Caveat:

> Funding [...] The analyses in this study were supported by an investigator-initiated grant from the American Egg Board. [...]

▲

ks2048 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Egg Council at it again.

[The Simpsons] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHAFMFFQlkI https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Egg_Council_Guy

▲

deflator 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's all I need to see to stop reading the study. Sponsored science is just noise.

▲

b00ty4breakfast 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

it's not necessarily the case that it's junk science, but it is absolutely beyond the capabilities of a normal person or persons to winnow out the chaff.

▲

akramachamarei 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wow, ad hominem reasoning as a principal for info consumption. I ought to shake your hand. In all seriousness, I can appreciate the time-economic value to your policy, but wouldn't regard it is as an epistemic device.

▲

vixen99 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's claimed that around 90% of Americans are choline deficient. Eggs are one the best nutritional sources for choline. There are several papers linking low choline levels with Altzheimer disease so it would not be surprising to find a link between egg consumption and Altzheimer incidence. Sponsored studies should indeed be treated with much caution but is anyone suggesting such authors invent positive results or ignore highly inconvenient results? Such behavior would be reprehensible and not something with which a researcher would wish to be associated.

▲

light_hue_1 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Virtually all the drugs you take, interventions, cancer treatments, etc. are based on such science.

Almost everything we have in modern medicine is.

This whole position is nonsense. The paper stands on its own.

	▲	jmull an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Your logic is, "nothing's perfect so everything is equally good (or bad)". Which is not true in this case. For better and sometimes worse, the process through which medical drugs and procedures come to market, including studies and trials, is heavily regulated. The Egg Board, however, is free to choose whichever studies to fund they prefer, and will gravitate to ones likely to show the positive effects of eggs and avoid ones likely to show the opposite. The content of the paper may be entirely legitimate, but it still actually tells us nothing about whether we should eat more eggs or not.
	▲	thayne an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		And that's a problem. The best case scenario is it biases published results for things that benefit the sponsors. But there is certainly some amount of fraud including fabricated data, misinterpreted or exaggerated conclusions, suppressed research that isn't what the sponsor wants, etc.
	▲	dennis_jeeves2 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		>Virtually all the drugs you take, interventions, cancer treatments, etc. are based on such science. So it's 'science' done wrong. The implications are that most drugs are useless if not outright harmful.

▲

dlcarrier an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They didn't fund the health study, they funded this paper to point out the positive data in the study.

There's two way to bias independent research through funding. The most nefarious is to fund a whole bunch of research, and only publish the favored results. By ignoring enough failed attempts, it's even possible to get false-positive successes, through random chance. (Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/882/)

The second way is to only fund research that is likely to be favorable. E.g. if you sell vitamin supplements, you only fund research on people with bad diets, but not people who eat healthy diets that likely aren't affected by supplements.

In this case, it's leaning so far into the latter, that it's just pointing out positive research that someone else found.

▲

pcrh an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The source of funding is not the only suspicious thing...

From the actual study, which is free to read [0]:

>Dietary intake was assessed at baseline using a validated, self-administered FFQ that included >200 food items

So out of 200 potential associations, eggs were the winner? See this famous xkcd: Green jelly beans linked to acne.[1]

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002231662...

[1] https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/882:_Significant

▲

hallole 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

LMAO, good catch. And I was about to look into it further!