The first in this series of historical reviews dealt with the pioneering animal model work of Anitschkow, implicating blood cholesterol in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, and the pivotally important work of Gofman, providing evidence that lipoprotein-bound cholesterol was a major factor in the human disease. This second installment reviews the early lines of evidence linking hypercholesterolemia in humans to the progression of atherosclerosis and the risk of coronary heart disease. The argument is made that by 1970, the evidence was already strong enough to justify intervention to lower blood cholesterol levels if all the available lines of evidence had been taken into account. Yet, it would be almost two decades before lowering blood cholesterol levels became a national public health goal. Some of the reasons the "cholesterol controversy" continued in the face of powerful evidence supporting intervention are discussed. The first in this series of reviews of the history of the "cholesterol controversy" focused on two early developments (1). The first was the groundbreaking studies of Anitschkow and others, showing that inducing hypercholesterolemia in rabbits was sufficient to produce arterial lesions closely resembling those in the human disease. A major, and legitimate, criticism of Anitschkow's work initially was that the rabbit, a strict herbivore, could hardly be considered a suitable model for man, an omnivore. Indeed, dogs and cats, carnivores, did not develop atherosclerosis on cholesterol feeding, as Anitschkow had himself recognized and reported (2). However, this was not because their arteries were somehow immune but simply because, despite the large increase in dietary cholesterol, their blood cholesterol levels did not rise high enough. These species have very effective systems for converting dietary cholesterol to bile acids and excreting it. The demonstration that lesions could also be readily produced in guinea pigs (3, 4), goats (5), hens and parrots (2), and, ultimately, in almost every animal species, including nonhuman primates (6), went a long way toward rebutting this criticism. Nevertheless, the extrapolation from animals to humans, in the absence of supporting evidence, was not and could not be automatically accepted. Evidence in humans was needed.The second focus in the preceding review was on the work of Gofman and coworkers (7), which revealed the complexity of the plasma lipoproteins in humans and also demonstrated, albeit with only relatively small numbers of subjects, good correlations between elevated concentrations of plasma lipoproteins and relative risk of clinical coronary heart disease (CHD). Much larger surveys involving hundreds or thousands of cases would be needed to define the association convincingly.The findings of these two pioneers suggested a causal relationship but fell short of proving the case. In the present review, we describe the several additional lines of evidence that over the ensuing two decades increasingly strengthened the case. By the late ...