Today's study is the alpha-tocopherol beta-carotene cancer prevention study done in Finnish men. The primary purpose of the study was not to determine dietary information regarding CHD but to test whether supplemental vitamins prevented cancer in smokers.
The study looked at ~22k men, all of whom smoked at the start of the study. The study found no association between SFA and CHD, but did find positive associations for omega-3s and for TFA which were signficant. Fiber and omega-6s were protective. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9149659
This study is an example of a phenomenon commonly encountered in nutritional research, raising the temperature of a fire and showing no difference in the coals. The lowest quintile of SFA intake was 315 calories per day. The median cholesterol was 240 mg/dL. 
This study showed a nearly equivalent risk for CHD between TFA and omega-3s. This is certainly counter to what most researchers today accept as valid, but it's not a reason to throw the study out. However, it is possible to imagine a study that failed to show a real difference.
Imagine a study comparing people who wore their seatbelt 20% of the time and those who wore it 15% of the time. If there were no difference in accidental death rates, would that invalidate your understanding of seatbelts being beneficial? Now imagine they all drove Corvettes.
Including this study in their meta-analysis allowed ST & K to give lots of weight (22k people) to a very specifically high risk population where it was hard to show a difference. I don't fault the researchers, they included these caveats in their report.
In addition, this is a side paper that was not the primary purpose of the study. The study also found no benefit to the vitamin supplements for CHD, and that they caused cancers in the smokers who took them. So if you love this study, please don't take supplemental A or E.
Next up will be the Health and Lifestyle Survey by Boniface and Tefft, another survey with very high fat intakes at baseline.
