Conclusion: The Evidence is Decisive

  • A man is identified on video robbing a bank.
  • Madoff’s trading strategy required more volume than existed in the entire options exchange.

In the above, the two types of thefts have different triggers for opening an investigation … two types of initial evidence: one begins with video while the other begins with analysis. Both of these pieces of evidence are strong, even though the former can be readily understood by the casual observer, while the latter requires some mental effort and deductive ability. Yet setting aside the difference of epistemological category, both are nonetheless very strong.Unfortunately, the crimes that harm the most people often yield the least concrete evidence. There was no gotcha-video for Madoff’s crime. No fingerprints. Nonetheless, the evidence against Madoff was not “fuzzy” or “circumstantial.” It could be tested in the real world for forensic evidence: trading identification numbers should be held by Madoff and these should be matched with actual trading at the exchange. Such a forensic reconciliation would be decisive. But that does not mean that the deductive analysis which prompted the search for forensic evidence was any less certain.

Likewise, the analysis I present is not “fuzzy logic.” This is not a “gray area.” It is not circumstantial. This is a mathematical fracture which can be demonstrated with Euclidean precision.  The real-world consequences of switching the identification procedures can be demonstrated in mathematical equations,[1] and this clearly shows the swapping of the FH for the non-FH patients. It can be tested in the real world for forensic evidence: My forensic reconciliation of the two Danish reports is decisive. The real people found through the 1st report’s scoring system can be reconciled with the real people found through the 2nd report’s genetic matching: they are not the same people.  These two Danish reports serve as a proxy for the industry’s publication strategy: use the forensic, genetic approach to advertise the urgency of underdiagnosis, but then switch to a circumstantial system to locate mostly different people for the sale of Pharma’s drugs.

I am naïve and so I believe that because there is deceit and injury, some US law must have been broken … but then what law?  I look for other examples of this scheme as a form of human trafficking, but I find no prosecution as such.

  1. Where Real people are recruited …
  2. By means of deceit …
  3. For the commercial exploitation of their bodies and the commercial manipulation of their organs …
  4. And the injury not done for medical reasons, but for profit, being violence, not medicine …
  5. What crime is that?

I do however know this. A clear forensically available line has been crossed. If the majority of genetic hits are below clinical detection and the majority above clinical detection are not mutation carriers, then what happens when we move from the genetic-based proof of “underdiagnosis” to the recommended clinical-based diagnosis? Underdiagnosis again … but this time, an intentional, profitable one.  Underdiagnosis does not just continue; it is caused. It’s not a medical problem, but a part of a solution to a financial problem. The recommended diagnostic system abandons the very people used to claim “underdiagnosis” … by targeting non-LDLR carriers.

Sales are to the wrong patients.

Regeneron report, Familial hypercholesterolemia, FH prevalence

Taxpayers, insurers, and the insured pay for it all. And in the end, this scheme can only fall apart as “precision medicine” moves forward. With this tremendous waste of time and resources, one wonders what good might have been accomplished in its stead?



[1] For the mathematical Proof, click here.