Your Genetic Heart Disease Isn’t Genetic
An Essay on Familial Hypercholesterolemia, Two Centuries of Data, and the Architecture of Medical Blame
A reader recently wrote to me with a story that captures everything wrong with modern cardiology. He is a 68-year-old retired fighter pilot—30 years active duty with the U.S. Air Force, followed by 12 years as a defense contractor. At 66, he had what doctors call an “event”: triple bypass surgery following a diagnosis of advanced atherosclerosis with 90% arterial blockage.
The detail that matters: he had been on extremely high doses of statins and their predecessors for over 40 years, faithfully following every protocol his doctors prescribed for what they told him was familial hypercholesterolemia (FH)—the genetic condition of high cholesterol.
His father, also a 30-year fighter pilot, had been diagnosed and treated for hypercholesterolemia as well. The medical establishment’s explanation was ready-made: bad genes, passed from father to son. Genetic destiny.
Except the hypothesis failed its most basic test. Four decades of pharmaceutical compliance—the entire intervention the genetic model prescribes—ended with him gutted on a surgical table. When he asked his doctors why the protocols hadn’t protected him, the fallback was always the same: “unlucky genes.”
His current cardiologist insists he will remain on 80mg daily of Atorvastatin for life. The cardiologist assures him he “will have a heart attack or a stroke” and “will die” if he refuses the medication. The same medication that failed to prevent 90% blockage over 40 years of use.
No one has ever actually tested him for genetic FH. He has been treated as genetically defective based on a label and a lipid panel—not on demonstrated genetic evidence.
This is not unusual. Clinical diagnosis based on cholesterol levels and family history—not genetic confirmation—remains the standard of care. The “genetic” label gets applied without genetic evidence as routine practice. This inflates the apparent “genetic” population while obscuring how many people are simply being diagnosed with high cholesterol and a family history of the same dietary and environmental exposures.
Support Independent Research
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 170+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]
Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com
Two Centuries of Data Against a Medical Myth
If FH were the genetic death sentence it’s portrayed as, do genetically confirmed carriers actually die the way that narrative predicts?
Dutch researchers tracked FH families back to 1800—over two centuries of mortality data. They screened healthy individuals, identified those with genetically confirmed FH through genetic analysis, and traced their family members backward through historical records. The findings should have ended the genetic determinism narrative.
FH carriers’ all-cause mortality did not significantly differ from national rates through the 19th century. The researchers suggested that high cholesterol may have been protective against infectious disease—genetically modified mice with high cholesterol show protection against severe bacterial infections. In an era when infection was a leading killer, the metabolic variation now labeled as defect may have conferred survival advantage.
Mortality only rose after 1915. It peaked between 1935 and 1964. Even at its peak, mortality was less than twice that of the general population. Forty percent of people with familial hypercholesterolemia lived completely normal lifespans.
The researchers concluded that “environmental factors” were more important than cholesterol levels in determining outcomes.
If FH were the genetic death sentence it’s portrayed as, mortality patterns wouldn’t track environmental changes across centuries. They would be stable, determined by the unchanging genetic code. Instead, the data shows something that looks nothing like genetic determinism and everything like environmental causation intersecting with a metabolic variation.
A South African study examining genetic inheritance of FH found that different members of the same family—carrying the identical gene—experienced completely different outcomes. One individual did not develop coronary heart disease by age 84, despite carrying the FH Afrikaner-1 mutation. His son, who inherited the same gene and had the same cholesterol level, needed bypass surgery before age 50.
Same gene. Same cholesterol level. Completely different outcome.
If the gene caused the disease, this result is impossible. If environmental and metabolic factors cause the disease, and the gene is incidental, the result makes perfect sense.
The One-Way Evidence Valve
Malcolm Kendrick identifies what he calls a “one-way evidence valve” in FH research—what epidemiologists term ascertainment bias. The people with FH who develop heart disease come to medical attention. Those who don’t—the 84-year-olds living unremarkably with sky-high cholesterol and no cardiac symptoms—remain undetected. They never enter the research literature.
This creates systematic selection bias that can only confirm the hypothesis. Every case that enters the medical system is, by definition, a case where high cholesterol coincided with heart disease. The cases where high cholesterol coincided with no heart disease are invisible.
As Kendrick puts it: if the only member of a family who encounters the medical profession is the son who needed bypass surgery at 50, his condition gets recorded as “yet more evidence” that FH kills people early from heart disease. The father who lived to 84 with the same gene slips past unnoticed. The evidence valve admits only confirming cases.
The researchers at Oxford’s Department of Public Health tracked over 500 FH patients between ages 20 and 74 for several years. During a four-to-five-year period, eight of 237 FH patients between ages 40 and 59 died—five times more than in the general population. But during a similar period, only one of 75 FH patients between ages 60 and 74 died from coronary heart disease. This was fewer than in the general population.
The authors stressed that these patients had been referred specifically because of a personal or family history of premature vascular disease—they were at particularly high risk. Most people with FH in the general population are unrecognized and untreated. If the prognosis of these high-risk patients was this variable, what about all the FH individuals who never came to medical attention at all?
The Terrifying Statistic That Isn’t
The supposed 9,686% increased risk of cardiovascular death in young FH patients—the terrifying number used to frighten people into lifelong statin compliance—comes from the Simon Broome Register. Doctors deploy this figure as settled science.
What they rarely mention: a later paper from the same study found that while cardiovascular mortality was elevated, cancer mortality was reduced by nearly half. Overall mortality was no higher than the general population.
The terrifying percentage represents relative risk applied to already-rare events in young people. Dying of heart disease before age 40 is rare in any population. A fivefold or even hundredfold increase in a very rare event can still mean very few actual deaths. The relative risk framing obscures the absolute numbers—and obscures even more the finding that total mortality wasn’t elevated at all.
The Simon Broome data also revealed that FH patients lived into their eighties, even their nineties. One made it to 103. The researchers apparently found this unremarkable enough not to highlight it. Perhaps the patient would have made it to 104 without that deadly genetic condition.
The Risk Factors That Actually Matter
Here is where the genetic narrative collapses entirely.
Research shows that FH patients who develop coronary disease exhibit the same risk factors as everyone else: elevated triglycerides, blood glucose, insulin resistance, elevated inflammatory markers, hypertension, and coagulopathy. The altered lipid metabolism in FH creates a clotting problem, not a cholesterol-accumulation problem.
Dr. Stephen Hussey, reviewing this evidence, notes that while FH patients “often do not fare well,” the evidence “points to the altered lipid metabolism, not the high LDL per se, as the culprit.” A comprehensive analysis disagreed with the idea that people with FH are more prone to heart disease “based on the absence of support for the diet-heart hypothesis, and the lack of evidence that a low saturated fat, low cholesterol diet reduces coronary events in FH individuals.”
The authors concluded: “The subset of FH individuals that develop CHD exhibit risk factors associated with an insulin-resistant phenotype (elevated triglycerides, blood glucose, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), obesity, hyperinsulinaemia, high-sensitivity C reactive protein, hypertension) or increased susceptibility to develop coagulopathy.”
This points toward entirely different interventions than statin drugs. If the problem is metabolic dysfunction and clotting abnormalities—conditions shared with the general population who develop heart disease—then the solution lies in addressing those conditions, not in chemically suppressing cholesterol production.
The reader who wrote to me is experiencing exactly what this research predicts. His borderline diabetes and debilitating muscle cramps are not random misfortunes layered on top of his genetic condition. They are predictable consequences of four decades of statin use.
What Statins Actually Do
Statins block an enzyme called HMG-CoA reductase, which is necessary to produce mevalonate. Mevalonate is the building block not only for cholesterol but also for coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10). CoQ10 is located in the mitochondria of cells—the cell’s power plant. No energy is produced without this molecule, and its importance is greatest where energy is needed most: in muscle cells.
Hearts are muscles.
The heart has one of the highest mitochondrial densities of any tissue in the body, which is why CoQ10 is often supplemented for heart health. But if statins interrupt the cholesterol production chain, CoQ10 doesn’t get made. A 2003 paper reviewing all animal and human research on statins and CoQ10 stated that “as the potency of statin drugs increases and as the target LDL cholesterol level decreases, the severity of CoQ10 depletion will increase with an increasing likelihood of impairment in heart muscle function.”
Depleting CoQ10 in cardiac muscle while claiming to protect the heart is, as Kendrick observes, like removing the engine from a car to make it safer.
The muscle complaints are the most frequently reported side effect from statin treatment. Trial reports claim myopathy occurs in less than 1 percent of patients. Independent researchers find much higher frequencies. A research group at the University of Vienna found that muscular side effects appear in about 25% of patients who do regular exercise. They studied 22 professional athletes with familial hypercholesterolemia treated with various statins. Sixteen—three out of four—discontinued treatment because of muscle side effects.
Even patients without symptoms show damage. Electron microscopy of muscle tissue from statin-treated patients without any subjective complaints found compromised structural integrity of skeletal muscle fibers in 10 of 14 patients—but in only one of eight control individuals.
Statins also cause diabetes. A study of 3,234 individuals at risk for diabetes found that statin use resulted in a 30 percent increased risk of developing diabetes across all study groups. A meta-analysis found that “the weight of clinical evidence suggests a worsening effect of statins on insulin resistance and secretion.”
The reader’s symptoms—borderline diabetes, muscle cramps—are not his body randomly malfunctioning. His body is responding intelligently to a pharmaceutical assault it has endured for four decades. The symptoms are communication, not malfunction.
How would you explain this to a 6-year-old?
Doctors told a man he had a sickness in his genes—the instructions inside his body that make him who he is. They said his genes would give him heart disease, just like his dad. So for 40 years, he took medicine every single day to stop it.
Then he got heart disease anyway. Really bad.
When he asked why the medicine didn’t work, the doctors said: “Your genes were just too bad.”
But here’s the thing: scientists looked at families with these same “bad genes” going back 200 years. They found that a long time ago, these people didn’t get sick more than anyone else. Some of them lived longer. It was only after things changed—the food, the air, the way people lived—that they started getting sick.
And when scientists looked closer, they found that the people with “bad genes” who got heart disease had the exact same problems as everyone else who gets heart disease: sticky blood, too much sugar, and swelling inside their bodies.
So it wasn’t the genes making them sick. It was the same stuff that makes everyone sick.
The man took medicine for his genes for 40 years. But his genes weren’t the problem.
The House of Cards Beneath the Diagnosis
Even if the FH-specific evidence were ambiguous—which it is not—there remains a deeper problem. The entire genetic framework rests on foundations that have never been properly validated.
I have written elsewhere about the systematic failures of genetic science—what I called “Fool’s Gold Standard.”. The forensic science establishment claims DNA testing achieves 99.99% accuracy. When researchers actually conducted blind tests—sending the same DNA evidence to 17 independent analysts without telling them the expected result—only 1 of 17 agreed with the original laboratory’s conclusion. Twelve reached the opposite conclusion.
The Human Genome Project promised that genes would predict disease. Over 700 genome-wide association studies have been completed, covering approximately 80 different diseases. The results are consistent: genes contribute at most 5-10% to common disease risk. The genetic variation confidently expected by medical geneticists cannot be found.
Rather than accept these results, geneticists invented “missing heritability”—the genes must be hiding somewhere. Each proposed hiding place, when investigated, fails to contain the missing genes. The hiding places keep moving because there is nothing to find.
Richard Lewontin of Harvard argued that heritability is fundamentally meaningless as a concept. Martin Bobrow of Cambridge called human heritability “a poisonous concept” and “almost uninterpretable.” Yet the entire case for genetic causation of common diseases rests on twin studies producing heritability estimates—studies that systematically exclude environmental variation from their calculations.
The FH diagnosis rests on this edifice. A patient receives a cholesterol measurement, gets assigned a label, and is told his genes have condemned him to pharmaceutical dependency for life. The label functions as an explanation, shutting down further inquiry. But the label explains nothing. It describes a measurement and asserts causation without demonstrating mechanism.
What Families Actually Share
Dr. Marizelle | Undiagnosed, a naturopathic physician, has written directly on this question. “When similar conditions produce similar outcomes,” she observes, “medicine calls it heredity. In reality, it is replication of behavior responses.”
Families share more than genes. They share water sources, dietary habits, chemical exposures, stress patterns, sleep routines, and emotional coping strategies. Two generations of fighter pilots share something far more specific than chromosomes: decades of military institutional food systems, sustained high-performance stress, similar medical protocols applied at similar career stages, and comparable environmental exposures across military installations.
“Runs in the family” describes shared terrain as accurately as it describes shared DNA.
As Dr. Marizelle puts it: “A gene cannot occlude an artery. A gene cannot oxidize lipids. A gene cannot calcify tissue. A gene cannot inflame endothelium. But lived conditions can—and do.”
If heart disease were genetically determined, behavior would be irrelevant. Nutrition would be a footnote. Sleep and movement would be superficial. Psychological stress would be immaterial. Yet these variables shape outcomes and even reverse pathology. Arterial narrowing diminishes. Blood chemistry stabilizes. Inflammatory markers fall. These are not signs of genetic phenomena. They are physiological responses to changed conditions.
“Heart disease, therefore, is not genetic,” Dr. Marizelle concludes. “It is grown. And anything grown can, in principle, be altered, reshaped, or ungrown.”
The Thrombogenic Alternative
If cholesterol doesn’t cause heart disease, what does?
Malcolm Kendrick has spent decades developing and documenting the thrombogenic hypothesis: that heart disease is fundamentally a clotting disorder, not a cholesterol disorder. Atherosclerotic plaques—the thickenings and narrowings in arteries—are the remnants of blood clots formed on artery walls and subsequently incorporated into them.
The process begins when the lining of the artery wall is damaged. This stimulates blood clot formation, which covers over the area like a scab on damaged skin. A new layer of arterial lining grows over the top, drawing the clot remnant into the artery wall. In most cases, the clot is fully broken down and removed. But if damage repeats faster than repair, or if clots are bigger and harder to clear, plaques grow.
The reader’s 90% blockage was not a “fatty clog” in his arterial plumbing—the drainpipe myth that cholesterol theory promotes. It was layered accumulation of organized fibrin: clots forming, incorporating, layering, over decades. The thrombogenic model is the specific key that unlocks his mystery.
Elspeth Smith, a researcher at Aberdeen University whose work Kendrick champions, put it directly: “It is increasingly clear that all aspects of the haemostatic [blood clotting] system are involved: not only in the acute occlusive event, but also in all stages of atherosclerotic plaque development from the initiation of atherogenesis to the expansion and growth of large plaques.”
Thrombogenesis is not a replacement monocausal theory. It is the proximate mechanism—the “how”—downstream of the metabolic dysfunction, environmental insults, and inflammatory processes that damage arterial walls in the first place. This explains what cholesterol theory cannot: why FH patients who develop heart disease share clotting abnormalities and metabolic dysfunction with the general population who develop heart disease. The elevated cholesterol is a marker of underlying disruption, not the initiating cause. The metabolic state that produces both the cholesterol elevation and the clotting tendency is the actual problem.
It also explains why 40 years of cholesterol suppression failed to protect my reader. He was treating the wrong target.
The Constructed Category
“Heart disease” is not a discrete pathological entity. It is a modern umbrella category—a diagnostic convenience designed to organize diverse failure states into a single concept.
Prior to the twentieth century, physicians documented conditions such as arterial irregularities, weak circulation, congestion, angina, dropsy, tissue softening, arrhythmia, and fatigue syndromes. Their language described states of degeneration, not diseases as objects. As medicine industrialized, complexity became inconvenient. Multiple interacting breakdowns were collapsed into manageable labels.
The category groups together coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, hypertension, arrhythmias, cardiomyopathy, valvular degeneration, ischemic injury, and atherosclerosis. These are not interchangeable processes. Yet they are clinically treated as though they were.
As Dr. Marizelle observes: “When a physician states, ‘You have heart disease,’ it’s akin to declaring, ‘Your engine is on the way to failing.’ This diagnosis fails to elucidate the reasons behind the failure, such as which system faltered first or how the deterioration unfolded over time.”
The diagnosis became mistaken for an explanation. But “heart disease” explains no mechanism. It describes no pathway. It identifies no originating disturbance. It merely confirms that deterioration occurred.
What the Reader’s Body Knows
The reader who wrote to me has spent 40 years trusting a hypothesis that his own body has now falsified. The protocols failed. The surgery happened anyway. And his cardiologist’s response is to insist on more of the same protocols, backed by threats of imminent death.
His body, meanwhile, is communicating clearly. The muscle cramps signal CoQ10 depletion from decades of statin-induced mitochondrial dysfunction. The borderline diabetes signals the documented 30% increase in diabetes risk that statins produce. These are not mysterious afflictions layered on genetic misfortune. They are predictable iatrogenic consequences—harm caused by the treatment itself.
He was never actually tested for genetic FH. He was assigned a label based on a lipid measurement and treated as defective for 40 years on that basis alone. His father’s similar diagnosis reinforced the genetic framing, when what it actually demonstrated was shared environment: shared military food systems, shared career stress patterns, shared medical protocols, shared chemical and electromagnetic exposures across decades of service.
The fallback explanation—”unlucky genes”—deserves the same scrutiny applied to any unfalsifiable hypothesis. When the prescribed intervention fails, the failure gets attributed to the disease rather than to the intervention. The hypothesis cannot be wrong; the patient’s genes must simply be worse than expected. This is not science. It is narrative maintenance.
The Fear Model and Its Function
The cardiologist’s warning—”you will have a heart attack or a stroke, you will die”—is not medical counsel. It is coercion dressed in clinical language.
The statement cannot be supported by evidence, because the evidence shows that the intervention has already failed in this patient’s case. Forty years of compliance produced 90% blockage. The logical inference is not that more compliance will finally work, but that the intervention does not address the actual cause.
The fear serves a function. It prevents inquiry. It forecloses the possibility that the patient might research alternatives, question the diagnosis, or discover that the genetic framing lacks scientific support. It keeps him dependent on the prescriber and compliant with the protocol—regardless of whether the protocol helps.
Dr. Marizelle identifies this pattern: “When individuals are told they possess ‘bad genes,’ something insidious occurs. Responsibility becomes abstraction. Agency dissolves into fatalism. Medical intervention replaces biological inquiry. The genetic narrative, though seemingly scientific, trains helplessness with impressive efficiency.”
I have written elsewhere about genetics as the fifth wall of the medical extraction system—the innermost fortification protecting industrial interests from accountability. The first four walls (vaccination, allopathic medicine, bacteriology, virology) redirect attention from the actual assaults on human health toward explanations that demand medical intervention. Genetics perfects this redirection. When your disease is “in your DNA,” no corporation is liable, no regulator is negligent, no lifestyle factor is actionable. You were born broken, and only the medical system can manage your predetermined decline.
The ultimate power of genetic determinism lies in its assignment of blame without agency. Every other explanation for disease implies responsibility somewhere in the system. Chemical exposure points to manufacturers. Electromagnetic radiation points to infrastructure. Malnutrition points to the food supply. Each explanation identifies actors who could be held accountable.
Genetic determinism points only at you.
Your disease is not caused by what was done to you. It is caused by what you are. The defect is not in the environment but in your heritage. No corporation is liable. No regulator is negligent. No policy failed. You were born broken.
But genetics adds a second turn of the screw: you can do nothing about it. You cannot change your genes. The diagnosis simultaneously assigns you complete responsibility for your condition and removes all agency to address it. The trap is complete. You are to blame, but you are also helpless. The only path forward runs through the institutions that diagnosed you.
This creates the perfect dependent: a patient who believes their body is fundamentally defective, who accepts that decline is written in their cells, who sees the medical system as their only hope. This patient will not question. This patient will not refuse. This patient will not investigate environmental causes because they have been told their genes have already decided. This patient is the ideal extraction target—compliant, dependent, grateful, and convinced that the alternative to medical management is death.
The reader who wrote to me occupied this position for 40 years. He describes being “staggered” by how concepts like the streetlight effect and terrain theory intersect with his life experience. The frameworks exist. The evidence exists. What didn’t exist—until he went looking—was permission to question the genetic sentence he’d been handed.
What Remains
The Dutch data, the Oxford data, the Simon Broome data, the research on shared risk factors—all of it points to the same conclusion. High cholesterol in FH is a metabolic variation that intersects with environmental factors to produce variable outcomes. The gene didn’t change between the 19th century and the 20th. The environment did.
The reader’s body has been telling him this for years through symptoms his doctors dismissed or attributed to genetics. The muscle pain, the glucose dysregulation, the failure of four decades of intervention—these are data. They deserve interpretation, not suppression.
Biology does not punish the body for living. It responds faithfully to what it is given. Change the conditions, and the trajectory changes with them.
References
Dutch FH Mortality Study: Sijbrands, E.J., et al. “Mortality over two centuries in large pedigree with familial hypercholesterolaemia.” BMJ, 2001.
Simon Broome Register Studies: Scientific Steering Committee, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford. Multiple publications on FH mortality patterns.
FH Risk Factor Analysis: Diamond, D.M., and Ravnskov, U. “How statistical deception created the appearance that statins are safe and effective.” Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, 2015.
Statin and CoQ10 Depletion: Langsjoen, P.H., and Langsjoen, A.M. “The clinical use of HMG CoA-reductase inhibitors and the associated depletion of coenzyme Q10.” BioFactors, 2003.
Statin and Diabetes Risk: Cederberg, H., et al. “Increased risk of diabetes with statin treatment.” Diabetologia, 2015.
Muscle Effects in Athletes: Sinzinger, H., et al. “Muscular side effects of statins.” Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology, 2002.
Thrombogenic Hypothesis: Kendrick, M. The Clot Thickens: The Enduring Mystery of Heart Disease. Columbus Publishing, 2021.
Smith, E.B. “Fibrinogen, fibrin and the arterial wall.” European Heart Journal, 1995.
Terrain Model and Diagnostic Categories: Dr. Marizelle. “Heart Disease Is Not Inherited, It Isn’t Even a Disease.” Undiagnosed (Substack), December 23, 2025.
Genetic Science Foundations: See “Fool’s Gold Standard: The Unvalidated Science of DNA” for comprehensive analysis of systematic failures in genetic testing validation.
See “The Fifth Wall: Genetics as the Final Fortress of Medical Extraction” for analysis of how genetic determinism functions within the medical extraction system.
Primary Sources on Cholesterol Hypothesis: Ravnskov, U. The Cholesterol Myths. NewTrends Publishing, 2000.
Kendrick, M. The Great Cholesterol Con. John Blake Publishing, 2008.
Hussey, S. Understanding the Heart. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2022.
Support Independent Research
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 170+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]
Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com
Bitcoin: 3Q6BK8x8zjoPaXykQggzvoJxg5FiEbkb3U
Ethereum: 0x4CB0d39d8466a34609318FC1B003B745893788b3
New Biology Clinic
For those of you looking for practitioners who actually understand terrain medicine and the principles we explore here, I want to share something valuable. Dr. Tom Cowan—whose books and podcasts have shaped much of my own thinking about health—has created the New Biology Clinic, a virtual practice staffed by wellness specialists who operate from the same foundational understanding. This isn’t about symptom suppression or the conventional model. It’s about personalized guidance rooted in how living systems actually work. The clinic offers individual and family memberships that include not just private consults, but group sessions covering movement, nutrition, breathwork, biofield tuning, and more. Everything is virtual, making it accessible wherever you are. If you’ve been searching for practitioners who won’t look at you blankly when you mention structured water or the importance of the extracellular matrix, this is worth exploring. Use discount code “Unbekoming” to get $100 off the member activation fee. You can learn more and sign up at newbiologyclinic.com
My cardiologist recently proscribed 20 mg Atorvastatin for what he describes as (my layman's paraphrase) cholesterol challenge to my heart valve. I've seen enough of the side effects of statin drugs on relatives and friends to make me highly reluctant to follow this treatment. I'm seriously considering nutritional and therapy alternatives to this treatment.
WIthin three days of an MRNA injection, a 21 year-old woman who had a new job, just bought a home, otherwise healthy, died of heart failure. Doctor ascribed it to heretofore undiagnosed congenital heart disease. Yeah. Right.