The erroneous assumption and prevailing prejudice that most FH mutations would have severe consequences is partly due to the preservation of selection bias within Pharma-funded reports.
Here’s an example: If I wanted to identify NBA players in the general population, I could look for individual characteristics of NBA players, such as an above average height. All those whose heights were above a “cutoff point,” which I myself would determine, would be defined as “NBA players.” If I then averaged the heights of all those on my list, the results would in all likelihood suffer from selection bias. This is because the stereotype that NBA players are taller than average results in a cutoff point which necessarily excludes any NBA players who do not exceed this cutoff point. Any shorter but genuine professional players cannot possibly be included in the tally. If there are players who are not as tall as my cutoff point, then by mathematical necessity, the average height of NBA players now appears to be higher than it actually is. This bias is due to my faulty selection procedure.
However, when I average all actual players on the NBA roster, I will have to include these shorter players – those who had been excluded by the cutoff point in the scoring system.
So if there are actually players with heights below my imposed threshold, the results from the official NBA roster will necessarily reveal a loweraverage height. And when the average height of all players on the roster is lower than that of those in the scoring system, it is the scoring system that is biased and incorrect.
- Any average determined by a cutoff point above the minimum will necessarily be greater than the average of the total.