I think that it's important to remember that the particular meta analysis was
a) only of epidemiologic studies, it doesn't here discuss the other evidence.
b) It was not without it's critics, (also not mavericks) published within the journal
see the links to comments
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
I don't think that most researchers claim that all fat is bad, eat a low fat diet with as little sat fat as possible but nor are they waving a green flag for unfettered consumption.
They certainly they don't advocate swapping fat for
refined carbohydrates but many feel that there is a benefit in replacing some saturated fat with other fats.
The piece written by the authors of the meta-analysis to accompany the paper discusses this and looks at the other types of evidence and of the influence fats may have on insulin sensitivity and blood pressure .They also look at the variation in response to saturated fats between individuals** (YMMV!)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824150/
I'm not going to quote from the article. I feel that it needs to be read as a whole. As each section is a summary of the evidence, It would be extremely easy to take statements out of context to 'prove' one point or another .
** I read only today an experiment which showed different effects of a higher fat diet on people who were carriers of a certain gene. All of the groups had increases in LDL but those who carried the gene also had big increases in HDL. The difference wasn't that great in men but in females there was a far greater difference between the increase in HDL in those who had the gene and those who hadn't. Lost it now; it was fairly recent.