Bible_Belt said:
http://www.bmj.com/content/317/7169/1341
Frequent nut consumption was associated with a reduced risk of both fatal coronary heart disease and non-fatal myocardial infarction.
Did you actually read the rest of the study you posted?
"In analyses of peanuts and other nuts (assessed in 1986) separately, we combined the two highest categories because of the small number of cases (table 4). After adjusting for age, consumption of peanuts and other nuts were both inversely associated with risk of coronary heart disease.
Consumption of peanut butter was only weakly associated with risk of coronary heart disease (multivariate relative risk comparing women consuming peanut butter ≥5 times per week with those who rarely consumed peanut butter was 0.92 (0.74 to 1.15), P for trend=0.94). The relative risk was slightly stronger for fatal coronary heart disease (0.76, 0.50 to 1.15, P for trend=0.09)."
"Peanut butter was only weakly associated with a risk of coronary heart disease, but this may be due to the addition of hydrogenated fat to major American brands.24"
The paper you posted says that peanut butter (at least the American variety) does not confer the same benefits as eating peanuts, and in fact there was an increase (slight, but still there) in risk for disease. That's from the rest of your paper. OP is asking about peanut butter not peanuts.