There's a good chance you still harbor suspicion of fat, saturated or otherwise. And there's also a good chance your doctor is still giving you the advice that you should minimize your intake of the stuff. If your doctor's telling you this, then they're not a little bit off -- they're flat-out wrong, the evidence is overwhelming at this point, and was actually pretty strong even before the "fat hypothesis" took over in the 50s and 60s. This article does a good job explaining how that came to pass, and was driven by one of the well-known failure modes of the scientific process -- specifically, deference to authority, and to the strong-willed-but-wrong.http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin
"[...] the science writer Gary Taubes has assembled a critique of contemporary nutrition science, powerful enough to compel the field to listen. One of his contributions has been to uncover a body of research conducted by German and Austrian scientists before the second world war, which had been overlooked by the Americans who reinvented the field in the 1950s. The Europeans were practising physicians and experts in the metabolic system. The Americans were more likely to be epidemiologists, labouring in relative ignorance of biochemistry and endocrinology (the study of hormones). This led to some of the foundational mistakes of modern nutrition
." [emphasis mine]
This, for me, is the most damning part. Loose correlations from shoddy epidemiological studies are the bane of health science. Epidemiology has an often-deserved reputation for being only a step up from reading tea leaves. Such studies should be used to support or refute an underlying hypothesis, but taken as truth on their own, they're more likely to obscure than illuminate.
Imagine if we tried to do physics or chemistry with only correlation studies, underlying theory be damned? That's obvious nonsense, yet largely representative of how we study health and nutrition.