child for life.
    The syndrome gets progressively more common from 1966 until 1976, at which point it reaches a level where only the very rare exception physically matures to adulthood. Focusing on just the actors and actresses, of the 20 people born from 1970-1972, 16 reached adulthood, and 4 didn’t. Of the 25 born from 1973-1975, 12 reached adulthood, and 13 didn’t. Of the 29 born from 1976-1978, only 3 reached adulthood, while 26 didn’t. And not even one of the 45 born post-1978 has yet reached adulthood. The youngest adult actor or actress is Brooke Burns, born on Mar 16, 1978.
    These statistics can’t be dismissed by the argument that the adult to child ratio gets lower as the age groups get younger because many of those involved aren’t yet at an age when they should definitely have already reached adulthood. The oldest that any adult actor or actress in the entire celebrity comparison was confirmed to have reached adulthood was 29, the majority were confirmed as adults by the time they were 24, and many when they were much younger. However, for almost everyone this confirmation was made in their first major role, so in most cases it’s unknown at what age adulthood was actually reached. A small number of the adults have video evidence going back to childhood, and not even one was found to still be a child past 23.
    Among the actors and actresses, of the 17 victims of the syndrome that were born from 1970-1975, 12 are confirmed to still be children at 30 or older, 3 at 29, and 2 at 28. Of the 26 children born from 1976-1978, 3 are confirmed to still be children at 26, 8 at 27, 11 at 28, 2 at 29, and 2 at 30. The most recent child confirmation ages for those born post-1978 range from 20 to 27. The celebrity comparison also shows that all but 8 of the 43 children born from 1970-1978 are confirmed to have stopped physically maturing. Only 28 of the 45 children born post-1978 are confirmed to have stopped physically maturing, but since the confirmation requires two pieces of video evidence made at least three years apart, making the confirmation for people in this age range can be difficult. Many haven’t been famous long enough to have the two pieces of video evidence, while others are still so young that they actually do look slightly more mature in their most recent video evidence than they did 3 years earlier. Regardless, based on all of the data, it seems unlikely that even one of these 17 unconfirmed cases will ever reach adulthood. So by the numbers, the group of actors and actresses born from 1946-1965 are extremely different in terms of physical maturity from the group born from 1966-1986, and the syndrome is shown to become steadily more common from 1966-1979.
    The results from the musicians side of the celebrity comparison are very similar, but there are certain differences. Of the 118 musicians included, the earliest example of an adult-aged child is Chris Kirkpatrick of “N-Sync”, born on Oct 17, 1971. Chris was born after 37 other musicians. The next two examples are Sean Paul and Pharrell, both born in 1973. So for the musicians the syndrome begins a little later than it did for the actors and actresses, but a bigger difference is the fact that these are the only 3 musicians of the 36 born from 1970-1975 that failed to reach adulthood, which contrasts with the 17 of 45 for the actors and actresses born during that same period. The point when the majority are affected by the syndrome hits the musicians suddenly in 1976. 4 of the 6 musicians born in 1976 failed to reach adulthood, followed by 18 of the 24 born from 1977-1979. Of the 26 born from 1980-1985, only 3 have reached adulthood. The youngest adult is Amy Lee of “Evanescence”, born on Dec 13, 1981. Amy is more than 4 years younger than the youngest adult actor or actress, which is another way that the musicians differ from the actors and actresses - the musicians have younger exceptions to the child for life rule. 7 adult musicians were born after 1977 - 3 in 1978, 1 in 1979, and 3 in 1981.

    The syndrome becomes progressively more common between the first child for life in 1966 and the last adult in 1981, and during that period it also shows a very slight progression, overall, in terms of the strength of its affect. Meaning, the children for life born in the early 1980’s are very slightly less physically mature, on average, than those born in the early 1970’s and the late 1960’s.
    Though many of the most extreme cases of the syndrome were born in the early days. In fact, Michael Imperioli and Jack Black, the first two victims in the comparison, are probably less physically mature than more than half of the comparison’s children. Chris Kirkpatrick and Jared Leto are the comparison’s forth and fifth victims, and without question they both deserve placement in the more underdeveloped half. On the other hand, Johnny Knoxville, Jennifer Garner and Shannon Elizabeth are the comparison’s third, sixth and tenth victims, and all are in the more physically mature half, Garner coming extremely close to reaching adulthood. The physical maturity level of the syndrome’s younger victims also varies. Elijah Wood, Adam Brody, Christina Ricci and Christina Aguilera are among the least physically mature children; Heath Ledger, Brandon Routh and Jessica Biel are among the most physically mature children; and all were born after 1978. So there’s no consistent connection between birth year and level of physical maturity among the children. But since a disproportionately high number of the most mature children were born before 1975, and a disproportionately low number were born after 1980, it should be concluded that there was an overall progression of the syndrome’s strength, though it was fairly minimal.
    The adults born from 1966-1981 also get progressively less physically mature, on average. Most of the borderline adults were born during this period. Matt Damon, Colin Farrell, Kate Winslet and Kate Beckinsale are a few perfect examples. Though some of the adults born during this period physically matured to a level nowhere near the divide between adult and child. Charlize Theron was born in 1975 and Natasha Henstridge in 1974, and they are possibly the two best examples of womanhood in the entire celebrity comparison. As they have been since their first major film roles, both done at the age of 20. So with the adults, just like with the children, there is no consistent connection between birth year and level of physical maturity, but there is a slight overall trend.

    With the timeline of the syndrome established, it’s easier to discuss the degree to which it’s preventing people from physically maturing. The difference between the celebrities that matured into adulthood and those that never did isn’t subtle. It isn’t a minor difference that you can sort of see if you really make an effort - the difference is like night and day. It’s almost like the adult group and the child group are two closely related, yet distinctly different, species. A small percentage of both groups are close to the divide between adult and child, but the overwhelming majority are a long way from this divide. The adults in no way resembling children, the children lightyears from adulthood.
    Many different methods can be used to illustrate the difference between the adult group and the child group. One is to compare their full physical maturity ranges. Compare average male and female children to average male and female adults, the most physically mature male and female children to the most physically mature male and female adults, and the least physically mature male and female children to the least physically mature male and female adults. Laying out a comparison in this way doesn’t allow any distortion of the problem’s magnitude. The most mature children are still less mature than the least mature adults, but this kind of flawed comparison doesn’t even come close to showing the actual difference between the two groups.
    Good examples of average male and female children are Orlando Bloom, Jake Gyllenhaal, Reece Witherspoon and Rachel McAdams, and good examples of average male and female adults are Nicolas Cage, Kiefer Sutherland, Diane Keaton and Jennifer Aniston. The difference between the adults and the children couldn’t be more obvious. In the celebrity comparison Orlando Bloom was seen most recently at 28, Jake Gyllenhaal at 24. Now compare them both to Nicolas Cage at the age of 22 when he made “Moonstruck” and “Raising Arizona”. Try to imagine either child playing Cage’s character in “Moonstruck”. When Cage and a 40 year old Cher began their relationship in the movie no one thought it was weird, and there’s no reason that they would. Cage was much younger than Cher, but he was clearly a fully grown man. A man who looked like he might easily be 35 years old. If Orlando or Jake had played Cage's character the romance would have had a “robbing the cradle” feel. Everyone would have seen the relationship as strange, because everyone knows, consciously or subconsciously, that Orlando and Jake are just boys, not men. Neither child would be any more fitting playing Kiefer Sutherland’s role in “Young Guns”. Kiefer was just 21 in the movie, yet he was already a fully grown man, playing a role that required one. If a 28 year old Orlando Bloom had been cast in the movie to play the role of Kiefer’s brother, logically he should have been able to play the role of his older brother. Significantly older brother. No one would have believed it for a second. That would only make sense if Orlando was playing an older brother who had suffered some kind of horrible childhood disease. Otherwise he would have to play Kiefer’s younger brother - younger by at least three years.
    The difference between the average females is just as big. The celebrity comparison has both Reese Witherspoon and Rachel McAdams as children at 28, and there’s no way that either child could have played Diane Keaton’s role in “The Godfather”. At 25, Diane was a grown woman in the movie, and she had to be to play the wife of a mafia crime boss. Reese or Rachel married to Michael Corleone would have looked odd, to say the least, and completely unbelievable. In a role like that both children would have looked a lot like little girls playing dress-up. Comparing the children to Jennifer Aniston also shows a huge contrast. In the first season of “Friends” Jennifer was 25, and if either Reese or Rachel was cast for the show in the role of Jennifer’s sister, it would have to have been in the role of the younger sister. Despite the fact that both Reese and Rachel are three years older in their most recent video evidence than Jennifer was at the time.
    Some examples of the most physically mature, for the adults are Mel Gibson, Tom Sizemore, Charlize Theron and Lucy Lawless, and for the children Johnny Knoxville, Heath Ledger, Jennifer Garner and Hilary Swank. Johnny Knoxville is one of the oldest syndrome victims, and the celebrity comparison has him as a child most recently at 33. Mel Gibson was a grown man in “Mad Max” at 22, as was Tom Sizemore at 29 in “The Flight of the Intruder”, but comparing the two men to Johnny when they were also in their early 30’s is how the true maturity discrepancy is shown. Mel was 32 in “Lethal Weapon 2” and Tom was 31 in “True Romance”, and in those roles both men look like they could easily be 40, whereas at 33 Johnny would look completely ridiculous playing the role of a 40 year old. Although no one would have any trouble believing him in the role of a 19 year old high school student. It’s also funny to note that Russell Crowe, who wasn’t included in the celebrity comparison because of a lack of video evidence made before he was 30 years old, was 32 in the movie “L.A. Confidential”. Which means that if Johnny Knoxville was in the movie playing the role of Crowe’s brother, he should have been able to play his older brother. Think of how absurd that would look. Johnny would be a good fit as Crowe’s son, but would have no chance whatsoever of being believed as his older brother. The celebrity comparison has Heath Ledger most recently at 25, so he can’t be compared to Crowe, but he can be compared to Mel when he made “The Road Warrior” at 24. Once again, because it really bring physical maturity into focus, if Heath was cast for the movie in the role of Mel’s brother, which actor would play the older brother in that family?
    The examples given as two of the most physically mature female adults, Charlize Theron and Lucy Lawless, define womanhood. Charlize was only 20 years old in “2 Days in the Valley”, and although she looked young, she didn’t look childish. She had already finished the process of physical maturation, and she had a grown woman’s face to prove it. Except for some extremely minor skin differences, she looks the very same in her most recent video evidence at 29. Lucy Lawless didn’t become famous as young as Charlize, but was a perfect example of a woman when she was first seen at 27 in “Xena - Warrior Princess”. Now compare the two adults to the two children. Jennifer Garner is a big girl, but even at the age of 33, when she was last seen in the celebrity comparison, she has the face of a child. She never went through the final stage of physical development. Hilary Swank, most recently confirmed to still be a child at 31, is even a little further from adulthood than Jennifer. The two are both more physically mature than most of the other female children, but comparing them to women like Charlize and Lucy really puts their lack of an adult level of physical maturity into perspective. A third female also belonging in the most mature adult group is Julia Roberts, and using her as an example gives us another comparison that really shows the adult/child maturity difference. In the movie "Pretty Woman" Julia was 22 years old, and her co-star Richard Gere was 40, yet the relationship between the two doesn't feel strange. Sure at the time Julia was just over half Richard's age, but nonetheless they didn't seem like an odd couple, because they were both without question 100% fully grown adults, on the very same level from a physical maturity standpoint. Imagine a 40 year old Richard Gere, or any other 40 year old actor for that matter, dating Hilary Swank or Jennifer Garner in a movie. Everyone, on some core, instinctive level, would see the relationship as weird. Even those people who if asked would classify Hilary and Jennifer as women would still feel that the girl was too young for the 40 year old actor. Despite the two actresses both being in their 30's in their most recent video evidence. Seeing a child actress in a relationship with an adult actor would force people to recognize the child's true level of physical maturity.
    The examples chosen as some of the least physically mature, from the adult group are Matthew Broderick, Mark Hamill, Winona Ryder and Kate Beckinsale, and from the child group Tobey Maguire, Elijah Wood, Natalie Portman and Christina Ricci. The least physically mature children are an interesting bunch of physical specimens. Not one famous person who was born before 1966 looked even remotely like them. Only those suffering from some kind of a medical condition weren’t significantly more physically mature. Compare Tobey Maguire and Elijah Wood to Matthew Broderick and Mark Hamill. Matthew is without question at the low end of the maturity spectrum for adults, but at 26 in “Glory” he does, just barely, qualify as a man. At that age he could possibly have played the role of an older-looking 19 year old high school student, but Tobey Maguire at 28, the age he was in “Spiderman 2”, could have convincingly played the role of a student in his second or even his first year of high school. The maturity difference between Mark Hamill and Elijah Wood is just as great. Mark is even less mature than Matthew, probably the least mature male adult in the entire celebrity comparison, but Elijah is also less mature than Tobey. Mark was just barely able to play the role of a young man in “Star Wars” at 25, but he did pull it off. Elijah at 23, when he was last seen in the celebrity comparison, would be a comical Luke Skywalker. Elijah is a much better fit playing the role of a little mythical creature than he is playing the role of an adult human.
    The situation with the least physically mature females is the same. Neither Winona Ryder or Kate Beckinsale qualify as an adult by much, but they’re both at a very different level of physical maturity from children like Natalie Portman and Christina Ricci. At 24 both girls, even by today’s standard, are underdeveloped. There’s no precedent in the history of cinema for 24 year old females born before 1972 who are anywhere near that lacking in physical maturity. A third great example of a female who belongs in the least mature children catagory is found on the musicians' side of the celebrity comparison - Lady Sovereign. Bringing the ironically named Lady Sovereign into the equation is useful because of the fact that she is the least physically mature female celebrity in the entire comparison. Nearly 21 years old in her most recent video evidence, the girl honestly looks 13. The absolute definition of a syndrome victim. No matter how hard you look, you will never find a female celebrity, in the celebrity comparison or outside of the celebrity comparison, born before 1972 who at 20 years old looks like the same species as Lady Sovereign. Not one person even close to as physically immature. If you can't see the remarkable lack of physical maturity in Lady Sovereign, then you simply have no ability whatsoever to recognize the level of physical maturity in human beings.

    In addition to comparing the full physical maturity ranges, there are other interesting comparisons that can be made which really highlight the difference between the adults and the children. One is to take a look at Superman. There have been three movie and TV portrayals of Superman made by actors in the celebrity comparison, all of which are very well known. One was made by an adult, Christopher Reeve, and two were made by children, Tom Welling and Brandon Routh. Christopher Reeve was just 25 when he appeared in “Superman”, and there’s no questioning that at the time he was a fully grown man. In fact, he was clearly more physically mature than almost all of the adult males in the celebrity comparison. In Tom Welling’s last sighting as Superman in season 5 of “Smallville” he was 28, and inarguably still a child. If a million people were shown one minute of “Superman”, then one minute of the most recent episode of “Smallville”, every single person would point to Reeve as being the older of the two. It’s not even close. Even more telling is a comparison between Reeve and Brandon Routh. In the movie “Superman Returns” Brandon was 26, and although he’s more physically mature than every other actor in the celebrity comparison who was born after 1976, it’s obvious that he’s still a child. Very close to qualifying as an adult, but not close enough. That Routh is more mature than all of the other actors his age is what makes his comparison to Reeve so significant. The role of Superman requires an actor who is above average in terms of physical maturity - the more physically mature the better. Though the people who did the casting for “Superman Returns” must have not only wanted an actor who was extremely physically mature, but who was also young. Two qualities that are almost never found in the same person anymore. So even after looking at what was in all likelihood a huge amount of potential candidates they still couldn’t find even one young actor to play the role of Superman who was physically mature enough to qualify as a man. The child for life syndrome can make casting for a movie a tough job.

    The maturity difference between the adults and the children can also be highlighted by taking a look at certain TV shows. Compare the cast of “Friends” to the cast of “That 70’s Show”. Each show has 6 main cast members - the 6 from “Friends” were all born from 1963-1969, the 6 from “That 70’s Show” were all born from 1976-1983. In the first season of “Friends” the 6 cast members ranged in age from 25 to 31, and at that time they were all adults. In the last season of “That 70’s Show” the 6 cast members ranged in age from 22 to 30, the second youngest being 26, and at that time they were all still children. There’s something about seeing that all the members of one show matured into adulthood, while all the members of another show didn’t, that really accentuates the scope of the problem. Looking at the cast of "The O.C.” has a similar affect, as every cast member born in 1978 or after is still a child. “Battlestar Galactica” is another example of a show without any exceptions, as every cast member born after 1974 is still a child. The cast of “Lost” is a good self contained celebrity comparison. In the first two season there have been 15 leading cast members who were born from 1963-1983. The 7 born before 1973 are all adults, the 6 born after 1973 are all still children, and of the 2 born in 1973 there’s one adult and one child. Examples of TV shows that are great video evidence of the syndrome’s existence seem limitless. Examples of TV shows that refute the syndrome’s existence are impossible to find.
    It should also be pointed out that "Battlestar Galactica" and "Lost" each only contributed one person to the celebrity comparison. This is a testament to the number of actors and actresses who could have been added to the list. Primarily with the addition of more TV actors and actresses, there easily could have been more than 1000 people in the celebrity comparison, with the syndrome’s affected to unaffected ratios looking the same.

    Another way of drawing attention to the lack of physical maturity in the celebrity comparison’s young people is by looking at the affect of the syndrome from a different perspective. Instead of analysing whether or not a person is physically mature enough to qualify as an adult, analyse whether or not they’re physically mature enough to qualify as an alpha male or an alpha female. For various reasons, some of which have already been discussed, certain people may have trouble seeing the problem in adult/child terms. Certain people may not feel confident deciding exactly what constitutes adulthood, but everyone knows exactly what constitutes an alpha male. Everyone knows that Russell Crowe is an alpha male, and that Matthew Broderick isn’t. It’s very simple.
    There are 26 actors in the celebrity comparison who were born after 1974, and were also at least 25 years old in their most recent video evidence, and not one can even remotely be considered an alpha male. Expand the search beyond the celebrity comparison, include every actor born after 1974 who played even a bit role in any movie or TV show, and it’s still unlikely that you’ll find even a single alpha male. The actors from the celebrity comparison born post-1974 closest to being alpha males are Colin Farrell, Brandon Routh, Heath Ledger, Josh Hartnett and Johnny Knoxville, and only one of these five even qualifies as a man. Contrast this with the group of actors from the celebrity comparison who were born in 1974 or earlier. Alpha males are everywhere - Mel Gibson, Christopher Reeve, Tom Sizemore, Matthew McConaughey, Ben Affleck, etc. Look outside the celebrity comparison at the actors who didn’t have well know video evidence from before they were 30 and find a lot more alphas. Russell Crowe, Gene Hackman, Denzel Washington, Harrison Ford, Samuel L Jackson, to name just a few. It’s also interesting to note that the greatest examples of an alpha male were all born before 1965. Matthew McConaughey, born in 1969, and Ben Affleck, born in 1972, do qualify as alpha males, but next to men like Russell Crowe and Harrison Ford they don’t match up.
    The young male musicians are a little different from the young actors, but not much. Only 3 of the 42 born after 1974, and none of the 18 born after 1978, can be considered alpha males. A very different situation from the group of male musicians born in or before 1974, which contains a huge number of alpha males.
    Females aren’t thought of in alpha terms as often as males, but it does happen, and it will happen here. Since the syndrome hits the females at full strength a year or two later than it hits the males, and since females finish physically maturing a little earlier than males, the requirements to be included in the young female group have to be somewhat different than they were for the young males. The young females are those born after 1975, and are also at least 23 years old in their most recent video evidence, and of the 36 actresses fitting these two requirements only one, Brooke Burns, can be considered an alpha female. Among the actresses born before 1976, the alpha female is extremely common. Examples from the actresses in the celebrity comparison include Charlize Theron, Natasha Henstridge, Lucy Lawless, Julia Roberts, Elizabeth Hurley and Nicole Kidman. Many of these actresses are confirmed to have achieved alpha status in their early 20’s, some as young as 20.
    The five youngest adults in the entire celebrity comparison are all female musicians, and four of these, Pink, Beyonce, Kelly Rowland and Amy Lee, can all be considered borderline alpha females. Even still, the alpha to non-alpha ratio for female musicians born after 1975 is very low - just 4 to 14. There are also no alpha female musicians born after 1981. Contrast this with the female musicians born in or before 1975, a group in which about half are at least borderline alphas.
    Among the world’s famous actors and actresses, and musicians, young alpha males and females are much more rare today than they were in the past. In fact, there isn’t even one young alpha male or female born after 1981 in the entire celebrity comparison. This is the child for life syndrome, just viewed from a different angle. The syndrome prevents people from physically maturing properly, and no one with even the slightest ability to recognize an alpha male and an alpha female can pretend not to notice.

    The celebrity comparison’s children are going to stay that way “for life”. The comparison justifies the syndrome’s title. The syndrome doesn’t just slow down the process of physical maturation, it stops it short of completion. Regardless of whether or not they’re affected by the syndrome, people don’t continue to physically mature until they’re 50, 60, or 100 years old. The celebrity comparison shows that both the adults and the children finished the process of physical maturation by age 24, at the latest. The number 24 comes from the fact that no one in the comparison, adult or child, has video evidence showing that any physical maturation took place after the age of 24. Past 24 the changes to the face are superficial - after a while the skin starts to take on a slightly different look, wrinkles are added, but the basic facial structure remains the same.
    Although the overwhelming majority of the children from the celebrity comparison with maturity completion confirming video evidence are shown to have finished physically maturing long before they were 24 years old. Jennifer Love Hewitt was a child when she filmed “I Know What You Did Last Summer” at just 17 years old, and 10 years later in the TV show “Ghost Whisperer” she looks exactly the same. Not one bit closer to womanhood. “I Know What You Did Last Summer” was also used to confirm the completion of physical maturity for three other child actors - Sarah Michelle Gellar at 19, Freddie Prinze Jr at 20, and Ryan Phillippe at 22. Not one looks even slightly different when seen most recently 8 - 10 years later. Erica Christensen was a child when she filmed “Traffic” at 17, and she looks identical 6 years later in “The Sisters”. Sarah Polley was the exact same child at 26 that she was at 17. There was no change whatsoever in Natalie Portman from 18 to 24. The list goes on and on.
    None of the adults were listed with video evidence to confirm that they had finished physically maturing, but those with the two pieces of video evidence made at least three years apart are usually shown to have completed physical maturity when they were much younger than 24, as well. Most of the adults didn’t start making well known video evidence until after their teens, but there is the evidence to confirm that many stopped maturing by 20. Charlize Theron, Natasha Henstridge, Brooke Burns and Robin Wright Penn are all women who looked the same, in any relevant way, at 20 as they did in their most recent sightings, between 8 and 18 years later. Take Robin Wright Penn for example. Look at her 20 year old face in “The Princess Bride”, then compare it to her 38 year old face in “Nine Lives”. There are some extremely minor differences in skin, but the facial structure is the same - it’s the same face. Charlie Sheen and Kiefer Sutherland both looked the same at 21 as they do now, 20 years later. Compare Kiefer’s face at 21 in “Young Guns” with his face at 39 in season 5 of “24”. Except for some almost unnoticeable differences in skin, the two faces are identical. At the age of 21 he already had a man’s face - and it’s the very same man’s face that he has now.
    Case after case all show the same thing - whatever a person looks like at 24, and usually much earlier, is essentially what they will look like for decades afterward. So if a child isn’t an adult by the time they’re 24, then it’s never going to happen.

    The celebrity comparison proves the existence of the child for life syndrome by analysing the physical maturity of the only people known to a large enough percentage of the population - celebrities. Though only two categories of celebrities, actors and actresses and musicians, are included in the comparison. The world of celebrities should actually include 6 categories, the other 4 being - athletes and people involved in the world of sports, models and people involved in the world of fashion, TV personalities (talk show hosts, news anchors, etc), and everybody else (politicians, royalty, famous business people, etc). These other 4 categories had to be left out of the celebrity comparison, and the reasons for this should be explained.
    Athletes weren’t included in the comparison for two reasons. One is because although they’re on TV often, they don’t have video evidence that can easily be viewed years after it was made. The second reason is more complicated. Almost all professional athletes, even ones as young as 18 or 19, qualify as adults, but from a physical standpoint professional athletes aren’t average people. Of all the males in the world between the ages of 18 and 45 only one of every hundred thousand or more is a good enough athlete to play big-league professional sports. There are rare exceptions to the child for life rule, and every now and then a young male actually qualifies as a man, some have even matured into as good examples of fully grown men as we've ever seen, so it makes sense that these young men would have an advantage over young boys when competing for jobs in professional sports. Or maybe the connection is more direct. Maybe the biological reason that these young males were able to develop into such incredible athletes is also the reason that they were able to avoid the syndrome and physically mature into adulthood. Abnormally high levels of something or other. Either way, actors and actresses, and musicians are a good cross-section of humanity in terms of physical maturity, but pro athletes aren’t, to say the least.
    Models weren’t included in the comparison for the same reasons. Just like athletes, they don’t have video evidence that can easily be viewed years after it was made. And just like athletes, they aren’t a good cross-section of humanity in terms of physical maturity. Models are chosen based on the way they look, and since there are rare exceptions to the child for life rule, modeling agencies might decide to select these young women instead of young girls. Even if only 1% of young females matured into womanhood, 100% of famous young female models might be women. Although this actually isn’t the case - not all young models qualify as women. Some are like 26 year old Gisele Bundchen, who has been a stunning example of womanhood for years, but others are like the girls from “America’s Next Top Model”, a reality TV show that’s always made up strictly of child models. If models were the only people in the celebrity comparison they would support the existence of the syndrome, but it would seem as though people were being affected less frequently than is the reality. It would give a false impression, one that shouldn’t really be looked at as a perfect representation of humanity, since it’s subject to the influence of the aesthetical tastes of the modeling industry.
    The celebrities who make up the TV personalities and everybody else categories are a good cross-section of humanity in terms of physical maturity, just like the actors and actresses, and musicians, but just like the athletes and the models they don’t have the right video evidence to be included in the celebrity comparison. They’re on TV all the time, but they don’t have much video evidence that can be viewed years after it was made, which makes it hard to compare someone who is 25 now to someone who was 25 10 years ago.
    So for these reasons the celebrity comparison had to be limited to actors and actresses, and musicians. Which is fine, since there are more than enough of them.

    The cause of the child for life syndrome can only be guessed at, but based on everything that’s known about the syndrome that guessing can be educated.
    The simplest theoretical cause would probably have to be poor nutrition, but although poor nutrition can prevent people from physically developing properly, there a number of different reasons why it’s unlikely to be the cause of the syndrome. The problem is too common, it’s too wide spread, it’s too severe, and it comes on too suddenly.
    The syndrome is so common that almost every person in the celebrity comparison born after 1976 has failed to physically mature into adulthood, so if a nutritionally poor diet was responsible it would have to be equally common. The diet would have to be very widespread throughout the world, since the celebrities affected by the syndrome come from all corners of the U.S., Canada, Europe and Australia. The diet would also have to be extremely nutritionally poor, since the syndrome is extremely dramatic. The physical difference between those who are affected and those who are unaffected is so huge that a minor change in diet couldn’t possibly be the cause. And most importantly, the diet would have to have come on extremely suddenly. 42 celebrity comparison people were born from 1946-1965, and every single one of them physically matured into adulthood. Then, in a period of just 10 years, the syndrome goes from its first victim to a point where nearly every celebrity failed to mature to adulthood.
    Taking all of these different factors into consideration, it seems more than just a little improbable that poor nutrition is to blame for the syndrome.
    Another, more plausible guess would be the microwave oven. This explanation works on most levels. Microwaves are widespread throughout the world, they’re common enough, they increased in popularity very quickly, they appeared on the scene at the right time, and it doesn’t seem all that impossible for the microwave to be the cause of such a drastic affect. The only problem with this theory comes from the fact that the syndrome is so uniform among the people that I know personally. These people, all from the same area of the same city, show a strong connection between their year of birth and to what degree they're affected. Usually people are slightly less affected than those born in the following year, until about 1980 where the syndrome appears to level off. Microwaves increased in popularity quickly, but not so quickly that almost every family bought one in the same year. So based on the affected people from the celebrity comparison, who don’t show much of a connection between birth year and the degree that they’re affected, the microwave seems like a prime suspect. But if the people that I know personally are factored into the equation, the microwave theory isn’t such a perfect fit.
    To account for the syndrome's uniformity among the people that I know, the cause would need to be something that came into contact with those who lived in the same area at the same time. One way for this criteria to be met is if the cause was found in food. A good place to look for the cause among food possibilities is in meat and dairy. Studies have shown that meat and dairy often contain many man-made substances such as synthetic hormones, anti-biotics, and endocrine distruptors. Some studies have also shown that these substances can interfere with the normal hormonal processes in the body, as well as cause a wide range of other negative health affects. By many, including some, but not all, scientists, it's believed that at least one of these substances is causing young children to begin the process of puberty earlier than ever before. Of these three types of substances, the one most likely to cause to the syndrome seems to be the one that's the least well known - the endocrine disruptors. Endocrine disruptors are substances that stop the production or block the transmission of hormones in the body. Though sometimes natural, usually they are man-made chemicals, ones which are often found in pesticides and plasticizers. They get into the meat and dairy, mainly, by getting into the food supply of the animals. A substance that stops the production or blocks the transmission of hormones in the body sounds a lot like a substance that could potentially prevent people from finishing the process of physical maturation. Synthetic hormones, anti-biotics, and endocrine disruptors were all being found in meat and dairy long before 1966, but the specific types of these substances, as well as the amounts, that are found today may be different from what was being found 40 years ago. There may have been a change along the way that could possibly be responsible for the syndrome. People who live in the same city seem more likely to get the same contaminants in their meat and dairy than people who live in different cities, and such a high percentage of people, especially growing children, consume meat and dairy that this seems like a good way for almost all of those who live in the same area to be exposed to the syndrome’s cause at the same time. The problem with the food theory, be the food meat, dairy, or something else, is the fact that the syndrome started at approximately the same time over such a huge area of the world, then progressed to the point where nearly every single person throughout this area was affected. It seems unlikely that the exact same syndrome causing contaminant would begin showing up in food at roughly the same time in so many different places, and then quickly become so common throughout such a wide range.
    Another way that a high level of uniformity among people who live in the same area would be possible is if the syndrome’s cause was a substance found in drinking water or in the air. Many man-made chemicals are commonly found throughout the world in the drinking water and in the air, and some of these are endocrine disruptors. A routine way for endocrine disruptors to get into the drinking water is by pesticides draining off of lawns and farmers’ fields, then entering the water supply. Factory emissions, frequently the smoke from burnt plastics, is a common way for endocrine disruptors to pollute the air. Either possible means of spreading the syndrome’s cause, drinking water or air, would produce an even higher level of uniformity among those living in the same area than if the cause was found in food, as everybody in the same area breathes the same air, and almost everybody drinks at least a little of the same tap water. Both possibilities also seem somewhat more likely than the food theory to produce such similar affects, in terms of the starting point and the progression of the syndrome, over such a huge area of the world.
    The cause of the syndrome being something found either in the drinking water or in the air seems like the most plausible theory given so far, but there’s one theory remaining that’s an even better fit. It’s wide spread throughout the world, it increased in popularity at both the right time and at the right speed, it came into contact with everyone who lived in the same area at the same time, and it doesn’t seem all that unlikely to be the cause of such a drastic affect. That possible cause is the cell phone. Not the use of a cell phone, as 10 years ago there were too many young people that didn’t own one, and not everyone bought their first cell phone in the same year, but cell phone waves penetrating the body by the phone calls of other people flying through the air. Cell phones are extremely common in, among other places, the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia and South Africa, a range covering the places of birth of everyone in the celebrity comparison. The high water mark for cell phone use world wide is in Europe, where it was reported in 2003 as being at 83%.
    The beginning of the cell phone boom also coincides with the beginning of the syndrome. 1985 was the year the cell phone really started its rise in popularity - 19 years after the birth of the syndrome’s first victim from the celebrity comparison. That victim is a male, Michael Imperioli, and most 19 year old males still have at least a little further to go in the process of physical maturation. So in all likelihood there was time in 1985 to interfere with Michael’s physical development. Also remember that the youngest great example of an alpha male actor is Russell Crowe, who was born in 1964. This means the cell phone boom didn’t start until he was 21, and many, if not most males have completely finished physically maturing by that age.
    Not only did the cell phone boom start at the right time to be the cause of the syndrome, but it also increased at the right rate. From 1985-2002 the number of cell phone subscribers in the U.S. grew steadily from 350,000 to nearly 150,000,000. Over that same period of time cell phone use in Europe, Canada, Australia and South Africa followed very similar rates of increase. The celebrity comparison’s child/adult ratios grew in the same way. The number of syndrome victims from the celebrity comparison also exploded, doing so at a very consistant rate of increase.
    The cell phone wave theory also works perfectly when considering the syndrome’s uniformity among the people that I know personally. Cell phone waves came into contact with everyone that lived in the same area at the same time. There’s no way to escape them.
    Whether or not cell phone waves penetrating the body can actually hinder a person’s physical development is unknown, but it’s not an illogical idea. Cell phone waves are a type of radio wave, but they’re a different length and are at a different frequency from AM and FM radio waves. Radio wave is a broad term for a certain length of electromagnetic wave, a term that also includes the waves used by wireless computers, cordless phones, garage door openers, and hundreds or even thousands of other wireless technological devices, as well as some of the electromagnetic waves given off by the sun. Just because one type of radio wave doesn’t prevent people from physically maturing properly doesn’t mean that none of them do. Cell phone waves might affect the human body in a unique way.
    Although maybe cell phone waves affect the human body in the exact same way as every other type of radio wave, and the cause of the syndrome isn’t cell phone waves specifically, but just an overall increase in the total amount of radio wave activity in the environment. Of which cell phone waves are a major contributor. Cell phone towers, which receive and transmit cell phone signals and emit massive amounts of radio waves into the environment, now outnumber radio stations in the U.S. by more than 10 to 1. On smaller scales than that of the cell phone boom, there have also been explosions in the popularity of many different types of wireless devices over the past 20 years, all of which spew radio waves into the space that we inhabit. In 1978 the Environmental Protection Agency did a study on the amount of radio wave activity in the U.S., and when these findings are contrasted with analysis on the amount of radio wave activity in the U.S. in 2005 it shows an increase of more than 1000 times. Increasing the total volume of radio wave activity that people are constantly being exposed to by more than 1000 times seems just like the kind of thing that might cause one or two negative health affects.
    The cell phone wave/radio wave theory is the best educated guess at the cause of the syndrome. But it’s just a theory. The cause might be one of the other possibilities given, or it might be something else entirely. Proving the cause definitively is something that can’t be done here. But whatever the specific cause, it really shouldn’t come as any big shock that something done by mankind has accidentally had this significant of an affect on human health. With all of the different man-made chemicals in our air, water and food, and all of the different technological devices that we’re surrounded by, it almost seems inevitable that eventually something would be the cause of a health problem of this magnitude.

    The cause of the child for life syndrome can’t be proven beyond any doubt here and now, but that the syndrome exists can - and it has. The evidence is undeniable to anyone with any knowledge of the appearance of celebrities.
    Although it’s possible that some people might be hesitant to acknowledge the syndrome, no matter how much evidence they’re given, because of a terminology disagreement. Some may not like the use of the word “child” in the celebrity comparison, not to mention in the syndrome’s name, believing that any person, no matter how physically immature, should be classified as an adult as long as they’re at least 18 years old, or 21, or whatever. But even these people can’t argue that nothing is going on. Those skeptical of the syndrome’s existence because they choose to classify physically immature people like Orlando Bloom and Natalie Portman as adults need to ask themselves some questions. Questions such as: can I see any physical maturity difference at all between those classified as adults and those classified as children in the celebrity comparison? Are the people born before 1966 identical in terms of physical maturity to those born after 1975, or is there a difference? Can I see any maturity difference at all between a 26 year old Julia Roberts and a 26 year old Kate Hudson? Or between a 25 year old Ben Affleck and a 25 year old Ashton Kutcher? Are extremely physically immature 30 year old males, males who look like Ryan Seacrest, more or less common now than they were 10 or 20 years ago? Are there more or less young alpha males and females now than there were 10 or 20 years ago? The two groups are so far apart physical maturity-wise that regardless of how people choose to define adulthood it seems impossible that there’s anyone who won’t be able to recognize at least some difference. And if you can see a physical maturity difference, then you can see the syndrome. To not be able to see any physical maturity difference whatsoever a person would have to be incredibly unobservant.

    With the syndrome’s existence proven beyond any doubt, and most of the issues involving the syndrome already looked at, there are just a couple of things left to discuss. The syndrome’s affect on society, and what we need to do to stop the syndrome.
    A significant chunk of this essay has been spent focusing on the size of the syndrome’s affect on the individuals in society, but how does the syndrome affect society as a whole? Well, for one thing, after a while there will no longer be anyone fit to play certain roles in movies and TV. Imagine “Braveheart” with the lead role being played by Tobey Maguire or Jared Leto. That’s a whole different movie. But outside of the world of movies and TV it’s hard to say how the syndrome changes society. Children can still work jobs, pay taxes, and they can still reproduce, so there’s no reason to think that civilization will crumble. However, just because children can work jobs doesn’t necessarily mean that they can perform as well as adults at the most mentally challenging jobs, like jobs involving science and technology. Maybe the syndrome’s victims are not just physically immature, but they also suffer some kind of mental underdevelopment. Logically, it seems like a possibility. The brain is just a part of the body. And if this were true the syndrome would clearly have a significant impact on society. Not an impact that would destroy society, but one that would certainly hurt out progress and maybe even lower our standard of living. But if there is no mental side to the syndrome, and the affect is purely physical, then as long as the children for life are physically strong enough to work all types of manual labor jobs, lifting boxes in warehouses, etc, society should remain essentially unchanged. Business as usual.
    Business as usual, except for the fact that almost every actor and actress, musician, accountant, mail carrier, etc, will be so physically immature that they don't, or shouldn't, even qualify as an adult. There may only be one affect of the syndrome on society, but it’s one that we’re guaranteed - that it will all look, and feel, weird. And as time goes on and the years pass by, society will only look and feel weirder and weirder. A 26 year old child is a strange sight, but the sight of a 60 year old child will be even worse. Lines and wrinkled skin over the facial structure of a child. At that age the children for life will look a lot like teenage actors and actresses when they wear elaborate make-up in order to play the role of a senior citizen. From an economic, standard of living point of view this affect might be irrelevant, but a world run by children is so odd that it seems like it has to have an affect on some societal level.

    And last but not least, how do we stop the syndrome, anyway? The answer is, of course, by eliminating the cause of the syndrome. This won’t help the victims who are already past the age when people stop physically maturing, but it will prevent new cases from developing. To eliminate the cause, governments will have to stop the sale and force the recall of the offending product, eliminate the offending pollutant, or end whatever other practice might be to blame. But no government is going to make any sort of drastic move unless both the syndrome and its cause have been scientifically proven beyond any doubt. Some scientist somewhere in the world is going to have to take a look at this whole situation and figure things out. If the human eye can recognize the huge structural difference between the face of an adult and the face of a child, then maybe so can a computer program. Proving that the syndrome exists might not be that difficult. Finding the syndrome's cause seems like a much more complex task, but hopefully someone is up to the challenge. Scientists have a big job ahead of them, but thankfully, the job of everybody else is easy. All that’s required of the rest of us is to know, and to acknowledge, that the syndrome exists. That’s it. Don't pretend not to the notice the physical immaturity of these young people. Enough people openly talking about being able to see the syndrome might motivate one or two people in the scientific community to give things a look.
    Make sure that you don't keep your awareness of the syndrome to yourself out of a fear of offending these old children, either. This fear is one more reason that people might resist acknowledging the syndrome. Many people have a strong reluctancy to be insulting, and saying that a 28 year old female still looks like a child might be looked at by some as an insult. The idea that something is causing young people to start puberty earlier than ever is one that's very easy for people to accept, despite the fact that the evidence supporting this theory is shakey at best, because it doesn't insult anyone, but the idea that something is preventing people from completing the process of physical maturation is more difficult for people to accept because many may see it as insulting. But this situation is much too important to keep quiet about because you're worried that you'll hurt somebody's feelings. Deep down, on some level, the victims of the child for life syndrome are all well aware of the syndrome's existence, anyway. Many of them have known for a long, long time. Some like to refer to themselves as men and women, which I always find extremely cute, but at their core they don't believe it for a second. Even the syndrome victims who have never seen themselves on video tape have seen themselves in a mirror. And ultimately, the victims can handle hearing the truth. They can handle being called a child. I know I can. Hey, I even wrote the book on the subject.

By Dave Gorman. ( dgormanfl@yahoo.com )

Top >>




































































































































































































































































































































web page hit counter
Office Depot Coupon Code