There is no external, contemporary source for the doubled prevalence in the 2013 EAS consensus report.

What concerns us here is the citation trail. The 2013 EAS paper did no prevalence study of its own. This Authoritative report did not even use the results of the study it cited. Consequently, there was no external, contemporary source in this Authoritative report for the new result and new criteria. The only source to the corrected prevalence rate is a “self-citation” within this very, selfsame, Authoritative report, found in a caption to an illustration, referring to a “personal communication” with the lead author: Borge Nordestgaard. Did someone actually talk to him? … or did he simply talk to himself? This is a multibillion-dollar industry. And the new prevalence and new criteria rests on a personal communication, with the selfsame lead author?  This report has no external, contemporary source for the doubled prevalence. From here on the Authoritative report is usually cited in the industry as if it were the source itself. (The 2012 report on the left is contradicted by a paper in 2016, by the same authors, using much of the same study population. See my reconciliation of these two reports. The link is in the sidebar on the right.)

There is no external, contemporary source for the doubled prevalence in the 2013 EAS consensus report on FH.