Pharma-funded publications are using readers’ suspended attention between publications to leave out facts, definitions, and even key numbers. I’ve referred to this removal during the researchers’ transfer of information as a “fact-ectomy.” As for “citation kiting,” like check kiting, It claims a value on paper which persists as a value only as long as that claim remains unreconciled with its source. The scheme is easy to see, once we’re looking for it. We just trace the “citation” back to its source, match up quantities claimed in each, account for “innovative” definitions, and then set up their respective values and terms side by side. With citation kiting, what we see is something like a relay team that cheats by switching batons, instead of passing on the original. In SEC 10-K filings this 2014 EAS report is the source for the HoFH prevalence of 1/300,000. (It also takes the 2013 EAS HeFH number and through derivation cites 1/160,000 for HoFH.) It’s not epidemiology. It’s a gimmick.