If you're going to nail people on specific questions, you need to stick to those specific questions, not read a reaction to your very specific “cholesterol by itself isn’t harmful?” as anything other than an answer to your question.

Do you think the original person making the claim was referring to high serum cholesterol, or shadow boxing against an imaginary interlocutor who claims even a single individual cholesterol molecule is harmful?

I thought it was obvious, hence the original broad quote, but the bizarre Wikipedia response made me think that perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Hence the clarification with my follow up.

you asked:

  What’s the evidence for the claim “cholesterol by itself isn’t harmful?”

And got a response that is more than just an evidence. A smart person would not just change the goalpost but one with nefarious intentions, maybe.

Do you think the original person making the claim was referring to high serum cholesterol, or shadow boxing against an imaginary interlocutor who claims even a single individual cholesterol molecule is harmful?

I thought it was obvious, hence the original broad quote, but the bizarre Wikipedia response made me think that perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. Hence the clarification with my follow up.

Is the world often bizarre to you?

Not interested in the meta-talk, let’s stick to the subject.

So for clarification on your view - do you think that high levels of LDL-C (proxying for ApoB) increase risk of CVD?

Not interested in the conversation partner with the track record displayed here.

More meta talk, zero reference to the issue actually under discussion. Disappointing.

> Do you think the original person making the claim was referring to high serum cholesterol

What I think is that your behavior is quite strange, to create a fake profile just to post a link "debunking" the author. Do you have something personal against her?

And then when you got corrected, in place of recognizing you said something wrong, you double-down your irrational behavior: "shadow boxing against an imaginary interlocutor". Yeah because the original interlocutor makes stupid questions.

I have issues with people pushing anti-science that can lead to harms. I have issues with Teicholz for this reason in the same way I have issues with Andrew Wakefield.

By "imaginary interlocutor" I was referring to a misreading of the parent reply, not mine. This was the person who said: "Anyone else have alternative takes on cholesterol based on personal experience?"

The question is then whether when that person said "alternative takes on cholesterol" they meant "alternative takes on the function of an individual molecule of cholesterol" and not "alternative takes on the significance of high serum cholesterol". Considering their next two bullet points refer to high and low levels of serum cholesterol, I thought it was fairly obvious.

Apparently it wasn't for some people, and those same people are then claiming that making this clear is some sort of dodge/goalpost shift/deceptive behaviour. But it clearly isn't. If you read the above, where someone was obviously referring to high serum cholesterol, and in response someone says "cholesterol by itself isn’t harmful", is it reasonable to quote that claim and ask for evidence, by which you mean "I want evidence that high serum cholesterol isn't harmful"? If it is reasonable, which I believe it is, then no deception, goalpost shifting or correcting has actually taken place here.