“…On the one hand, better prognosis in patients with hypercholesterolemia may be related to (a) favorable effects of the “obesity paradox”: improved hemodynamic stability in the obese, adipokine protection against tumor necrosis factor-α, lipoprotein protection against endotoxins, lipophilic toxin sequestration by adipose tissue, and the modulation of inflammatory processes [10]; (b) an earlier start of contact with health care professionals; and (c) the aforementioned evidenced favorable and pleiotropic effect of hypolipidemic drugs recommended for patients with prior diagnosed hypercholesterolemia which is treated without meeting the recommended goals [1–3, 10]. On the other hand, the “cholesterol paradox” may be an effect of “reverse causality”, in which poor prognosis in patients with low cholesterol blood concentration results not from the lack of the aforementioned favorable effects of hyperlipidemia, but from (d) unfavorable effects of comorbidities, such as systemic inflammation, malnutrition, malabsorption syndrome, neoplasm, end-stage liver disease, end-stage kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and cardiac heart failure [15–18]; and/or (e) potential harmful effects of aggressive hypolipidemic therapy when hypercholesterolemia was diagnosed earlier and cholesterol was lowered too aggressively [7, 19]. Until now, the “cholesterol paradox” has been noted among geriatric patients [10] and in several acute (myocardial infarction [7, 11, 20, 21]) and chronic conditions, such as stable coronary artery disease, end-stage renal disease requiring dialysis, chronic heart failure, atrial fibrillation, peripheral artery disease, stroke, COPD, rheumatoid arthritis, and AIDS [4, 7, 13, 14–18, 22–27].…”