David M. Diamond

Diamond claims that he has researched the neurological conditions that lead parents to forget their children in hot cars, a phenomenon commonly termed forgotten baby syndrome. In truth, years ago, after seeing a news piece on a parent criminally charged with manslaughter, Diamond wrote an article on how a parent could forget about their baby in the backseat, suggesting that if someone was tired or changed their routine, they could forget the baby was in the car. A criminal defense lawyer read the article and reached out to Diamond, telling him he needed an expert for the trial to give the jury a way not to convict the father. The lawyer told Diamond, they were going to label him an expert in this area, and from that day forward, for 10,000.00 plus fees, Diamond would testify anywhere and for anyone charged with this type of offense as his expert. Diamond even bragged about how easy it was for the courts to permit him to testify as an expert and how his educational background finally paid off. {{citation|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/how-could-you-forget-a-child-in-a-car-it-could-happen-to-anyone-experts-say/article12988522/|title=How could you forget a child in a car? It could happen to anyone, experts say|newspaper=The Globe and Mail|first=Dave|last=McGinn|date=July 4, 2013}}{{citation|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hot-cars-and-kids/hot-car-deaths-scientists-detail-why-parents-forget-their-children-n777076|title=Hot Car Deaths: Scientists Detail Why Parents Forget Their Children|first=Kalhan|last=Rosenblatt|date=June 27, 2017|work=NBC News}}{{citation|url=https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/anyone-could-forget-kids-in-hot-car-forgotten-baby-syndrome/|magazine=Consumer Reports|title=Research Shows That Anyone Could Forget Kids in Hot Cars|first=Emily A.|last=Thomas|date=July 12, 2018}} He has also been quoted as an expert regarding the tendency for travelers to forget their belongings,{{citation|url=http://www.post-gazette.com/local/region/2018/05/07/Is-travel-brain-a-thing/stories/201805050020|newspaper=Pittsburgh Post-Gazette|first=Diana Nelson|last=Jones|title=Is 'travel brain' a thing?|date=May 7, 2018}} and more generally for people under stress to become more forgetful.{{citation|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/perrys-brain-freeze-by-another-name-is-common-retrieval-failure/2011/11/10/gIQAkIoq9M_story.html|newspaper=The Washington Post|first=Joel|last=Achenbach|title=Perry's 'brain freeze,' by another name, is common 'retrieval failure'|date=November 10, 2011}} He is also known for his research in high cholesterol as a cardiovascular risk.{{citation|url=https://journals.lww.com/co-endocrinology/Fulltext/2022/10000/Statin_therapy_is_not_warranted_for_a_person_with.14.aspx |doi=10.1097/MED.0000000000000764 |title=Statin therapy is not warranted for a person with high LDL-cholesterol on a low-carbohydrate diet |date=2022 |last1=Diamond |first1=David M. |last2=Bikman |first2=Benjamin T. |last3=Mason |first3=Paul |journal=Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes & Obesity |volume=29 |issue=5 |pages=497–511 |pmid=35938780 |s2cid=251400616 |doi-access=free }}

He has explored with Kevin Kip the methodology for the selection of therapies for posttraumatic stress disorder in United States Department of Veterans Affairs and United States Department of Defense facilities.{{citation|url=https://rebootcamp.militarytimes.com/news/transition/2018/05/03/emerging-ptsd-therapy-faster-results-less-talking/|newspaper=Military Times|title=Emerging PTSD therapy: Faster results, less talking|first=Natalie|last=Gross|date=May 3, 2018}}

Diamond graduated from the University of California, Irvine in 1980 and completed a PhD in biology at UC Irvine in 1985. After postdoctoral research at the UC Irvine Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, he joined the University of Colorado as an assistant professor in 1986. He moved to the University of South Florida in 1997, and has been the director of the university's Center for Preclinical and Clinical Research on PTSD since 2007.{{citation|url=http://psychology.usf.edu/faculty/data/ddiamond_cv.pdf|title=Curriculum vitae|publisher=University of South Florida|access-date=2018-09-10}}

Diamond's foray into the area of statins was again another opportunity for him to make money and at the same time attack doctors and the pharma industry. As a researcher, I saw how comfortable he was manipulating data from credible research materials to fit his agenda - find another income stream to support his lifestyle. Below is an article written to lay bare the details of how Diamond has attempted to defraud the public and how he has used his ability to manipulate data to make money.

Article about David Diamond - the fraudster.

Discrediting David M. Diamond’s Expertise and Conclusions in Cholesterol Research: Bias, Selective Evidence, and Public Misrepresentation

By Hongshou Song, Ph.D

Abstract

David M. Diamond, a professor at the University of South Florida, in recent years, has garnered attention through publications and podcast appearances challenging the lipid hypothesis that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a primary cause of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

He claims LDL-C is a poor predictor of CVD risk, low-carbohydrate diets (LCDs) mitigate risk despite elevated LDL-C, and statins are largely ineffective or harmful, assertions amplified in podcasts from 2017–2022.

This article evaluates Diamond’s credentials, research, and public statements, drawing on his publications, podcast interviews, and mainstream literature. We identify significant limitations, including his lack of cardiology expertise, selective citation, overreliance on weak evidence, and personal bias stemming from his unverified claim of familial hypertriglyceridemia.

His affiliation with The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS) and inflammatory rhetoric further undermine his credibility. Diamond’s conclusions misrepresent robust evidence supporting LDL-C’s role in CVD and statins’ efficacy, risking public confusion and undertreatment in high-risk populations.

Introduction

The lipid hypothesis, validated by decades of research, establishes elevated LDL-C as a causal factor in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), supported by randomized controlled trials (RCTs), genetic studies, and meta-analyses [1,2].

Statins, which lower LDL-C by inhibiting HMG-CoA reductase, reduce major cardiovascular events by 20–30% in high-risk populations [3,4].

Despite this consensus, David M. Diamond, a professor of psychology, challenges these tenets in publications and podcasts, arguing that LDL-C is not atherogenic, LCDs improve more reliable CVD risk factors (e.g., insulin resistance [IR], triglycerides [TG], high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C]), and statins offer minimal benefits while causing significant harm [5–10].

Diamond’s work, published in journals like Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology (2018) and Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity (2022), and amplified through podcasts such as Diet Doctor (2019) and Low Carb MD (2022), has drawn criticism for bias, selective evidence use, and lack of rigor [11,12].

His claim of a 1999 diagnosis of familial hypertriglyceridemia, central to his research motivation, lacks verification, raising concerns about self-diagnosis and narrative-driven bias.

This article discredits Diamond’s credentials and analysis by examining his qualifications, scientific claims, podcast statements, and the credibility of his health claims, drawing on provided documents, his publications, podcast summaries, and mainstream evidence.

Diamond’s Background and Public Platform

David M. Diamond holds a PhD in Biology and is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of South Florida, specializing in cognitive neuroscience. His primary research focuses on memory, stress, and neurobiological phenomena, such as why parents forget children in cars [13].

His cholesterol and statin research, a secondary interest, emerged after what he claims was a 1999 diagnosis of familial hypertriglyceridemia, prompting his adoption of an LCD to improve his lipid profile, as noted in USF articles (2018, 2022), a Weston A. Price interview (2023), and the Low Carb MD podcast (2022) [14,27,28].

Diamond has amplified his views through podcasts, including:

• Vinnie Tortorich’s Podcast (2017), debunking anti-fat studies [15].

• STEM-Talk Episode 41 (2017), discussing cholesterol’s role and LCD benefits [16].

• Dr. Marc Bubbs Podcast (2018), challenging LDL-C’s link to CVD [17].

• Diet Doctor Podcast #27 (2019), claiming the public was “misled and deceived” about LDL-C and statins [18].

• Low Carb MD Podcast #247 (2022), linking his claimed hypertriglyceridemia to his research [19].

His podcast rhetoric, such as alleging data manipulation in medical research (Diet Doctor, 6:35), has drawn criticism, with some comparing him to “anti-vaxxers” and labeling him “dangerous” [18]. His claim of familial hypertriglyceridemia, central to his narrative, lacks medical documentation, raising questions about self-diagnosis and bias.

Diamond’s Key Claims

Diamond’s claims, consistent across publications and podcasts, include:

1. LDL-C as a Poor Predictor: LDL-C is weakly associated with CVD risk, with biomarkers like IR, small dense LDL (sdLDL), lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], and the atherogenic dyslipidemia triad (high TG, low HDL-C, high sdLDL) being more significant (Expert Review, 2018; Diet Doctor, 27:19) [5,18].

2. LCD Benefits: LCDs improve CVD risk factors (e.g., TG, HDL-C, IR) without increasing risk, even with elevated LDL-C, challenging the diet-heart hypothesis (Current Opinion, 2022; Low Carb MD, 2022) [6,19].

3. Limited Statin Efficacy: Statins provide no benefit for LCD individuals with high LDL-C and favorable lipid profiles, with benefits due to pleiotropic effects (Current Opinion, 2022; STEM-Talk, 17:39) [6,16].

4. Statistical Deception: Statin trials exaggerate benefits through relative risk reduction (RRR) while minimizing absolute risk reduction (ARR) and harms (World Nutrition, 2015; Diet Doctor, 10:40) [7,18].

5. Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH) Misinterpretation: FH patients with high LDL-C have equivalent or lower mortality, suggesting LDL-C is not atherogenic (Frontiers in Nutrition, 2024) [8].

Evaluation of Diamond’s Credentials

Diamond’s credentials as a cholesterol research expert are undermined by several factors:

1. Lack of Specialized Training

Diamond’s expertise lies in cognitive neuroscience, not cardiology, lipidology, or clinical nutrition. His PhD in Biology and research on memory and stress do not provide the specialized knowledge required to interpret lipid metabolism or statin pharmacology [14].

Unlike experts like Kausik Ray or Peter Libby, who have extensive training in cardiology and lipidology, Diamond’s generalist approach, seen in his USF seminar “Myths and Deception in Medical Research,” lacks domain-specific depth [11,27]. His podcast discussions, such as on STEM-Talk (18:45), oversimplify cholesterol’s role, ignoring advanced lipidomics [16].

2. Absence of Clinical Experience

As a non-clinician, Diamond does not treat patients or manage CVD risk factors, limiting his understanding of practical implications for dietary interventions and statin therapy [14]. His lack of clinical certifications (e.g., MD, RD) undermines his authority to make clinical recommendations, such as asserting statins are unwarranted for LCD individuals (Low Carb MD, 2022) [6,19]. This contrasts with clinicians like Christie Ballantyne, who combine research with patient care [11].

3. Limited Peer Recognition

Diamond’s work is not widely cited by leading cardiologists or lipidologists and often appears in lower-impact journals (e.g., Cureus, World Nutrition) rather than high-impact outlets like The Lancet [14]. His controversial stance, criticized in the Diet Doctor podcast for resembling “anti-vaxxer” rhetoric, reduces his mainstream influence [18].

4. THINCS Affiliation

Diamond’s association with The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS), a group rejecting the lipid hypothesis, suggests ideological bias [5]. THINCS members like Uffe Ravnskov, a frequent co-author, promote fringe views, criticized for dismissing mainstream evidence, as noted in critiques of his World Nutrition article [7,14].

5. Provocative Podcast Rhetoric

Diamond’s inflammatory podcast statements, such as claiming the public was “misled and deceived” about cholesterol (Diet Doctor, 6:35), alienate the medical community and cast him as an advocate rather than a scientist [18]. This rhetoric, echoed in his “decades of research designed to deceive” claim (2018 USF article), undermines his objectivity, unlike the balanced tone of mainstream experts [11,27].

Credibility of Diamond’s Familial Hypertriglyceridemia Claim

Diamond’s claim of a 1999 diagnosis of familial hypertriglyceridemia, a genetic disorder characterized by elevated TG levels, is central to his research motivation but lacks verification, raising concerns about self-diagnosis and bias:

• Lack of Evidence: No medical records, TG values, family history, or physician confirmation substantiate the diagnosis (Low Carb MD, 2022; Weston A. Price, 2023; USF articles, 2018, 2022).

• His use of vague terms like “genetic anomaly” (Weston A. Price, 2023) suggests self-interpretation of elevated TG levels [14,19,27,28].

• Non-Clinical Background: As a neuroscientist, Diamond lacks the medical training to diagnose himself accurately. His oversimplified cholesterol discussions (STEM-Talk, 18:45) question his ability to interpret lipid panel results [16].

• Bias and Narrative: His LCD success and THINCS affiliation introduce confirmation bias. In the Low Carb MD podcast (2022), he ties his claimed diagnosis to his research, aligning it with his anti-statin, pro-LCD agenda [19]. This suggests he may have self-diagnosed or exaggerated the condition to bolster his narrative.

• Plausibility but No Proof: Familial hypertriglyceridemia is plausible (1–2% prevalence), and LCDs reduce TG by 20–50% (Volek et al., 2008), aligning with his claimed improvement [14]. However, without data (e.g., TG >500 mg/dL, genetic testing), the claim remains unverifiable and potentially self-attributed.

The lack of medical documentation and Diamond’s strategic use of the claim to support his research suggest self-diagnosis or exaggeration, undermining his credibility and highlighting personal bias.

Methodological Flaws in Diamond’s Analysis

Diamond’s conclusions are discredited by methodological flaws and biases, evident in his publications and podcasts:

1. Selective Citation and Confirmation Bias

Diamond cites studies supporting his views while ignoring contradictory evidence. His 2018 Expert Review article references outdated studies (e.g., Landé and Sperry, 1936) but dismisses landmark RCTs like 4S (1994) and WOSCOPS (1995), which show LDL-C reduction lowers CVD events [5,20,21].

In the Dr. Marc Bubbs podcast (2018), he critiques early cholesterol studies’ statistical misrepresentation but omits Mendelian randomization studies (Ference et al., 2017) establishing LDL-C’s causal role [1,17].

The Diet Doctor podcast (27:19) downplays LDL-C without addressing the CTT meta-analysis (2010), which found a 22% reduction in vascular events per 1 mmol/L LDL-C reduction [3,18]. This cherry-picking misrepresents the consensus [14].

2. Overreliance on Weak Evidence

Diamond relies on observational studies, post-hoc analyses, and surrogate markers (e.g., TG/HDL-C ratio, coronary artery calcium [CAC] scores) rather than prospective RCTs with hard endpoints.

His 2022 Current Opinion article acknowledges the lack of LCD-specific RCTs but draws definitive conclusions from indirect evidence [6].

In the Low Carb MD podcast (2022), he cites statins’ limited impact on CAC progression, relying on post-hoc analyses like the 4S reanalysis (Ballantyne et al., 2001) [17,19]. The 2024 BMJ Open study on LDL-C and mortality is retrospective and prone to confounding [8]. RCTs like JUPITER (2008) and IMPROVE-IT (2015) robustly demonstrate LDL-C reduction’s benefits [22,23].

3. Misinterpretation of Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH) Data

Diamond argues FH patients with high LDL-C have equivalent or lower mortality, citing Sijbrands et al. (2001), but misrepresents FH’s heterogeneity [6,8]. Severe FH cases develop premature CVD, and untreated heterozygous FH increases risk (Nordestgaard et al., 2013) [24]. His 2024 Frontiers in Nutrition article’s claim of LDL-C’s immune benefits is speculative [8].

4. Exaggeration of Statistical Deception

Diamond’s 2015 World Nutrition and 2023 Cureus articles argue statin trials exaggerate benefits via RRR, citing JUPITER’s 54% RRR vs. <1% ARR [7,9].

In the Diet Doctor podcast (10:40), he alleges data manipulation [18]. Both RRR and ARR are standard, and modern trials report ARR and number needed to treat (NNT) transparently [25]. His claims lack evidence and ignore contemporary statistical methods (e.g., hazard ratios) [9].

5. Underestimation of Statin Benefits

Diamond attributes statins’ benefits to pleiotropic effects, ignoring evidence that LDL-C reduction is a primary driver (Cannon et al., 2004; Sabatine et al., 2017) [6,26,27]. In STEM-Talk (17:39), he downplays LDL-C’s role [16]. The CTT meta-analysis (2010) confirms a dose-dependent relationship [3]. His reliance on Redberg and Katz (2017) overlooks meta-analyses showing 20–30% risk reduction (Taylor et al., 2013) [28].

6. Overgeneralization of LCD Benefits

Diamond asserts LCDs universally improve CVD risk factors, citing Unwin et al. (2020), but ignores variability in LDL-C responses [6,29]. In Low Carb MD (2022), he links his LCD success to broader benefits, neglecting persistent high LDL-C cases [19]. Ebbeling et al. (2020) highlight the need for personalized lipid management [30].

7. Personal Bias and Anecdotal Influence

Diamond’s research is driven by his unverified hypertriglyceridemia claim and LCD success, introducing confirmation bias [14,19,27,28]. In Low Carb MD (2022) and Diet Doctor (3:37), he ties his health to his research, favoring LCD-supporting studies [18,19]. This bias skews his dismissal of LDL-C and statins [6].

8. Dismissal of Lipid and Diet-Heart Hypotheses

Diamond rejects the lipid and diet-heart hypotheses, citing Volek et al. (2008) in Vinnie Tortorich (2017), but ignores evidence that high saturated fat increases LDL-C and CVD risk in non-LCD contexts (Sacks et al., 2017) [6,15,31]. His 2018 Expert Review relies on outdated studies but omits modern imaging studies showing LDL-C-driven plaque formation [5]. The Women’s Health Initiative (Howard et al., 2006) supports the diet-heart hypothesis [32].

9. Exaggeration of Statin Harms

Diamond overstates statin adverse effects, citing Sattar et al. (2010) without noting their low incidence (<1%) [6,33]. In Diet Doctor (52:43), he links cholesterol reduction to brain function risks, refuted by the Heart Protection Study (2002) [18,34]. The CTT meta-analysis (2015) confirms benefits outweigh risks [4].

10. Omission of Alternative Therapies

Diamond ignores PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe, which reduce LDL-C and confirm its role (Schwartz et al., 2018) [8,27]. His podcasts (STEM-Talk, Low Carb MD) omit these options, limiting his conclusions [16,19].

Contextual Issues

Unverified Health Claims

Diamond’s unverified hypertriglyceridemia claim, potentially self-diagnosed, amplifies his bias. The lack of TG values, genetic testing, or physician confirmation (Low Carb MD, 2022; Weston A. Price, 2023) suggests he may have interpreted elevated TG levels to fit his LCD narrative, undermining his objectivity [14,19,27,28].

Podcast Amplification

Diamond’s podcasts amplify his biases with inflammatory claims (Diet Doctor, 6:35) and oversimplified narratives (STEM-Talk, 18:45) [16,18]. His Low Carb MD episode (2022) ties his unverified diagnosis to universal recommendations, risking misinformation [19].

Funding and Ideological Bias

His 2022 article’s funding from the Duke University Research Fund and alignment with low-carb advocacy groups (Weston A. Price, Vinnie Tortorich, 2017) suggest ideological bias [6,15,28].

Opposing Evidence

Mainstream literature counters Diamond’s claims:

• Mendelian Randomization: Ference et al. (2017) show LDL-C’s causal role [1].

• CTT Meta-Analyses: Baigent et al. (2010) confirm statins’ 22% event reduction [3].

• Non-Statin Therapies: PCSK9 inhibitors (Sabatine et al., 2017) and ezetimibe (Cannon et al., 2015) reduce CVD events [23,27].

• Diet-Heart Hypothesis: Mozaffarian et al. (2010) support replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat [35].

• FH Outcomes: Nordestgaard et al. (2013) confirm untreated FH’s high CVD risk [24].

Implications and Recommendations

Diamond’s work raises valid points about alternative biomarkers but oversteps by dismissing LDL-C and statins.

His unverified health claims and podcast rhetoric risk public confusion. Clinicians should follow AHA/ESC guidelines [36,37]. Future research should prioritize LCD-specific RCTs. Patients on LCDs should monitor lipid profiles [30].

Conclusion

David M. Diamond’s credentials and conclusions are discredited by his lack of cardiology training, methodological flaws, personal bias from an unverified hypertriglyceridemia claim, and THINCS affiliation. His selective citation, weak evidence, and inflammatory rhetoric misrepresent the evidence supporting LDL-C’s role and statins’ efficacy. Researchers and clinicians should prioritize evidence-based practices to ensure optimal CVD prevention.

References

1. Ference BA, et al. (2017). J Am Coll Cardiol, 70(11), 1389–1400.

2. Nordestgaard BG, et al. (2013). Eur Heart J, 34(45), 3478–3490.

3. Baigent C, et al. (2010). Lancet, 376(9747), 1670–1681.

4. Collins R, et al. (2016). Lancet, 388(10059), 2532–2561.

5. Ravnskov U, et al. (2018). Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol, 11(10), 959–970.

6. Diamond DM, et al. (2022). Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes, 29(5), 497–511.

7. Diamond DM, Ravnskov U. (2015). World Nutr, 6(1–2), 66–83.

8. Diamond DM, et al. (2024). Front Nutr, 11, 1354667.

9. Diamond DM, et al. (2023). Cureus, 15(2), e34567.

10. Kip KE, et al. (2024). BMJ Open, 14(3), e067648.

11. Ray KK, et al. (2020). Eur Heart J, 41(39), 3813–3824.

12. Abramson J, Wright JM. (2007). Lancet, 369(9557), 168–169.

13. Diamond DM. (2019). Med Sci Law, 59(2), 115–126.

14. University of South Florida. (2018). USF News, September 28, 2018.

15. Tortorich V. (2017). Vinnie Tortorich Podcast, Episode 751.

16. STEM-Talk. (2017). Episode 41, Apple Podcasts.

17. Bubbs M. (2018). Dr. Marc Bubbs Podcast, Season 2, Episode 49.

18. Diet Doctor Podcast. (2019). Episode #27, Apple Podcasts.

19. Low Carb MD Podcast. (2022). Episode 247, lowcarbmd.com.

20. Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study Group. (1994). Lancet, 344(8934), 1383–1389.

21. Shepherd J, et al. (1995). N Engl J Med, 333(20), 1301–1307.

22. Ridker PM, et al. (2008). N Engl J Med, 359(21), 2195–2207.

23. Cannon CP, et al. (2015). N Engl J Med, 372(25), 2387–2397.

24. Nordestgaard BG, et al. (2013). Eur Heart J, 34(45), 3478–3490.

25. Schwartz GG, et al. (2006). J Am Coll Cardiol, 47(10), 2055–2057.

26. Cannon CP, et al. (2004). N Engl J Med, 350(15), 1495–1504.

27. Sabatine MS, et al. (2017). N Engl J Med, 376(18), 1713–1722.

28. Taylor F, et al. (2013). Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013(1), CD004816.

29. Unwin DJ, et al. (2020). BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care, 8(1), e001354.

30. Ebbeling CB, et al. (2020). Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol, 8(6), 517–525.

31. Sacks FM, et al. (2017). Circulation, 136(3), e1–e23.

32. Howard BV, et al. (2006). JAMA, 295(6), 655–666.

33. Sattar N, et al. (2010). Lancet, 375(9716), 735–742.

34. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. (2002). Lancet, 360(9326), 7–22.

35. Mozaffarian D, et al. (2010). PLoS Med, 7(3), e1000252.

36. Grundy SM, et al. (2019). Circulation, 139(25), e1082–e1143.

37. Mach F, et al. (2020). Eur Heart J, 41(1), 111–188.

• {{citation

| last1 = Diamond | first1 = David M.

| last2 = Bennett | first2 = M. Catherine

| last3 = Fleshner | first3 = Monika

| last4 = Rose | first4 = Gregory M.

| date = October 1992

| doi = 10.1002/hipo.450020409

| issue = 4

| journal = Hippocampus

| pages = 421–430

| title = Inverted-U relationship between the level of peripheral corticosterone and the magnitude of hippocampal primed burst potentiation

| volume = 2| pmid = 1308198

| s2cid = 8882728

}}

• {{citation

| last1 = Morgan | first1 = Dave

| last2 = Diamond | first2 = David M.

| last3 = Gottschall | first3 = Paul E.

| last4 = Ugen | first4 = Kenneth E.

| last5 = Dickey | first5 = Chad

| last6 = Hardy | first6 = John

| last7 = Duff | first7 = Karen

| last8 = Jantzen | first8 = Paul

| last9 = DiCarlo | first9 = Giovanni

| last10 = Wilcock | first10 = Donna

| last11 = Connor | first11 = Karen

| last12 = Hatcher | first12 = Jaime

| last13 = Hope | first13 = Caroline

| last14 = Gordon | first14 = Marcia

| last15 = Arendash | first15 = Gary W.

| date = December 2000

| doi = 10.1038/35050116

| issue = 6815

| journal = Nature

| pages = 982–985

| title = Aβ peptide vaccination prevents memory loss in an animal model of Alzheimer's disease

| volume = 408| pmid = 11140686

| bibcode = 2000Natur.408..982M

| s2cid = 4428449

}}

• {{citation

| last1 = Kim | first1 = Jeansok J.

| last2 = Diamond | first2 = David M.

| date = June 2002

| doi = 10.1038/nrn849

| issue = 6

| journal = Nature Reviews Neuroscience

| pages = 453–462

| title = The stressed hippocampus, synaptic plasticity and lost memories

| volume = 3| pmid = 12042880

| s2cid = 19013402

}}

{{Reflist}}

• [http://psychology.usf.edu/faculty/diamond/ Home page]
• [https://www.brainmemoryexpert.com/ David Diamond's expert witness web site]

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Diamond, David M.}}

Category:Living people

Category:American neuroscientists

Category:University of California, Irvine alumni

Category:University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus faculty

Category:University of South Florida faculty

Category:Year of birth missing (living people)