That's all I need to see to stop reading the study. Sponsored science is just noise.
There are plenty of examples where that does seem to happen. Not sure if anyone has done a comparison with rate of non-publication by non-interest group funded studies. Probably difficult given there's not much motivation to uncover non-publication without the anti-corporate sensationalism.
And all science these days is sponsored these days, given the shortage of self-funding landed gentry. And there's no guarantee that landed gentry won't be pushing an agenda, either.
Almost everything we have in modern medicine is.
This whole position is nonsense. The paper stands on its own.
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.
So it's 'science' done wrong. The implications are that most drugs are useless if not outright harmful.