The critic needs to read Taubes.

Tempest in a teapot.  There are better risk factors for heart
disease than cholesterol readings therefore cholesterol
readings are of secondary importance.  Intense focus on
these readings is a waste of effort.

Consider - If low carb tends to reduce the numbers (50%
see reduction in 3 months, 80% in 6 months according to
various editions of the Atkins books) AND if 20-30% of
people who have heart attacks don't have high numbers,
the whole thing is effort spent on the wrong tests.

Consider - Cholesterol drugs are very profitable.  Reducing
the percentage of smokers in the population reduces profits
of tobacco companies and health care providers and have
no net effect on insurance companies as they just tune their
rates.

"Their goal is to cherry pick data to support their contention that low  
cholesterol is bad for you and high cholesterol is positively good for  
you."

A similar thing could be said for the other side:  Their goal is to cherry  
pick data to support their contention that high cholesterol is bad for you  
and low cholesterol is positively good for you."

The difference is that Ravnskov stands on a solid scientific footing.  If  
there are 10 studies that support an assertion and 10 studies that do not,  
then no conclusion can be drawn wrt the assertion.  The "high cholesterol  
is bad" people just ignore the studies that do not support their assertion  
and therefore draw a fallacious conclusion.  What Rav does is point out  
all the studies that don't agree with their assertion and state that this  
means the assertion isn't proven.  Rav doesn't state (as hypothesized by  
the author of that article) that studies prove high cholesterol is good  
and low cholesterol is bad; just that studies have indicated data opposite  
to the assertions being given.  Rav is scientifically sound because of  
this.