Speaking of absolute garbage why are you bothering citing pop garbage nutrition articles when there's plenty of peer-reviewed data? Here's a 2015 meta-analysis of dietary nitrates, nitrates, and nitrosamine intake and cancer risk: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4690057/ - overall, results were pretty weak, with pretty small hazard ratios (1.31 and 1.34 for nitrites and NDMA respectively). This seems largely matched by a 2017 review: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5669970/ There are many other things you could do to reduce your risk of cancer if that were you're primary health concern (my personal preference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255155/).

There's even more research on eggs (I also checked the author information, these are real academics, not just industry shills as your reference implies must be behind all pro-egg research) - you can also see my other citations in this thread to see references on how dietary cholesterol has little impact on serum cholesterol, and also how high cholesterol has very little to say about CVD (also eggs actually raise HDL which is a good thing if you're looking at cholesterol sub-fractions, you really need to be looking at the research on Lp(a) and Ox-LDL). Anyway, overall consensus, seems to be that eggs are not absolute garbage:

* 2015 Egg Consumption and Human Cardio-Metabolic Health in People with and without Diabetes https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586539/

* 2016 Eggs and Health Special Issue https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5188439/

* 2016 Eggs: good or bad? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27126575

* 2017 Intake of up to 3 Eggs per Day Is Associated with Changes in HDL Function and Increased Plasma Antioxidants in Healthy, Young Adults. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28077734

* 2017 Consuming Two Eggs per Day, as Compared to an Oatmeal Breakfast, Decreases Plasma Ghrelin while Maintaining the LDL/HDL Ratio https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331520/

Just want to note that "2015 Egg Consumption and Human Cardio-Metabolic Health in People with and without Diabetes" states under "Conflicts of Interest": "N.R.F., I.D.C. and T.P.M. have received research grants for other clinical trials funded by Australian Egg Corporation Limited". And: "T.P.M. acts as an advisory member to the Egg Nutrition Council." Your last 2017 study is funded by the "Esperance Family Foundation" - need to do more digging, but I wonder if they're linked to animal agriculture/eggs.

That's nice. No pro-egg shills are ever involved, huh?

Also the processed meat/red meat/nitrate and cancer connection was brought forth by the World Health Organization. Not exactly a pop science source.

Further, Dr. Greger is a highly respected physician, author, and academic - his interpretation of the data absolutely matters.

Yes, that review also cites 94 references and (the core of the reference is 3 tables that reviews existing literature anyway) and was published in MDPI's peer-reviewed open access journal Nutrients. Every other publication I listed was also peer-reviewed and can be read in full and is also full of citations. That's sort of the point of having scientific literature.

But sure, since he's "highly respected" this Dr Greger sounds like a stand-up guy with no axe to grind, let's see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Greger as a "professional speaker on public health issues, particularly the benefits of a whole-food, plant-based diet and the harms of eating animal products" and the vegan publisher of the web site you cite as well, you don't say.

But, he's an academic? Let's see what he's published (lots of peer reviewed work on nutrition and metabolism I'd expect): https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Greger

Oh hmm, maybe I have the wrong guy, it's just a couple animal welfare papers.

Hey, up to you where you want to get your scientific information (same goes w/ the WHO, which I agree isn't a pop science source - it's a ... public health agency/policy advisory body). I'll just read the peer-reviewed literature, thanks.

Your passion for animal-based products is truly impressive! Have a good one!

The passion is actually for the application of the scientific method in a field that is simply rife with misinformation and ideologues, but thanks for casting aspersions. I can assure you that you haven't made a very strong intellectual argument for your case though.

All of the scientific references Dr Greger cited in his video are invalid? Oh, thanks, Dr. lhl on HN.