Transparent Citation Kiting in the 2014 EAS “consensus”

I’ve discovered that pharma-funded publications are using readers’ suspended attention between publications to leave out facts, definitions, and even key numbers.  I’ve referred to this removal during the researchers’ transfer of information as a “fact-ectomy” and to the publisher’s failure to reconcile the value claimed with its actual source as “citation kiting.” We’ve seen this sort of “fact-ectomy” in the linguistic manipulation of the definition of “FH” and across the Danish and 2013 EAS “consensus” reports. (See fhprevalence.com.) The scheme is easy to see, once we’re looking for it. We just trace the “citation” back to its source, match up quantities claimed in each, account for “innovative” definitions, and then set up a table of parallel definitions and values. What we see is something like a relay team that cheats by switching batons, instead of passing on the original.  (In the following pages, we’ll see that HeFH is actually 1/500, not 1/319.)

Transparent Citation Kiting in the 2014 EAS “consensus”