You call him an ignorant liar, but it is your analysis that is the ignorant lie.
There's a thing in medicine called outcomes analysis. When all is said and done, does a new drug save more lives? The Niacin-based one did what it was supposed to do -- raise HDL, the good cholesterol. But outcomes analysis of "hard endpoints" (heart attacks, strokes, and death) showed no difference. So something else is going on.
Now that is harder to do on a national level, but he did point out suicide rates were similar. So: outcomes, no difference.
Your bleat (and that is what it is -- a crafted talking point fed to the hoi polloi) reminds me of the argument analyzing calorie signs in restaurants.
Supporters point out (a carefully-crafted sophistry) that most people "take that info into consideration".
Outcomes analysis: With signs up, the average person orders 100 calories more than when the signs are removed.
You could be replaced by a robot. You wanna be sick and tired of something? Look in the mirror.