First step: Exaggerated prevalence “proves” and leverages the urgency of “Underdiagnosis”

Let’s look again at the observation by Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, expert witness in the Wyeth trial. She was quoted in a Science magazine article regarding deceptive scientific publications:

 “People tend to think of marketing messages as ‘buy drug A,’ but that’s never the message imbedded in such articles. …. The message may be, disease A is underdiagnosed or far more serious than previously believed ….”[1]

Regeneron-funded report claims FH underdiagnosis

On the right, we see this strategy in the Regeneron-funded report, coincidentally published in the same magazine. Note the rational leverage that “prevalence” has over “underdiagnosis.” 

And below, in the industry’s authoritative report: “Severe Underdiagnosis” … “undertreatment” … “urgent worldwide need” … “early and aggressive treatment” … and “extremely high-risk condition.”

Most influential FH prevalence report

First Danish report is the source for the industry's authoritative report

In the Danish report below, sharing an identical population with the report above, prevalence was supposed to have been confirmed genetically. My analysis however proves, with deduction, that upon reconciliation of the respective reports, this later study provides the facts which refute the “1st reportdecisively. Click here to see my mathematical proof. I refer to this report below as the “2nd report.”

The second Danish report also claims underdiagnosis -- after manipulating the math

Key point: Distorted prevalence serves as “proof” of “underdiagnosis.”

Below, we see the pharma-funded efforts to educate the medical community and create awareness of the urgency. The industry wide repetition of “vastly underdiagnosed” suggests that either the education strategy has been influential or there is a concerted effort to broadcast a unified message.

The FH Foundation promotes the claim of underdiagnosis.

[1] “Ghostwriters in the medical literature,” Susan Gaidos,