If anyone takes a moment to read the actual study, they would realize that this is a very long-term study. When it was originally started, they were not even considering the difference in the types of fats that they would look at. This essentially means that in the patients record keeping questionnaires they cannot differentiate between how much saturated fats (bad for you arteries and definitely causes plaque build up) and mono saturated (definitely good for you) and of course what we now refer to as trans fats, (those that incorporate an extra hydrogen molecule added by a process) which are definitely linked to cancer any person in the study was actually consuming. This is a flaw in the study design that could not have been avoided at the time because we didn't know as much then. So the study is a product of the time in which it was written and we have learned a lot about the types of fats and their impacts on our health, i.e. all fats are not good or bad, and any new study is going to have to look at what types people are consuming. The results of that will definitely be different because we will be considering the types of fats, and we already know much about how those types affect us. This is yet another case of semi-valid data, and the medias interpretation of it without critical thinking involved in that interpretation of reporting the outcome.