Is there a good reason for blending different diseases under the name of one of them? Compound HeFH will soon be HoFH. What happens when we hold to the historical record, and tease the underlying components out from their new, elastic name? As with all of the FH studies that I have found, the claim of doubled, tripled, even sextupled prevalence is not only refuted by the studies’ own raw data, but the old numbers are confirmed by the very data used in the refutation.Prevalence for HoFH was said to be 1 in 1,000,000. In the Dutch study, there were 20 HoFH found. But 4 of those were said to “inflate the prevalence,” so they were explicitly removed, leaving 16: Yet the number “16” as an explicit reference to HoFH is nowhere to be found in the entire report, nonetheless it is clearly employed in off-text calculations. And this report is on the homozygous, yet a prevalence number devoted to the true homozygous FH is not in the text. True HoFH in this report actually comes out to 1/1,045,149, astonishingly close to the established 1/1,000,000. Through the very Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium employed by the authors, 1/000,000 HoFH is 1/500 HeFH. Yet this true HoFH result will not be mentioned, not here, not in the 2014 EAS. The 2014 EAS will brazenly take the HoADH and simply call them, HoFH, and HeFH will be printed as 1 in 244.