2013 EAS: Citation Kiting — Norwegian report involving the confusion of FCH with FH
A pattern is revealing itself. Citation kiting once again assumes the FCH into the FH count. The confusion over Heiberg began earlier than the 2013 EAS report. However, it is here clearly taken up and presented to mainstream academia. On the left is the highly influential, 2013 EAS report by Nordestgaard, et al. It claims that prevalence in Norway was estimated to be 1/300 and used that number to undermine the standard 1/500. It cites Heiberg and Berg’s 1976 paper as the source for this claim, bottom right. However, that 1976 source clearly puts FH prevalence at 1/455. The 1/300 is for FH and FCH together. This exposes a plan, not just to inflate the prevalence, but to bring in the other disease, FCH, as FH. This relatively obscure paper with its past of checkered citations is now an opportunity for big-league citation kiting. However, as with all deception, the refutation of Nordestgaard’s use of Heiberg’s estimate is very crisp: one of the very authors of this 1976 report, K. Berg, is quoted in an interview – top right of illustration – citing his own 1976 report and putting the prevalence at 1/500.
1973 Source: Heiberg clearly distinguished between FH and FCH
The 2013 EAS Norway citation is one more example of citation kiting. FCH had already been clearly identified and delineated in a source document but then absorbed into a new FH designation, without explanation — and with a citation whose integrity has been broken off at the source. FH was clearly close to 1/500 in the original and 1/300 clearly referred to FH plus FCH (using today’s terminology). Again, through the Norway citation, the disease rolled up within FH is clearly FCH. As I will show, the evidence of a pattern strongly supports a conclusion: the FCH were targeted from 2011 through 2013 and beyond. Excerpts from Heiberg’s 1973 report can be found below.
2004 Austin, 2009 Leren, 2017 Akioyamen: Heiberg’s 1976 FH estimate was 1/500
Others use Heiberg’s paper as a source of FH prevalence too, but at 1/500, not 1/300.
2011, before and after: the “results” shift from 1/500 to 1/300.
I note that when Leren is the lead writer and the date is before Goldberg et al’s 2011 paper, prevalence is 1/500. When he is not the lead author and when beyond the 2011 Goldberg series, prevalence tends to be 1/300. Note at the beginning of 2011, Leren uses Heiberg for the prevalence of 1/500, then just months later in the same year, the same source is used for a prevalence of 1/300. Between these two different prevalence estimates, Goldberg et al publish their 2011 linguistic roll up of other diseases into FH, declaring 1/300 prevalence, blending different diseases together, in two different ways: FDB becomes FH on a molecular level, but when it comes to treatment recommendations, the FCH are assumed to be FH. As demonstrated previously, the only way for FH to be 1/300 in the Heiberg report is to accept the FCH as FH.
Leren’s 2011 papers frame the shift made by Goldberg, et al, in 2011
Mid-year 2011, Leren shifts prevalence and APOB classification while using the same source that he used before: Heiberg. This is a sudden shift out of the flow of the establishedcultural inertia. A conflation identicalto Goldberg’s in America shows up in Norway, at the same time. I cannot rationally declare with certainty that this is more than a coincidence, but I can say that it is suspicious. In the 2011 Goldberg series, with heavy pharma funding present, prevalence is 1/300 and “FH” is unceremoniously assumed to include the FCH. What are the odds that (1) the Heiberg numbers would slip off of 1/500 to land on 1/300, (2) by including the FCH in the total for FH – without explanation – (3) chronologically bracketing Goldberg’s unprecedented use of 1/300.