The newer more credible scientific data (ie studies not backed by big pharma or grain organisations) suggests homocysteine and visceral fat levels are the true indicators of poor cardiovascular health and not consumption of saturated fats or cholesterol levels as has been believed for the past 50 years. It seems increasingly likely that the inflammatory response from processed foods is what hurts us and blaming Cholesterol for all heart attacks is like blaming firemen for all fires, just because they are both at the scene of the crime doesn't imply they are responsible for the act.
ABC's Catalyst tacked this issue last year to scathing criticism and were subsequently pulled from the ABC's website due to concerns of bias. However upon reading
the report the only element of both episodes (see below) they found to be unbalanced was in the second episode when they neglected to mention the benefit of statins to those who had already suffered a heart attack (called secondary prevention). Seems like a bit of an overreaction to pull both episodes right?