From the original study not the choice parts that "Plantbasednews.org" pulled out.
"We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all-cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate-quality evidence. There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality"
They quote a cardiologist, Dr. Kahn, who I do not know. But he blatantly misquoted the original article. There was a reduction in events not a reduction in mortality. This is the quote from Dr. Kahn
"At the end of the day, they found that within two years, we can enjoy a 21 percent reduction in our risk of heart attack, stroke, of congestive heart failure, dying of heart disease"
Nope - not dying. There is no effect on mortality in this meta-analysis. And to get picky - the authors of this study said "little or no effect' - incorrect. Standards are that if the RR includes 1 that there is no effect. The "little" was inappropriate editorializing. The studies (in combination) says no difference. Sure there is a possibility that there is a "little" effect - but they shouldn't have said it.
Either Dr. Kahn was misquoted or he was mistaken.
All studies that lump all saturated fat together are probably just looking at the wrong thing. Beef fat does not equal coconut oil. I don't necessarily disagree that a vegetarian (or better a Vegan) diet is beneficial for CV mortality. But looking at saturated fat is probably the wrong marker. I can pump myself full of saturated fats with a plant based diet. And I can easily eat a low fat meat based diet. And both can be unhealthy or healthy.
Weight loss surgeon by trade.