If the Math is deemed correct, by the authors’ own admission the Dutch result would be biased

Review: those whose parents’ marriages were consanguineous have been left in the text – but only for the introduction – and perhaps for an off-text equation for the final result. On page 1, in “methods and results,” numbers are provided that result in 1/300,000 … but only if one does not scrutinize the rest of the paper. The HoFH count on page 1 is not the HoFH count used in calculations used for results on page 3.  20 true homozygotes are declared in the introduction on the first page, but 4 are subtracted on page 2 because including them “would inflate the prevalence.” But reinserting those 4 back into the results is the only way to reach 1/300,000 on page 3. This is not printed in the text, and so the math can only be considered “correct” if one accepts that the 4 explicitly removed due to bias are later reinserted in an off-text calculation. The authors say that the 4 would inflate the results, and here we see that 4 is used for the results, off-text. There will be more who read the introduction’s “methods and results” than who will scrutinize and question the actual methods and final results found in the full paper. The 2014 EAS report prints this admittedly biased result. The fact that there were 4 APOB carriers added and 4 from consanguineous marriages subtracted complicates the analysis, but not the result: we’ll get 1/371,608 two different ways, with consanguinity but without the APOB and with the APOB but without consanguinity. Either way, restoring textual integrity, 1/300,000 does not add up.

If the Math is deemed correct, by the authors’ own admission the Dutch result would be biased