Two different “FH” populations alternate between the two reports.

Using an estimate of 17 Top4 above clinical detection point: Viewing the 1st report’s numbers according to the 2nd and 1st reports’ methods.

Two different “FH” populations alternate between the two reports.

This allows us to see that the 2nd report, far from being a confirmation of the 1st report, suggests that the 1st report is inflated with false positives[1] and that false negatives[2] are neglected. The false positives are in effect “renamed” through the methodology, if the reports influence the medical community to accept clinical screening as sufficient. The false negatives, being inaccessible, simply do not exist on the clinical “radar screen.” The vast majority of the False Positives shown here make up the “True Positives” behind the Authoritative report.

Not the same people: The majority through each of the reports’ different methods are different people.  Both prevalence methods, when applied to the 1st report, share the same 100 molecular results from the top four most frequent mutations. And both share the same 27 remaining mutations as calculated by their respective proportions of the full mutation spectrum – the technique used in the 2nd report. Thus 127 individuals are shared between the two methods. We must accept by deduction that the 131 False Negatives below the cutoff and absent from the 1st report cannot also be the 157 so-called “True Positives” above the cutoff in that same 1st report. The two reports are working with the same 60,000 people and so this is a deductive conclusion. The similarity in the prevalence numbers between the two reports is a coincidence and declaring their “comparability” cannot be correct.

The majority through each of the reports’ different methods are different people.

[1] Those who look like FH but who do not carry a mutation.

[2] Those who do not look like FH but who do carry a mutation.