I think the common link is the body's repair mechanism. Cholesterol is found at the scene, coping with toxins/inflammation as it is part of the repair mechanism, but it isn't an instigator.

You are correct. The figures are for total cholesterol which is irrelevant. Plus do you really believe that every single member in each country has recently had their cholesterol tested?

You are mixing things up and misquoting. I said the table proves nothing. I said total cholesterol is meaningless. I did NOT say total cholesterol was meaningless BECAUSE the table proves nothing. If we are going to think cholesterol is anything more than a marker then it is not total cholesterol that is the key but VLDL and particles etc etc. Given that in the Uk it is not easy to get those tested then we MIGHT consider LDL. VLDL particles and LDL MIGHT be inversely or directly related i.e. reduce LDL and reduce particles...maybe. Nonetheless neither of those are total cholesterol. So total cholesterol of itself as a worry, should not be if the concern is that it is too high - which is what the table supposedly seeks to illustrate i.e. high cholesterol = high heart disease. So in fact total cholesterol if 'too high' indicates little - if 'too low' then that may indeed be a problem but that is not the point of the table. The actual key is insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome do you not agree?

As for your point about GP and independent risk factor. Firstly there's 'weight' of risk factors. But in your example (Russia v Japan) it would ONLY show up if all other risk factors were constant which is of course not the case. Let's say for example that cholesterol was way lower in Japan but also there was tremendous air pollution whereas in Russia the opposite then these may cancel each other out