The war on saturated fats may be coming to an end, with FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. questioning the science behind the diet-heart hypothesis.
For decades defending saturated fat was considered scientific heresy. Australian investigative journalist Maryanne Demasi knows; she is one of those who refuted the demonisation of saturated fats and has paid the price.
But now, with the FDA expressing scepticism that saturated fats are bad for our health, the tide may be turning. âFor those of us whoâve waited decades, itâs not vindication we want (although that would be nice) – itâs change,â Demasi writes.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The ExposĂ© to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
Is the War on Saturated Fat Finally Going to End?
For decades, defending saturated fat was considered scientific heresy. Suggesting that butter might be better than margarine – or that full-fat cheese wouldnât clog your arteries – was enough to get you labelled as fringe, irresponsible, even dangerous.
I should know. I was there.
Catalyst Controversy
In 2013, I produced a two-part investigative series for ABCâs television programme âCatalystâ, examining the demonisation of saturated fat (Part 1) and the widespread use of cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins (Part 2).
The first episode traced the origins of the diet-heart hypothesis and the work of Ancel Keys, whose âSeven Countries Studyâlaid the foundation for decades of dietary advice warning against saturated fat.
The medical dogma was firmly entrenched: saturated fat raised cholesterol and cholesterol caused heart disease.
But the science behind it was shaky – built on cherry-picked data and upheld more by consensus than by critical evaluation.
The series featured experts like Dr. Michael Eades, an early advocate for low-carb, high-fat diets; cardiologist Dr. Stephen Sinatra; nutritionist Dr. Jonny Bowden; science journalist Gary Taubes; and, cardiologist Dr. Ernest Curtis.
Behind the scenes, I worked closely with pioneers such as Dr. Uffe Ravnskov (âThe Cholesterol Mythsâ) and Dr. Malcolm Kendrick (âThe Great Cholesterol Conâ), both of whom had been challenging the orthodoxy long before it was safe to do so.
In the programme, Eades, for instance, highlighted the absurdity of the prevailing narrative: âYou very seldom see the words âsaturated fatâ in the public press when theyâre not associated with artery clogging. So, itâs like itâs all one termâŻââŻâartery clogging saturated fatsâ.â
Bowden, who co-authored âThe Great Cholesterol Mythâ with Sinatra, was just as direct, calling it âa huge misconception that saturated fat and cholesterol are the demons in the diet,â adding, âIt is 100% wrong.â
Sinatra traced the origins of the myth, arguing that âsaturated fat has been vilified for years because of the cholesterol theory.â
And Taubes, author of âGood Calories Bad Caloriesâ, known for his meticulous dismantling of diet dogma, cut to the core: âThereâs no compelling evidence that saturated fat is involved in heart disease.â
The programme also gave voice to the prevailing view, including contributions from Dr. Robert Grenfell, Director of the National Heart Foundation, and cardiologist Professor David Sullivan, both of whom vigorously defended the status quo.
Nonetheless, the backlash was immediate, vicious and unrelenting.
The media turned on me. There were calls for my sacking. The experts who challenged the cholesterol dogma were denounced as âfringe.â And ultimately, the ABC pulled both episodes from its website – despite its own internal review finding no factual inaccuracies.
[Related: ABC will take down two controversial Catalyst episodes on heart disease, The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 May 2024 and ABC Suspends Catalyst Reporter, BioPharmaDispatch, 6 July 2016]
Much of the outrage came from the medical establishmentâs unwavering certainty. Sullivan, who appeared in the programme, doubled down in âThe Conversationâ:
âItâs not even debatable â saturated fat is bad for you,â he proclaimed. That was the orthodoxy. That was what I was up against.
The Other Voices
Of course, I wasnât alone in beating this drum – I couldnât possibly name everyone who helped keep the evidence alive.
The late John Yudkin had warned as early as the 1970s that sugar – not fat – was the real culprit in heart disease, only to be mocked and marginalised by his fierce opponent, Ancel Keys.
Ravnskov and Kendrick were among the first to publicly challenge the cholesterol hypothesis in popular books.
And in 2013, The BMJ published a commentary by cardiologist Dr. Aseem Malhotra titled âSaturated fat is not the major issueâ, attacking decades of flawed advice and warning that the obsession with lowering cholesterol may have worsened heart disease.
Then came Nina Teicholzâs âThe Big Fat Surpriseâ in 2014 – a deeply researched, bestselling exposĂ© that brought the issue to the publicâs attention.
Teicholz documented how weak science, political pressure and food industry lobbying created a false consensus that demonised fat and distorted public health policy.
Researchers like Christopher Ramsden and colleagues added more data. In 2016, they assessed the diet-heart hypothesis by re-analysing the long-buried âMinnesota Coronary Experimentâ and published their findings in The BMJ.
They showed that replacing saturated fat with linoleic acid (from vegetable oils) did indeed lower cholesterol – but paradoxically increased mortality, particularly from heart disease.
[Related: Linoleic acid: A key contributing factor in rising cancer rates]
More damning was the fact that these data had been buried for decades – suppressed at a time when they might have reshaped dietary policy.
Researcher Dr. Zoe Harcombe played a vital role in deconstructing the evidence base behind dietary guidelines, exposing the weak foundation for saturated fat restrictions.
In South Africa, Professor Tim Noakes – once a champion of high-carb diets – reversed his stance after reviewing the science and became an outspoken advocate for low-carb, high-fat nutrition.
His shift led to a high-profile trial, which he ultimately won.
Iâve continued to write in this space, including a 2020 BMJ article reporting on US experts calling for the removal of the saturated fat cap from dietary guidelines – which is currently set at 10% of daily energy intake.
In Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council is currently reviewing the nationâs own dietary guidelines, scheduled for delivery in 2026.
The review, led by Professor Steve Wesselingh, has promised to âensure they reflect the best and most recent scientific evidence.â Letâs see.
Now, Makaryâs Promise
For the first time, real change may be coming – not from the margins, but from the very top of the US health establishment.
Last week, in a press conference, FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary addressed his scepticism of the US dietary guidelines.
âSince Ancel Keys in the 1960s decided to demonise saturated fat with a hypothesis that was supported with data that was incomplete and methodologically flawed in his âSeven Countries Studyâ,â Makary said, âthe medical establishment locked arms and walked off a cliff together.â
It was a stunning moment – not because the criticism was new, but because it was coming from someone in an official position to do something.
For the head of the FDA to so directly reject the foundation of half a century of nutrition policy signals a seismic shift. âWeâre going to ensure that the new guidelines are based on science and not medical dogma,â Makary promised.
Back in 2022, while writing his book âBlind Spotsâ, Makary reached out to me. âI just love your work,â he wrote in a message. âReading your work on Ancel Keys now.â He told me he had cited my reporting in his manuscript.
At the time, I was grateful for his support, but I never imagined heâd become FDA Commissioner – let alone publicly challenge the very dietary guidance Iâd been professionally punished for questioning.
Now, what was once ridiculed as fringe is being echoed from the highest levels of public health.
A Turning Point?
Itâs taken decades. The cholesterol hypothesis wasnât just a scientific claim – it became a professional litmus test. To challenge it was to risk your funding, your career, your credibility. Many of us paid that price.
Even now, entrenched interests remain. The US dietary guidelines committee – particularly the saturated fat subcommittee – has been heavily criticised for its conflicts of interest. Many members have ties to plant-based advocacy groups or have built careers promoting low-fat diets. Independent voices remain marginalised. But the tide may be turning.
US Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has also raised concerns about industry influence over dietary guidelines and hinted that upcoming revisions may elevate full-fat dairy and remove the saturated fat cap altogether. If those changes come to pass, it would mark a historic course correction – one rooted in evidence rather than ideology.
Will the medical establishment apologise? Will the legacy media acknowledge its role in enforcing the old narrative? Will those of us who were silenced be offered any kind of reparation?
Probably not. But thatâs not the point. The point is that we may finally be seeing the collapse of one of the most destructive public health myths in modern history. And if Makary and Kennedy stay true to their word, the next generation of dietary guidelines may reflect the science – and not the politics.
For those of us whoâve waited decades, itâs not vindication we want (although that would be nice) – itâs change.
About the Author
Maryanne Demasi has a PhD in Rheumatology and was formerly a medical scientist. She has since turned her skills to investigative journalism and writes for online media and top-tier medical journals. For over a decade, she was a television presenter for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (âABCâ). She also publishes articles on her Substack page, âMaryanne Demasi, reportsâ, which you can subscribe to and follow HERE.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. Itâs secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: US News, World News
Heresy is a term applied to religious non-conformism. That such a word is used in relation to science shows how science has become contaminated with religion – or, more accurately, scientism. Scientism is a kind of religion where fake scientists are elevated in stature to the level of gods who must be obeyed. Failure to obey is heresy. Disagreement is blasphemy.
Little wonder the Scripture calls it out as Science falsely so called. 1 Timothy 6:20?
Good comment.
I have never been happier to have such a contrary personality (with regard to government advice). Always had a high “saturated fat” diet. Butter, dripping, cream…and eaten rather a lot of salt. I don’t have regular meal times, I eat when I’m hungry and that could be twice a day or twice a week. I am rarely ill and have never had a weight problem. I don’t use a GP or the NHS and needless to say, I didn’t get the jab either.
No matter what we eat; we will die. hard cold fact. there is a diet that do follow though, which is, I eat what I like, therefore I like what I eat and therefore I thank God that I have it. worrying about what your diet will do to you will cause stress and harm you.
I have been calling out this scam for twenty years. Great to see that the FDA are finally catching up with those of us that have been telling the truth for a long time. For anyone who is interested to learn more i wrote a few articles for The Expose which may be of interest…
“Big Fat Lies about Saturated and Unsaturated Fats.” August 27, 2023.
“The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Cholesterol Lies.” September 13, 2023.
“Statins are NOT âWonder Drugsâ they are Metabolic Poisons that Kill One Cell at a Time.” November 10, 2023.
Nothing like being lied to for decades. Can’t trust anything except the Lord. And He will be here soon.
Our family has always and is now eating butter, cream, lard, fatty meats, etc., etc., and we’ve avoided seed oils for years, since information started to seep out from researchers back at the end of last century We’ve no history of any heart problems for generations.
All one really has to do is follow the money. Who benefits from the fear of animal fats? Why it’s the producers of seed oils and research now proving that heart disease is not caused by animal fats, these very profitable companies producing seed oils have jumped on the vegetarian/vegan/it’s wrong to eat meat bandwagon as a means of maintaining their massive incomes. How low they’re willing to go to put profit ahead of everything else is indicated by how low other companies producing harmful chemicals and foods are willing to stoop. Pretty darned low!