Comment by Sandrine Ceurstemont

According to several recent papers, however, eggs may not deserve their bad reputation. In fact, one Australian study suggests that eating two a day could lower your levels of ‘bad’ low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol – the kind that clogs your arteries.
AI Verified (Jan 17, 2026)
Like Share on X 1h ago
Policy proposals and claims
votes Against
Statement relation verification history AI Verified Report this

Statement relation comments

AI Verified Relevant: the source context explicitly connects high cholesterol/LDL with cardiovascular disease risk, and this quote says eggs may not deserve their bad reputation and may even lower LDL. That makes a stance on the full claim substantially determinable, most likely opposing the idea that regularly eating eggs increases cardiovascular disease risk. ([sciencefocus.com](https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/foods-high-cholesterol-diet)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1h ago
Vote inference verification history AI Verified Report this

Vote answer comments

AI Verified The quote says eggs "may not deserve their bad reputation" and that eating two a day could lower "bad" LDL cholesterol. In the article, elevated cholesterol is presented as what raises cardiovascular-disease risk, so the author is implying that regular egg eating does not increase that risk for the average person, even though the evidence cited is about cholesterol rather than direct CVD outcomes. ([sciencefocus.com](https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/foods-high-cholesterol-diet)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1h ago

Quote authenticity verification history

Report this

Quote authenticity comments

AI Verified The quote appears verbatim in the BBC Science Focus article at the supplied URL, credited to Sandrine Ceurstemont and published January 17, 2026, so the stored author, date, content, and source URL are correct. ([sciencefocus.com](https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/foods-high-cholesterol-diet)) · YouCongress gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 · 1h ago
replying to Sandrine Ceurstemont