This conclusion is not supported by the presented data, it contradicts with robust studies looking at the relationship between dietary fats and disease (2) and with the advice to limit SFA-consumption from the American Heart Association (3).

Here they say the research doesn't support existing expert opinion

The title of the article is misleading because the stated conclusion cannot be drawn from the research described in the article. In addition, studies show mortality rates due to cardiovascular disease have declined significantly in recent decades (6) which can be attributed to better treatment, but also to lower intakes of SFAs (7, 8).

This is their opinion again, but notice the weasel use of mortality and not incidence? And most worrisome is their relance on existing opinion that SFAs lead to cardiovascular events - They are already assuming the conclusion of their own opinion. That isn't a fair evaluation of the data.

But experts can have different opinions, that's fine... they both get to publish.

You will notice both the research paper and the opinion are in the same journal and neither are retracted. That means they disagree. Commentary isn't peer reviewed, but the original research is.

If you want to have a general conversation on saturated fat itself rather then just this one paper and other researchers opinions on it, we could discuss https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/saturated-fat#evidence-to-date