Copy and paste from comments section. Note: I did retract "I'm not going to read this crap" and I did read it, but the rest of it stands. Also a disclaimer that I do know that her conclusion isn't that he is right, just clearing up a misunderstanding.
Denise, you are funny and smart and I like you, but I’m not going to read this crap because it is completely meaningless. Saturated fat DOES contribute to cardiovascular disease, but only in certain contexts. Unless we have data that controls for context we are seriously at risk of false positives. Even if we have extremely good data showing that there is basically no way that an association is explained by anything other than causation, we still don’t have -necessary- causation. There’s the obvious point, that saturated fat is associated with affluence which is associated with processed crap and stress, possibly pollution at the time. But then there is also the very important biochemistry. Saturated fat does impair endothelial function, but only in the context of an omega-3 deficiency http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/H10-020?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed
The informed and intelligent conclusion from clinical nutritionist Byron Richards is that DHA helps saturated fat function properly in the body http://www.wellnessresources.com/health/articles/dha_helps_saturated_fat_function_properly_in_your_body/
If you want to talk red meat we can do that, if you want to talk alcohol or sugar, we can do that too, if you want to talk any number of things that people think is unhealthy, we can do that too, and we’re always going to find mitigating factors. Epidemiology is the conversation starter.
The concept of the mitigating factor has set epidemiology back another 50 years in my mind. Until they identify, quantify, and incorporate mitigating factors into epidemiology, it isn’t worth much to me other than as a place to start looking.
And I'll just add to that now that if we don't want to waste our time we shouldn't be asking whether or not Keys' study supported his conclusion or not, but whether or not his methods should be given the credence that they have. Looking back on that era it is hard to say that he was justified in his conclusion, even in that context where all of the real science was still young, but now it just seems absurd. It's not Denise's fault that she gets sucked into this stuff, it's the entire zeitgeist's fault for wanting her to.