The trouble with isolated studies — no matter how credible the source — is that they more often uncover an accidental correlation rather than a direct causation: e.g. men who enjoy eating a lot of eggs and men who have a higher risk of advanced PCa have some other, unknown trait in common (genetic, physical, or otherwise).

(Also, CoPilot can be a useful tool, but apply a lot of healthy scepticism to its results. Generative AI mindlessly parrots information on the web, right or wrong, and then introduces its own errors to make it a bit like a game of broken telephone. Experimenting with ChatGPT, I've been able to generate exactly opposite responses about PCa just by rephrasing my question slightly. 😕)

If you read that study even the top researcher said “we found an association, which does NOT mean causation” and he said it twice.
Also, the gut biome - and associated gut flora (bacteria SPECIFIC for each individual) - was a key component of the entire study. So maybe certain bacteria are causing the cancer and the choline is an innocent bystander?
Also in the later part of the study, they say that men who eat more eggs tend to eat more meat and dairy and less fish and vegetables….Where in God’s name do they come up with that ridiculous statement!? You can infer one from the other?? If I only wear black socks I am clinically depressed?? C’mon guys, give me a break!
Even if this was based on a questionnaire, most men probably don’t know the frequency of anything they eat…more junk science, more internet repetition of the same flawed study over and over