On a positive note, the price of eggs may drop for people not gullible enough to believe this. (us) 
Eggs. Demonized again. Sigh
David_Stilley
(Full Metal KETO AF)
#61
Halo
#63
I just read that. I’m still going to go cook and eat half a dozen eggs for breakfast, guess I’ll take my 50+ percent chance of developing heart disease. Better have some extra meat with those eggs, too.
Freefall_Doug
(DougH)
#64
Epidemiology studies are pretty low quality science in my book. My scepticism grows with food survey epidemiology based studies.
I saw this on CNN, they claimed they controlled for other risk factors like smoking, so I have to read through the study.
I’m eating my eggs and bacon either way.
VirginiaEdie
(Edith)
#65
But… what were they eating along with those eggs: whole grain toast, fruit, potatoes? It doesn’t seem daily carb intake was considered.
daddyoh
(Eric - The patient needs to be patient!)
#66
Eggs have every nutrient and trace minerals needed to grow a baby chicken. I’m going on the notion that his favors eggs in my diet. 
MarkGossage
(bulkbiker)
#67
No debate whatsoever… simply poor science reported by idiots who don’t seem to have a critical atom in their brains…
The vegan mob were all over it Khan, Greger and Barnard screeching like the deranged mob they are… as you can tell it made me a bit angry…!
CFLBob
(Central Florida Bob )
#72
This.
I’m not a statistician, but I have taken enough to know that pooling data that’s of varying quality is fraught with danger. You have to be very good at what you’re doing, and, frankly I’ve never seen evidence that the people doing these studies are good at it.
Evidence of them being bad at statistics is right here. They pool a bunch of questionable data, (probably) do it badly, and the best they can come up with is 1.17 risk factor increase? This “study” didn’t even deserve to be reported on.
Kendrick is right, but don’t waste the paper, just delete the file.
Rclause
(Scott)
#73
This one is a fantastic point but we would have to do the research to show that carbs are bad first. If there was only a upward trend in something like diabetes that could show this (and not be egg related)
FrankoBear
#74
Late to the egg party this time. Hopefully 3 days is not too far passed the discussion used by date. Apologies @PaulL for starting a new topic. I did search “eggs” and found unrelated topics from '17 & '18. Thanks for bundling my comments into this thread.
Eggs May Be Bad for the Heart, a New Study Says—But There’s More to the Story
There is actually not any more to the story than a journalist and epidemiologist needing to publish something to look like they are doing work. No new data. Just an updated accounting application of original ‘dirty data’; population data of the generally unhealthy population setting the norms and ‘normal ranges’. It is further observed evidence that observational epidemiology continues to feed media nutrition confusion
OldDoug
(Doug)
#75
Alas for the see-saw of egg press and puclicity. I suppose that around age ten one gets enough consciousness to start storing such things. Now, when I think about what an egg is, and what humans need for nutrition, and being conscious of the inability of such studies to factor out the consumption of carbohydrates and processed food - I’m immune to proclamations that “eggs are bad for us,” even if couched in generalities and qualified with statements of possibilities to the contrary.
FrankoBear
#78
Yes Omar. Another mainstream media article and epidemiological study that does not dig deep enough into the nuances that educated and interested, in our own nutritional health, laypeople (could we be called layers?) seek.