The same thing often happened in my classes, that is, students would
"go off on a tangent," and often miss the "big picture."  My take on
the "conspiracy" notions is that these people are too conventional in
their thinking for it to cross their minds.  They are just going along
with the system, and indeed it is corrupt, as all social arrangements
are to one degree or another.  All you have to do is listen to the
evening news for a few days, and you hear these guys contradict each
other, and sometimes even themselves.  It's truly laughable - better
than anything on Comedy Central, unfortunately, for those who listen to
them.

Now on to the science of the study.  I'll just make a few observations
for now (since there are always follow-ups):

How did they come to the conclusion that a "mixture" is best?
Olive oil did nothing good, according to them, so why bother with it at
all?  How can one say that there were no adverse effects?  Does heart
disease develop in 4 weeks?  They don't seem to realize that there
comes a time when the antioxidant resources of the body reach a
breaking point, and then serious damage occurs, often as a low-grade,
chronic inflammatory process.  They talk of a typical American diet
that is higher in fat, but that almost certainly means a higher
consumption of PUFAs.  They also don't seem to realize that low
quality olive oil is just about as bad as any of the high PUFA oils,
especially if those oils are fresher.  Did they run a Rancimat
experiment to determine the susceptibility of the various major fatty
acid sources to free radical degradation?  If not, there is no way to
predict which oils will cause more oxidative stress than another oil,
and thus thee is no reason to be surprised at the readings for the
markers of oxidative stress.  It is a function of the quality of the
oil, as well as the number of double bonds (as well as other, usually
lesser, factors), which they don't seem to understand, though it's
basic biochemistry.  What we see here is a concern with markers that
are out of date.  Markers for oxidative stress may or may not be
useful, because a healthy body can cope with rancid lipids for a while,
but the key is how the body reacts years or even decades later.  LDL
cholesterol is very healthy - people die of low LDL (mostly of
cancer, stroke, and shock from injury), but if it's oxidized then all
bets are off, and there is no way to determine whether high or low LDL
will result in higher mortality.  The evidence varies greatly, as has
been demonstrated by detailed examinations of the studies (see More's
"Heart Failure" for a good examination that is not too technical).
Fortunately, it does seem that the tide is turning.  A couple of months
ago, an AHA spokesman stated that only oxidized cholesterol is a
problem, and a couple of days ago, there was this report in the local,
mainstream newspaper (though the reporter clearly is using several key
terms in confusing ways):

Fat levels tied to heart disease

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

July 7, 2005

New research gives the first solid evidence that a type of fat in the
bloodstream can trigger the earliest steps that lead to clogged blood
vessels, the top cause of heart attacks.

If further research bears this out, people might someday be tested for
this fat, just as they are for cholesterol now, to see if they're in
danger of having a heart attack. The study found that levels of the fat

strongly correlated with the risk of heart disease, especially in
people under age 60.

"It is an important study," said Judith Berliner, a professor of
medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles, who had no role
in the research but wrote an editorial accompanying it in today's New
England Journal of Medicine.

Doctors say the findings give people another reason to limit fat in
their diets.

No one really knows what causes the formation of blockages, which can
squeeze blood vessels shut and deprive the heart of nourishment.

"Most of the studies in the past have revolved around cholesterol," but

other factors also must be involved because cholesterol levels are
normal in many heart attack victims, Berliner said.

Scientists have long suspected that one such factor might be oxidized
phospholipids, a type of fat that's a major component of LDL or "bad
cholesterol." Research in animals has found that this fat, floating in
the bloodstream, contributes in many ways to blockage formation. The
new research, led by Dr. Sotirios Tsimikas at the University of
California, San Diego, is the first to show the same is true in people.

Tsimikas studied 504 people being tested for clogged arteries.

Among those 60 or younger, people with the highest levels of oxidized
phospholipids were three times more likely to have blockages than those

with the lowest levels.

Those who had high phospholipids and high cholesterol were at even
greater risk. Getting a measurement of the level of this fat must be
done separately from tests for total cholesterol and LDL.

More research of phospholipid levels in all types of people is needed,
said Dr. Sidney Smith, director of the center for cardiovascular
diseases at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and past
president of the American Heart Association.

http://www.newsday.com/mynews/ny-hshart074333752jul07,0,1689927.story