The article says the "anti sat-fats" hypothesis started with Ancel Keys in
the Fifties. He compared countries with supposedly low sat fats intake and
other with higher sat fats intake. He even spent time in Italy, praised
olive oil and a diet rich in vegetables, and that's fine! Though, he didn't
notice that Italians *did* use also pork fat in traditional cooking,  and
even if they ate little red meat, they *did* eat cheese, eggs, ham,
sausages, bologna!
It also seems to me he didn't notice that there was a difference in
lifestyle: Italy and Greece in the Fifties still were essentially rural
countries (in Italy we had our big "industrial revolution" at the end of
the Fifties), not so in the USA.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article
_id=430682&in_page_id=1774&in_page_id=1774&expand=true#StartComments
[...]

[...]

Reading the article, the author acknowedges the importance of omega 3
fatty acids. Otherwise he seems paranoid about the large drug
companies.

An author with a similar theme, Anthony Colpo, in
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/colpo.pdf also refereces a study where
fish oil shows a benefit:
"Von Shacky and coworkers, in a 2-year double-blind trial in
patients with CHD, found that daily fish-oil supplementation
increased the incidence of atherosclerotic regression, and
decreased the loss in minimal luminal diameter, as assessed by
quantitative coronary angiography. Fish-oil recipients also
experienced fewer cardiovascular events. LDL cholesterol levels
tended to be greater in the fish-oil group."