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

akramachamarei 13 minutes ago | parent | 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.

▲

b00ty4breakfast 2 hours ago | parent | prev | 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.

▲

vixen99 44 minutes 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.