Just plain old bad math – inflates a multibillion dollar market estimate for investors

I believe that “16” is nowhere to be found in the Dutch report because it would render HoFH prevalence readily available to simple division, proving the Nobel Prize winners’ original estimates. (The Nobel Prize winners are now on Regeneron’s board.) But in the roundabout path taken to avoid this, someone slipped with the final result. As hard as this is to believe, in a multibillion-dollar market for FH, with a mathematical task one learns in elementary school, the numbers presented in plain sight just don’t add up. Literally. They are really big numbers, that is true, but the task is the simple addition of fractions. Not only does this error get past peer review in the Dutch paper, but it is reprinted in the 2014 EAS … which is now widely cited. This 1/300,000 is printed by Novelion and Esperion in their SEC filed annual reports. It is wrong. The number is even cited within the FDA. It is as if someone put together an error and sent it on autopilot, to glide on through medical, investor, and regulatory literature, never touched by human examination. That’s part of both the cause and the effect of citation kiting: what we don’t examine endures as a perfect illusion of “science.”

Just plain old bad math – inflates a multibillion dollar market estimate for investors