Reconciliation of the Danish reports and an examination of the Regeneron report show us the critical failure in the scoring systems. If we keep both the scoring systems and the genetic testing available, we lump mostly non-FH in with the FH. FH’s “clinical variability” precludes use of the clinical scoring systems. When we see that there is a pervasive variability of scores in both on-target and off-target populations, we also see that both on-target and off-target share the same scores. Using these scores does not distinguish between these on and off-target populations, we simply hide that fact that we have lumped them all together. The majority of those who pass the scoring systems are mostly non-FH and the majority of those that are genuine FH fail the scoring systems. How did we get here? Through citation kiting, the “art of not defining” FH has succeeded.