RT Journal
A1 Casdorph HR
T1 HYperlipoproteinemia
JF JAMA
JO JAMA
YR 1969
FD January 6
VO 207
IS 1
SP 151
OP 151
DO 10.1001/jama.1969.03150140103028
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1969.03150140103028
AB To the Editor:— 
    After reading the letter entitled "Hyperlipoproteinemia—A Difference of Opinion" (206:375, 1968), I should like to add support to the article of Fallon and Woods (204:1161, 1968). Perhaps the criticisms by Stanley Schor, PhD, were stimulating, but I cannot agree with them.In their article, Fallon and Woods applied statistical evaluation to the response to each individual in part because they represented different types of inherited defects as shown by the type of hyperlipoproteinemia classified by the method of Fredrickson and Lees. The available evidence indicates that these are different inherited defects and it is certainly valid to deal with them as different entities even though they have as a common denominator elevation of their blood lipids. The authors clearly state that 14 patients with essential hypercholesterolemia (type II hyperlipoproteinemia) responded with a 24% decline in serum cholesterol level. Seven patients with other forms of hyperlipoproteinemia had