Well, I had to skim over that article. If I were nitpicking, I'd say that despite an interesting display of select research, some interpretations run fast and loose.
For example, "median splits", which are used as proof in the article, are not the same as creating quartiles or quintiles (separations of 4 or 5) and looking at the highest vs. lowest intakes.
Another example would be the "next day" data. These numbers are just showing no immediate effect. But longer term effects, once the body starts down-regulating LDL receptors, are not the same. It might be pointed out that two guys back in 1969, Brown & Goldstein if I remember properly, won the Nobel Prize for their work showing liver LDL receptor down-reg (reductions) via sat fat.
And we need to stay cognizant that research never "proves" anything, it just supports or refutes a specific hypothesis (educated guess).
Nonetheless, I think reads like this are good to keep an open mind. But we should remember that there are tons of studies out there (each with yet another reference list of still more papers) showing some negative effecs of sat fat. (I myself think it's more the sat-fat-in-a-high-carb-world issue that makes health issues worse.)
And we should consider that not all saturated fats are equally atherogenic (stearic acid, as found in beef, comes to mind as less concerning).
Still, there are negative health effects beyond blood lipids (which, again, do have research support far beyond Ansel Keys) when it comes to sat fat.
Thanks for the post. Selective citations or not, I like reading anti-establishment stuff! Let's just keep balance in mind.