Found this on Dr. Malcolm Kendrick’s website:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(18)30404-2/fulltext
It’s entitled " A Reappraisal of the Lipid Hypothesis". Here’s one section (bold added), entitled “Clinical trial results”:
The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard for validating or rejecting a medical hypothesis. Initial proof of the lipid hypothesis came from some of the earliest RCTs of cholesterol reduction, such as the Coronary Primary Prevention Trial of cholestyramine and the first statin trials (Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study [4S], West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study [WOSCOPS], and Cholesterol and Recurrent Events [CARE]). More widespread trials over the next 20 years produced mixed results, however.[2](javascript:void(0)
Regrettably, some clinical trials prior to 2004 have been tainted by scandals that led to new clinical trial regulations intended to safeguard patients and lend credibility to subsequent trials.[3](javascript:void(0);), [4](javascript:void(0)
The table summarizes 29 major RCTs of cholesterol reduction reported after the publication of these regulations (Table). Notably, only 2 of these 29 studies reported a mortality benefit, while nearly two-thirds reported no cardiovascular benefit at all. These unfavorable outcomes and inconsistent results suggest that the lipid hypothesis has failed the test of time. Alternatively, some have suggested that this lack of benefit could be due to inadequate intensity or duration of treatment, insufficiently powered studies, targeting LDL-C instead of apolipoprotein B, or perhaps these trials are attempting to lower LDL-C too late in the course of the disease.
The table associated with that section is devastating to the lipid hypothesis.
Another study, entitled " LDL-C does not cause cardiovascular disease: a comprehensive review of the current literature":
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391
This is a “perspective” study, meaning it’s more opinion than anything else, but it is based on analyses of other studies.
Two parts in the abstract section:
Areas covered : The authors of three large reviews recently published by statin advocates have attempted to validate the current dogma. This article delineates the serious errors in these three reviews as well as other obvious falsifications of the cholesterol hypothesis.
Expert commentary : Our search for falsifications of the cholesterol hypothesis confirms that it is unable to satisfy any of the Bradford Hill criteria for causality and that the conclusions of the authors of the three reviews are based on misleading statistics, exclusion of unsuccessful trials and by ignoring numerous contradictory observations.
As background, there’s a theory that something cannot be proven to be true, but can be falsified (proven to not be true).