Wayne, you wrote a number of things in your post that brought up what I 
would consider to be important questions. I think that it is important, 
since one thing we do on this list is question others' assumptions, that we 
not add to the confusion by making our own.
 >>In the 1980's there was much controversy regarding cholesterol and heart
disease and the result was a great deal of pressure being placed on doctors
to get on board with the NHBLI heart disease education plan.<<
 What pressure?
 >At some point
the AHA, CDC, and AMA all came on board but they all had an agenda that
would be furthered by supporting the cholesterol myth.<<
 What agenda?
 >>Doctors were given
incentives to get on board and not rock the boat but that does not mean that
they did not question the effectiveness or efficacy of their 
prescriptions.<<
 What incentives? What evidence is there to indicate that they questioned 
the efficacy of their prescriptions?

>>They had something to gain by going along with the status quo that was 
being
established and group dynamics begun to factor into the equation.<<
 What would they have to gain by going along with the status quo?
 >>However,
individually doctors are educated and critical thinkers for the most part
and it is unlikely that they as a whole ever fully accepted the lipid
hypothesis.<<
 What makes you say this? I know lots of highly educated people who do not 
think critically. They THINK they think critically, but their decisions are 
as much based on emotion as anyone else's. Why do you think it unlikely that 
they never fully accepted the lipid hypothesis? There seems precious little 
evidence to indicate that they have done anything BUT that.
 I'm genuinely interested in your answers.
 Mike W.