I'm not denying an anecdote is not valuable to the individual. It is, for the individual who made the anecdote; not the rest of us, not the readers.
I'm also will admit I, too, use anecdotal evidence. But that does not mean one has strong evidence when they do; they don't, and neither do I.
The bullshit that's been pushed on us for decades about cholesterol isn't science.
And to add to that, I've never heard any anecdotal evidence that goes "I went on a low cholesterol diet and my symptoms improved".
The scientific method is valuable. Science as it is practiced...? Let's just say it's reputation has been tarnished.
It's true that we're still making sense of how to operationalize those observations (restrictive diet, exercise, statin therapy, etc). This doesn't make the science worthless; it's just an intermediate step in this particular area of research.
Why wouldn't you? It seems like it would be unambiguously helpful both in general for the thread, and specifically for your argument.
For evidence that the lowering of LDL cholesterol lowers the risk of heart attacks, though, the evidence can't just be an association between heart attacks and naturally high cholesterol, which could obviously both spring from the same cause. An association between low cholesterol diets and heart attack rates, or good evidence that statins lowered mortality would both be interesting.
> observed facts
These are not the same thing.