We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
There is no settled science on dietary fat and cardiovascular disease except in the case of the familial hyperlipidemias.However, in those cases, the hyperlipidemia is generated by the liver far more than by diet. The liver is the main controller of blood lipids.
A high-fat meal, or any meal, produces a temporary surge of blood lipids just as a high-sugar or high-carb meal produces a surge in blood sugar. That is normal.
While it is established that arterial disease is related to inflammation in arterial walls, the cause of that is elusive. The known risk factors for arterial disease seem to be smoking, overweight, diabetes, familial hyperlipidemia, and sedentary life style. Almost forgot the biggest one: age. Avoid ageing at all costs because it has a 100% mortality rate.
We are far from settled science with cardiovascular diseases. In recent years, we were advised to eat margarine not butter. Now advised to eat butter and avoid margarine. Now advised to eat olive oil. It's all a shot in the dark and it could be that diet has little or nothing at all do do with it.
There is no settled science on dietary fat and cardiovascular disease...
And yet in conclusion you go on to isolate its factors.
There certainly is copious science on dietary fat and cardiovascular disease (which has included the outcomes and mortalities of Eskimos, I might add). Fat and cholesterol > arterial inflammation > arterial hardening = cardiovascular disease by definition.
Medical "science" - as you say, a popular momentum slow to change - does change as growing evidence presents. Which it is and has.
For this reason alone there can be no "settled" consensus here than in any other field still undergoing research, especially one admittedly resistant to change. How you conflate that as a negative denial coming to a positive conclusion despite the mounting evidence is a mystery.
Maybe pharma reps really are the leading edge of established practice. Or: When did corrective become preventative in the medical arts? I must have missed that epoc.
As with AGW, "settled" is 100% a wiggle word. There is no "settled" in such a complex field, obviously, which has zero to do with the science thereof, however. Stop misinforming.
The fact is, we don't yet have a complete understanding of what cholesterol does, in its many forms, in the human body. We know that we can't live without it and it makes up many hormones and is crucial to cell life. We have a lot of other ideas about it, but nothing resembling a complete picture.
We don't yet have a complete understanding of what anything does in the human body. That doesn't mean we don't have substantial evidence that ties inflammation to arterial damage and diet directly to inflammation. We do.
It depends more on what we want to believe and how we look for, as you put it, fact. And much of what we go looking for we do in order to confirm our habits.
Maybe we can agree that pot-boiling press releases funded by industry get passed around a great deal as medical fact. And that prevention isn't what motivates the medical arts. From there it's not such a leap to find that when data directly confirms what I've said - because I see it consistently - it has no guarantee of making it into conventional wisdom.
One of the reasons the research went so far off track in America, is that much solid dietary research was done in Germany and Austria in the 1930's and the results of such research were not regularly translated into English.
Then, after WWII, there were strong prejudices against anything "German". (And yes, Austrians speak German, not "Austrian" as you Obama acolytes believe!) Thus much knowledge was ignored or set aside.
I don't know specifically the source of "inflammation in arterial walls" myself.
I do know that I do not cook food with anything but butter, beef lard or bacon leavings. I will on occasion use cold olive oil in salad dressing, ant that only - no safflower, corn, or other modern oils. And feel 100% better for it, though it may be a case of also not eating anything processed. Again, I don't know why, but that's not necessary to enjoy the benefits.