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.

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.

>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.