This is an interesting question. If you look at the literature the word 'evidence' really means 'observations purported to lead one to the conclusion that ....'. Definitely confusing for the casual reader - and it seems also for the health professionals (as they like to call themselves) specifically those who have egg on their faces over this volte face. Fact is there is nothing new about all this.

As an example it's been noted that countries with a high saturated fat consumption have higher cholesterol levels and high death rates from heart disease. Is this evidence that saturated fats contribute to heart disease? The 2005 Malmo study of 28,000 men and women showed no relationship with cardiovascular disease in men and a statistically insignificant <downward> trend for women.

If you use WHO public data and compare the seven countries with the lowest consumption of saturated fat with the seven countries with the highest consumption you get an interesting result. Every country with the lowest saturated fat consumption has higher rates of heart disease than every country in the group with the highest saturated fat consumption.

Wherever you go from there it's not leading to the conclusion that saturated fat is a major culprit (any biochemical can be linked to a dysfunction if you try hard enough) in heart disease.