Demonization and Deception in Cholesterol Research – Great New Presentation by Professor David Diamond

Have you heard that saturated fat has been wrongly accused, starting with the shenanigans of Ancel Keys? Or that a total cholesterol number is not very helpful for determining risk of heart disease? Or that the benefits of statins have been vastly exaggerated?

Probably all these facts are familiar to you already. But I’d still recommend to watch this new presentation by Professor David Diamond. I’ve heard this story many times but still found the presentation well-worth watching. Not only does Professor Diamond bring up new details to the story, he also does it in great style and with lots of (sometimes dark) humor.

Statin humor

A quick example, which of these drug ads would make you most likely to have a pill a day for the rest of your life?


Obviously the left ad is the original one, for the biggest blockbuster drug of all time. Amazingly the right ad may be a more honest and transparent way to present the exact same study finding.

The 1 percent number is the real chance that the drug will benefit you, over many years of taking it (without even mentioning the risk of side effects).

Could you even imagine a drug company printing the more honest right ad? It would look like a joke.


  1. Vicente
    I felt exactly the same. I've heard most of the ideas several times, but this video is still worth watching.
  2. Nancy
    Great presentation!
  3. Eric
    YES! Watch I went to youtube.
  4. William
    I am a physician looking to adapt this program for my patients. Please explain where the claim statns only decrease mortality by 1% comes from. (As a discosure I rarely if ever write for statins)

    I reviewed some literature and found this from Journal of the American College of Cardiology
    Volume 40, Issue 10, 20 November 2002, Pages 1777–1785

    "Mortality was decreased among statin recipients in all age groups: ≥80 years: 29.5% among patients not taking a statin versus 8.5% of those taking a statin (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.50, p = 0.036); 65 to 79 years: 18.7% vs. 6.0% (HR 0.56, p < 0.001); and <65 years: 8.9% vs. 3.1% (HR 0.70, p = 0.097)."

    It seems it is more than 1% better mortality rates with statins. I have practiced anti aging medicine for 18 years. We have used LCHF type diets for a long time and alternative methods of lower ing cholesterol. However to be credible, the claim that there is only a 1 % reduction in CV mortatility needs to be documented.

    My practice is hormone replacement, acupuncture, with thyroid disease and diabetes as our specialties. We practice science based peer reviewed alternative medicine. Does anyone have the reference for the above claim. I hhave noticed in in many videos when statins are mentioned.

    Reply: #5
  5. bill

    Dr Malcolm Kendrick covers the issue
    of relative reduction vs actual reduction
    regarding statins.

    His blog is:
    His books are excellent explications also.

    He is linked to from this site under
    "News" then "Blog News"

    Simply put, it is: The relative reduction from "3%"
    to "2%" is "33.33%", but in real numbers,
    the reduction per 100 from 3% to 2% is only 1 (1 per hundred or 1%)
    So, your stats are showing the relative reduction.
    But don't stop there, check out "Number Needed to Treat"
    and life extension per year of use along with side effects.

  6. Vicente
  7. Nirav
    Your math is bogus.

    2 people suffering from a heart attack vs 3 is indeed a 1/3 reduction.

    Looking at these numbers I would definitely start taking a statin.

    I'm just an engineer who came here looking for answers to lower my cholesterol without medication, so I'm not an expert in medication.

    But I can do simple math extremely well. You should think twice before misleading people!

  8. Tim
    Heh, don't think I'd hire that engineer...97% chance of not having a heart attack taking a placebo versus 98.1% chance of not having a heart attack taking a statin. 1 person out of a hundred over 3 counting angels on the head of a pin.
  9. 1 comment removed
  10. Ken O'Neill
    Agreed. That engineer shows no understanding of research methods and analysis involving statistics, just crackpot ideas. In fact, his overall statement gives pause to wonder if he's a disinformation shill for Big Pharma or simply so challenged by his illiteracy that following Diamond's popularization of research science is not over his head.
  11. Ava K.
    "In individuals with 5-year risk of major vascular events lower than 10%, each 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol produced an absolute reduction in major vascular events of about 11 per 1000 over 5 years. This benefit greatly exceeds any known hazards of statin therapy. Under present guidelines, such individuals would not typically be regarded as suitable for LDL-lowering statin therapy. The present report suggests, therefore, that these guidelines might need to be reconsidered."

  12. Danny
    The above article also says
    "Most of the trials in this report were supported by research grants from the pharmaceutical industry".

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts