Dr. David Seres Debunked Again

by Steven Carney on January 23, 2016

This is post #126 on the site, debunking false and misleading claims about eggs and fats made by Dr. David Seres. The following post will expose Dr. Seres’ misguided, fat-phobic claims and provide a startling reality check for his video.

Feel free to browse the vast amount of information and resources here. For past articles on a range of breakthrough nutrition, health, prevention, aging and lifestyle topics, simply scroll down below this one. Also check the tabs above for more research, tips and other resources.

Dr. David Seres, MD, has a video on YouTube titled, Are Eggs Back In? In the video, he makes false and misleading claims that eggs are high in saturated fat, and use 50% or more of your daily fat intake, while commenting on the new USDA 2015 Advisory Committee’s Dietary Guidelines. Dr. Seres, you have egg on your face! Time to get debunked again!

The video opens with the Columbia University Medical Center title and logo. Just below the video it lists, Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons. It looks like they might have uploaded the video.

I played the video several times in order to get a good transcription of Dr. Seres’ claims. The implicit support of his school and medical center seems both problematic and embarrassing, especially as this debunking unfolds.

In the video, Dr. Seres makes biased, overblown claims about eggs, fats and fat intake. In order to debunk his claims, I take his comments in several sections, then debunk each one in detail, including source links. Like the previous time I debunked Dr. Seres’ exaggerated, unscientific article claims (often based on the biased, ignorant work of Anahad O’Connor, more below), his comments showcase a mix of strong bias, nutritional ignorance and a shocking lack of science savvy. Once again, his penchant for misleading the public is on full display!

Dr. Seres video claim #1:

The new guidelines have been interpreted variably and, the notion that eggs are back in is really not true.

Hey Doc! For many of us, eggs were never out. Eggs are a great source of complete, digestible protein, low in saturated fat (full analysis below), and they include key vitamins, minerals, anti-oxidants, plus heart-healthy fats like MUFAs and PUFAs. But while commenting on those USDA Dietary Guidelines, Dr. Seres apparently forgot the long-standing medical dogma that demonized eggs for their cholesterol content.

For decades, medical practitioners told us that eggs were high in cholesterol and therefore, they increased the risk of heart disease/CHD. In truth, the science behind those claims was biased, weak and unreliable. Those claims have been debunked for years, but many gullible medical practitioners embraced the nonsense claims hook, line and sinker. Many continue to repeat those old-fashioned myths long after they have been put to rest.

Dr. Seres, did you see that the Advisory Committee dropped their guideline to keep dietary cholesterol below 300 mg/day because of better evidence? (The official guidelines agreed, dropping those cholesterol limits in early 2016.)

For years, many of us have known that dietary cholesterol (such as in eggs) has only a minor effect on blood/serum cholesterol levels for most people (the liver makes most of the cholesterol we need and we eliminate the rest). This is probably contrary to the false dogma Dr. Seres was taught 30 years ago. Surely this change to long-standing guidelines was something Dr. Seres should pass along in his video?

The Advisory Committee decided to remove the dietary cholesterol limits for the 2015 guidelines after a review of the evidence, but Dr. Seres didn’t mention that change. It’s on page 90 of the committee report. Here is the full quote from the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) regarding their decision to remove all dietary cholesterol limits in their 2015 version (it was in the last version in 2010):

Previously, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that cholesterol intake be limited to no more than 300 mg/day. The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report (2, 35). Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.

Did you read that Dr. Seres? If not, here is that pesky quote again. . . available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.

The truth is, dietary cholesterol was never a health danger for the vast majority of people, yet many avoided eggs because of those false medical claims! Dr. Seres omitted that important change in his video comments about the new guidelines. Is that how a nutrition professional handles new research and important changes to national dietary guidelines?

The claim that dietary cholesterol should be limited to 300 mg/day was made relentlessly by medical people for decades, and I can only imagine how many times Doc Seres repeated that false dogma about dietary cholesterol “dangers” to patients, students and colleagues! In fact, I’ll even predict his video was made, in part, to minimize that change and provide some political cover for the misinformation the medical community has given us for decades.

Here are some initial links about eggs, showing a lack of harmful effects on cholesterol, heart disease, mortality and health with some benefits included (many more links below):









Dr. Seres video claim #2:

The guidelines are really not that different from any of the previous guidelines. . .the concepts remain the same: Eat less saturated fat, eat (ah) less fat in general, eat less salt and eat less sugar.

He continues to avoid that removal of the dietary cholesterol limits, deciding to focus on “the concepts” in the report (I bet he hasn’t read the report; it’s clear that he doesn’t read or understand most of the biased, anti-supplement research he touts).

Although some of that language about fat, salt and sugar is in the report, most of those fat intakes are from decades-old, fat-phobic AHA (American Heart Association) and ACC (American College of Cardiology) guidelines. They are also based on biased, associative and unreliable studies from decades ago.

In fact, the so-called evidence that cholesterol and saturated fat caused heart disease has been weak and methodology challenged for years, using crude, surrogate markers like total cholesterol or LDL cholesterol.

Those studies rarely included other, more telling blood markers like Oxidized LDL, HDL, VLDL, triglycerides, ratios like HDL to total C or triglyceride to HDL, LDL particle size and number, glucose levels/A1c, 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels, BP and hs-CRP for systemic inflammation, all providing more valuable insights for CHD risk compared to LDL or total-C alone (more links below):





Satiety levels and other important lifestyle factors like overall dietary intake, activity, stress and sleep are also routinely ignored in those studies (even though lifestyle affects serum cholesterol in significant ways). Western medicine still loves to cut people off at the neck, excluding critical qualitative and emotional well-being in their studies.

BTW, newer research has shown that saturated fats can increase HDL, lower LDL particle numbers, and increase LDL particle size, along with lowering VLDL, all valuable for lowering CHD and CVD risk. They can also help to lower triglycerides.

In short, the risks from dietary fats and cholesterol have been exaggerated well beyond the older studies and their limited data (see links and quotes above and below). And as mentioned above, those studies were often designed with a reductionist approach: Narrowing the focus of research to a single cause or overly-simplistic explanation, while ignoring the totality of contributors for those origins or possible treatments.

Reductionism often ignores important confounders like broader dietary intakes, the totality of lifestyle habits, epigenetics (the significant effects daily lifestyle has on genes), and the decades of time it takes to develop a chronic disease like heart disease, arthritis or cancer (many studies are too short to be definitive, often a few years or less).

Reductionism is often so narrowly focused, it conflicts with reason and common sense (including studies like the ATBC, CARET and SELECT studies), where older, high-risk subjects were used (more details below).

Reductionism often leads to inaccurate findings, which are nevertheless heavily marketed by medical journals through dramatic press releases, used to generate media buzz and coverage. And docs and the media are drawn to those dramatic-headlines like a moth to a flame (Doc Seres surely is, he likes the highly biased and distorted work of Anahad O’Connor, see more details below, including O’Connor’s recent work with Frontline to produce their biased, deceptive, anti-supplement program)!

Western medicine loves to market magic pills and potions, including simplistic solutions to complex etiologies (e.g., dietary cholesterol clogs arteries, fats cause heart disease, pills fix aches and pains, etc.), all presented as certain, miracle breakthroughs and cure-alls when most are actually unproven or wrong. Allopathic medicine has carried on this way for over 100 years.


And during that century of aggressively-planned monopoly (often calling alternative health practitioners quacks and attacking supplements as dangerous as Doc Seres does), the medical industry has killed millions through their well-financed marketing campaigns dressed up like science to sell their drugs, procedures and surgeries. See quotes below and my previous posts and source links for expert reviews on medical myths and corruption.

So in spite of the weak, biased and debunked evidence that saturated fats are the cause of heart disease/CHD, the dogma continues to be spread by medical practitioners like Doc Seres (see numerous links below). Seres seems stuck in his decades-old indoctrination, paying little attention to newer research, deeper insights or common sense (his egg video is a textbook example of misguided pseudo-science put up for public view).

In truth, the campaign to demonize fat and cholesterol has been a triumph of power, politics and money over science. As we speak, the drug lobby (largest lobbying army on earth) and their fellow lobbyists at the AMA and other medical groups are surely pushing to retain those dietary cholesterol limits (cholesterol is marketed as dangerous after all)! Billions in statin-drug sales could be at risk if people think cholesterol isn’t harmful. Drug companies rely on that deep-seated fear to keep billions in sales and profits going strong.

How did we get so misinformed?

For those who don’t know it, the lipid hypothesis for fat and cholesterol (also called the diet-heart hypotheses) came largely from Ancel Keys in the early 1950s, but his overly simplistic, associative claims have been debunked since he presented them. His conclusion that dietary fats caused heart disease were questioned from the beginning. Why?

Not only was his theory overly simplistic and reductionist (ignoring many other relevant diet, lifestyle and blood markers like those listed above), it seems that Keys’ manipulated the available data to create his initial graph in 1953. He presented his paper on Atherosclerosis at a symposium at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York. It only showed data for 6 of 22-World Health Organization countries available.

The 6 countries he chose appeared to show a strong (but non-causal) association between dietary fat intake and heart disease deaths (7 countries were used for a later Keys’ study, started in 1958 with some of the same 6 countries used in his original paper).

Here’s the problem: If you include all 22 countries on his graph, the association (or correlation) between saturated fat intake and heart disease/CHD is far weaker: Several countries show opposite effects, with higher saturated-fat intake resulting in fewer deaths from heart disease/CHD, while some countries with lower fat intake had higher death rates from CHD. Because the majority of 22 countries were left off Keys’ initial study without a full explanation, many said his work was biased, which undercut his claims.

Here is an insightful, 2012 quote from a well-done analysis of Keys’ work by Rebecca Malamed, MD. It shows that Keys was aware that sugar was probably a contributor to heart disease, but something he quickly dismissed (many studies have since validated sugar’s contribution to heart disease, along with other refined carbs, omega-6 veggie oils, processed foods, etc.). Sugar as a cause of CHD has been largely ignored by medical and governmental organizations until recently:

Keys only bothered to look at levels of dietary fat, the focus of his hypothesis. He didn’t even bother to seriously consider what effect higher levels of sugar had on the numbers. To prove his hypothesis, he would have had to show that keeping levels of sugar constant and increasing only fat would actually increase heart disease. Keys himself even admitted that sugar intake correlates very well with heart disease. Here is an excerpt, from page 262 of his own work.

“The fact that the incidence rate of coronary heart disease was significantly correlated with the average percentage of calories from sucrose in the diet is explained by the intercorrelation of sucrose with saturated fat.”

So, in other words, he said that this is because in foods rich in saturated fat there is also sugar, and simply dismissed the effect of sugar. Well, this fat and sugar combination might be true of foods like donuts, but clearly not with meat or vegetables. He decided the conclusion, without even bothering to test whether fat or sugar is the cause of the heart disease.



Here are many additional links that help debunk the overly-simplistic, reductionist claims that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart and CHD/CVD (these are focused on human studies, not in-vitro/lab or small mammal studies that often give misleading results):


This link has a shocking video that covers the weak science and heavy politics of cholesterol and fat in the 1970s:




The Untainted Mind


This study exposes some obvious bias in fat research:



















Here is an insightful video by heart surgeon, Dr. Miller, offering a mix of historical perspective, fatty-acid chemistry, flawed-public health policy, food-business deception, and an overall debunking of saturated fats and cholesterol as the cause of heart disease/CVD. He includes Ancel Keys’ misguided work, other poor science, nutritional fadism, and silencing dissent. He was also caught up in the fat-phobic nonsense but has since seen the light:

Here is a startling, 2015 quote about egg consumption, mortality and heart disease, taken from the ongoing Framingham study (see link below to this recent study):

Egg intake in this population ranged from 0 to 24 eggs per week in males and from 0 to 19 per week in females, with an average egg consumption of 5.9 per week for males and 3.8 per week for females. Results showed no significant association between the number of eggs consumed with all-cause mortality, total coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, or angina pectoris. Furthermore, a low versus high egg consumption had no effect on blood cholesterol level.

That quote offers strong evidence, showing no significant connection between eggs and heart/CVD, heart attack, chest pain, blood cholesterol levels or other causes of mortality.

And these insightful quotes included in that same study include high egg consumption (2-3 eggs per day) from two studies, one resulting in lower inflammation markers and the other showing no change in FMD values (arterial constriction and endothelial dysfunction) or lipids from egg consumption in existing CHD patients (citation numbers removed to avoid confusion):

In a study investigating the effect of high egg intake (three eggs per day) versus egg substitute (which is comprised of 99% egg white and contains no cholesterol or fat) in those with metabolic syndrome, improvements in dyslipidemia were noted for both groups when accompanied by a three-month weight reduction program. However, reductions in circulating concentrations of the inflammatory markers tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and serum amyloid A (a protein secreted in response to inflammatory stimuli) only occurred in the egg group. Thus the high egg diet had a beneficial effect in reducing inflammation in this population with metabolic syndrome.

One study has been conducted in people with established coronary heart disease, and in contrast to the majority of studies, the primary outcome was endothelial function, assessed by flow-mediated dilatation. The authors found no difference in flow-mediated dilatation or circulating lipid levels between subjects that were following a high egg diet of two eggs per day compared to those following a high carbohydrate breakfast or a breakfast containing egg substitute.


In spite of the broad, convincing evidence debunking the established dogma that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease, Dr. Seres appears to cling tightly to that dogma, continuing to spread the it. The big, bad fat bogeyman is alive and well for Doc Seres (a so-called nutritional expert and professor).

Is any of this hitting home for anyone? Are you seeing how millions of us have been misinformed for decades, thanks to misguided modern medical claims? If not, there is lots more debunking ahead! Let’s look at Doc Seres #3 claim (it’s a real doozie from someone who claims to be Director of Medical Nutrition and Associate Professor of medicine in the Institute of Human Nutrition, Columbia University Medical Center, New York)!

Dr. Seres video claim #3:

As far as eggs are concerned, eggs have quite a bit of saturated fat in them. . .and so if you eat 2 eggs, especially if you fry them in butter, you get about (uh), a third or half even, of your daily allotment of saturated fat.

First of all, who is the you he talking about? His unqualified statement about eggs, fat and daily intake offers no example subjects, context or evidence for his claims (typical of the superficial approach I’ve seen in his work before). Just a blanket statement that eggs have a lot of saturated fat and use about 50% of your daily allotment.

Once again, he fails basic nutrition science by excluding any relevant subject parameters for daily intakes (they vary from person to person), such as age, gender, activity levels, health status, weight, body-fat/composition and egg size, along with frequency of egg and fat consumption and fat composition (many foods like eggs and butter contain a mix of fatty acids, including heart-healthy MUFAs and PUFAs)

His simplistic, reductionist claim also assumes that breakfast is just 2 eggs fried in butter? I can imagine how that looks: 2 eyes looking back at you from the plate! An egg-eyed emoji perhaps? He includes no other foods in his overly-simplistic breakfast. Who actually eats that way? He doesn’t say, offering no statistics or research to back his statement.

What about a veggie omelet or scramble with herbs, spices, a side of fresh fruit and coffee or green tea? Those are more normal breakfast combinations, yet he skips those, along with all the effects of that balanced meal on digestion, metabolism, absorption and blood lipids. Knowing his shallow, amateurish work as I do, I predict that he has little idea of the results (like the eggs, those foods offer many health benefits, see nutritional analysis and links below)!

The basic problem with Doc Seres’ claim #3 is clear: Nutritional needs for proteins, fats, carbs, micro-nutrients, anti-oxidants, hydration, etc., are individualized and vary with age, gender, activity levels, health status, and the rest of the parameters I mentioned.

By excluding all of those parameters in his overly-simplistic egg claims, he undercuts his position, lacking credible science or logic to back his statement. And although his comments are presented as fact, we already know that much of the so-called science behind those fat guidelines is biased, unreliable and largely debunked (links above). In other words, his bias and simplistic thinking compounds his errors, stacking them higher and higher, like a cartoonish fried-egg tower?

Doc Seres’ online work continues to show superficial knowledge at best, a mix of theatrics and public misinformation (I know, I’ve debunked the pseudo-scientific claims and misinformation he has presented in previous articles and videos). It’s clear to me that his work is a serious abdication of professional standards. Please see my detailed debunking post of Doc Seres’ bogus nutrition and supplement claims called, Dr. David Seres Debunked (also linked below).

I’ll demonstrate how misguided his claim #3 is about eggs and fat below with real-world examples. First, this request:

Dr. Seres, you offered no studies to support your bold claims about eggs and saturated fat. Please add the following evidence to your video description to support your unqualified claims about eggs and saturated fat intake thus far:

Include links to 3, independent, replicating, human trials (prospective, placebo-controlled, non-drug, non-review/meta trials), studying the health effects of saturated fat intake from 2-large eggs and butter pat, using at least 1,000 human subjects per trial, lasting at least 5 years, with a credible, non-reductionist design, execution and analysis. The studies need to include complete, annual blood chemistries to measure all the metabolic effects of the eggs, fats and macro-nutrient levels. The studies also need to track all important confounding variables that studies often ignore, including age range, gender, ethnicity, health status, BMI and body-fat percent, complete dietary intakes (especially for refined carbohydrates omega-6 oils, processed foods and high-temperature cooking frequency), annual micro-nutrient tests (especially 25-hydroxy vitamin D, thyroid hormones, A1c), inflammatory markers (hs-CRP), existing disease diagnosis, prescription drug use, smoking, alcohol use, hydration, activity levels, perceived stress, sleep hours and quality, psychological screening/outlook, etc. And they should be recent, done in 2010 or later.

I’ll be happy to review those full studies (not just abstracts). Of course, they must be non-associative and describe clear causation, including a mechanism of action, showing that the saturated fat in 2-large eggs per day with a pat of butter definitively caused or contributed to heart disease, atherosclerosis or stroke, or that they were consistently harmful to human health (let’s not include exceptions, such as egg allergies or familial hypercholesterolemia that affect just a small percent of the population). No animal studies allowed or included because they rarely translate.

Are eggs high in saturated fat?

Dr. Seres claims that, eggs have quite a bit of saturated fat in them. . . But do they? The saturated fat content for 2-large eggs (most common size produced and used in recipes), is quite low at about 16% of daily intake (8% per egg), lower than many animal proteins. Frying in a pat of butter adds a bit more fat, but Dr. Seres cleverly excludes all the other fatty acids and nutritional benefits of eggs and butter, showing his continuing bias and nutritional ignorance (full egg nutrition covered below with many source links):

Total saturated fat content for 2-large eggs = 3 grams (1.5 grams per egg)
Total saturated fat for a pat of butter = 2.5 grams
Total saturated fat for 2-large eggs plus butter = 5.5 grams

Compare his claims to average U.S. adults

A mildly active, adult female taking in 2,000 calories per day (the reference level for nutrition labels), is allowed a daily saturated fat intake of 20 grams/day (based on those current, fat-phobic guidelines). The 2-large eggs and butter are only about 5.5 grams and about 25% (or 1/4) of that 20 grams, not the exaggerated 1/3 to 1/2 of the daily limit for saturated fat Dr. Seres proclaims.

What’s more, a moderately active, adult male taking in a conservative 2,500 calories daily, has an allowable saturated fat intake of 25 grams per day. For him, the 2 eggs and butter are only about 20% (or 1/5) of the recommended saturated fat intake (quite low for a meal). Notice that these numbers are even farther away from Dr. Seres overblown claim that 2 eggs and butter use up to 1/2 of the daily limit for saturated fat.

Taken together, those U.S. adults average 20-25% of daily recommended saturated fat intake for the eggs and butter under the current, fat-phobic guidelines. From a scientific and quantitative perspective, Doc Seres numbers are a clear eggs-aggeration, unless Doc Seres expects to be graded on a curve (not gonna happen, he says he has 30 years experience and is a nutrition professor)! Dr. Seres, you’ve got egg on your face again. . .

Do you begin to see why having no subject parameters, analysis or evidence to support a bold claim is so ridiculous? Gender and activity alone demonstrate different intake requirements (while both examples still fall well below his fat-phobic numbers)!

More egg on Dr. Seres

So his exaggerated numbers aren’t accurate for the saturated fat in large eggs. How about total fat intake for eggs vs. current daily allotments?

Unfortunately for Doc Seres, the total fat for 2-large eggs and butter comprise an even lower percent of total daily fat intake and debunk his overblown claims even more (eggs also include healthy monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, like many other fish, meat and dairy sources).

In fact, Dr. Seres also fails to mention (and probably doesn’t know) that eggs are highest in heart-healthy monounsaturated fats (MUFAs), like avocados and EVOO, and somewhat lower in saturated fat (2 grams of monounsaturated fat vs. 1.5 grams of saturated fat per large egg). BTW, butter has significant monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats (PUFAs) too, so it’s not just a saturated fat as his overly dramatic claim implies. Funny how he leaves out all those healthy-fat details, typical of the bias and fear mongering I’ve seen him promulgate!

Total fat breakdown for 2 eggs and butter:

Total fat content for 2-large eggs = 10 grams (5 grams per egg, rounded up)
Total fat content for a pat of butter = 4 grams
Total fat for 2-large eggs and butter = 14 grams

Using the same average, U.S. adults and applying the 2,000 calorie intake for that mildly active female allows for a total fat intake of 65 grams/day (again, based on our current, fat-phobic guidelines). The 2-large eggs and butter are just 14 grams of that amount or about 20% of the 65-gram total.

That moderately active, adult male with a conservative intake of 2,500 calories daily allows for 80 grams of total fat per day. For that same male, the eggs and butter are less than 20% of the recommended total fat intake. What the hell Doc? You are a nutrition director and professor? How long since you brushed up on your nutrition knowledge? Several decades? Did you study these important fatty-acid details before going on video?

Having debunked Doc Seres’ biased and misguided claims before, I sense that Doc Seres has memorized some reductionist, attention-seeking, talking points (like a politician), and he tends to repeat them in lieu of actual, broad-based knowledge and understanding. Indeed, I’ve seen him repeat his pseudo-scientific nutrition, anti-supplement and anti-DSHEA claims often (while he never seems to extol the benefits of healthy eating, good nutrition, common vitamin and mineral deficiencies, a healthy lifestyle, or related areas). Again, that’s a biased POV.

Doc Seres reminds me of that highly biased, supplement-bashing, pro-vaccine guy, Dr. Offit! Neither of them demonstrates an acceptable knowledge of scientific research methods, details or common research caveats (I also see a shocking lack of common sense in their ridiculous claims, see previous debunking post listed below).

Either way you look at the analysis for consuming the 2-fried eggs and butter, they only constitute about 25% of recommended saturated fat intake and 20% of total fat intake! So I gotta be honest:

Doc Seres, you have a history of bias, exaggeration and misinformation about nutrition, supplements and research. You’ve flunked my basic nutrition course! Yep, your grade is an F!

BTW, there is a brand of eggs that is lower in saturated fat while offering somewhat higher levels of vitamins, minerals and omega-3 fats, which Dr. Seres also ignores in his overblown, unqualified, nonsense claims (those eggs have been around for years, see link below)!




Are Eggs Healthy or Not?

Video with 8 doctors all debunking the bogus fat and cholesterol claims:



Also, cage-free hen’s eggs can have somewhat better nutrition but even regular eggs are good (see full nutritional details below)

Dr. Seres video claim #4:

So if you eat nothing else that has fat in it the rest of the day, then sure, you can have your eggs, but it really is not true that eggs are back in.

What? So now those 2 eggs have jumped from his false claim #3 that they use 50% of your saturated fat allotment to a whole-day’s fat intake? This last claim is Doc Seres most ridiculous, unscientific and buffoonish yet! Doc Seres’ continuing level of exaggeration and misinformation is astonishing (and we already know that those fat-phobic guidelines he uses are largely debunked). His level of fear mongering and political theater is outrageous!

If you follow Doc Seres’ version of math, having 14 grams of total fat from your 2-fried eggs and butter, (which is actually 20% or less of most adults daily fat intake), the 14 grams is suddenly equal to 60-80 grams of total fat (and 100% of your daily intake)! Sounds like Doc Seres’ believes in magic!

Dr. Seres’ math claim is essentially that 14 grams = 80 grams, and that 20% of a dietary intake = 100% of dietary intake for everyone! Huh???

Aren’t these basic fractions and percent calculations taught by the 5th grade? What do you call this embarrassing nonsense from a doctor, nutrition director and professor? Ridiculous? Incompetent? Derelict? Most grade-school kids are better at math than Doc Seres!

Even if the 2-large eggs and butter equaled the 33% to 50% of those disproven, fat-phobic, saturated-fat guidelines (per his claim #3), it would still leave 50-66% of the saturated fat intake per day remaining (which he doesn’t seem to understand)! Dr. Seres you are terrible at math, you are terrible at science and terrible at nutrition! Doc, I give you an F in nutrition and an F in math!

Once again Doc Seres, where are the studies to back these ridiculous claims for total dietary fat intake and eggs? Where is your analysis, your proof?

Similar to what I requested above, please provide links to 3, independent, replicating, human trials (prospective, placebo-controlled, non-drug, and non-review/meta trials), studying the health effects of total fats from 2-large eggs and a pat of butter, using at least 1,000 human subjects per trial, lasting at least 5 years, with a credible, non-reductionist design, execution and analysis. The studies need to include complete, annual blood chemistries to measure all the metabolic effects of the eggs, fats and macro-nutrient levels. The studies also need to track all important confounding variables because too many studies ignore them: age range, gender, ethnicity, health status, BMI and body-fat percent, complete dietary intakes (especially for refined carbohydrates omega-6 oils, processed foods and high-temperature cooking frequency), annual micro-nutrient tests (especially 25-hydroxy vitamin D, thyroid hormones, A1c), inflammatory markers like hs-CRP, existing disease diagnosis prescription drug use, smoking, alcohol use, hydration, activity levels, perceived stress, sleep hours and quality, psychological screening/outlook, etc. Again, make them recent, done in 2010 or later.

I’ll be happy to review those full studies (not just abstracts). They must be non-associative (no food questionnaires alone), and describe clear causation, including a credible mechanism of action, showing that the total fat in 2 large eggs per day with a pat of butter caused heart disease, atherosclerosis or stroke, or that they were consistently harmful to health (again, let’s not include exceptions and exaggerate their application to the general population, such as egg allergies or familial hypercholesterolemia that affect just a small percent of the population). Again, no animal studies allowed or included!

With so little credible evidence to support the unfounded, misleading medical dogma that fats cause CHD and CVD, why is Doc Seres so entrenched in this old-fashioned nonsense? It seems clear that he has embraced the old, weak, associative science and false dogma so completely, there is little room for new science, new insights or new evidence to be considered! Talk about being behind the times!

But this is serious stuff, and his proclamations can be deadly for those people who believe his claims, avoid eggs and fats, then add more waist-busting carbs, grains and junk foods that already from the basis or our SAD, junk-food diet (waffles, pancakes, toast and jam, instant oatmeal with added sugars and flavorings, etc)!

Remember Doc, science is a process; it’s ongoing. You must stay current or be relegated to the landfill of history. Dr. Seres acts like a well-indoctrinated follower, showing little science savvy, insight or leadership; someone who embraces medical dogma and who follows the blind, medical herd! Then again, there is a possible money connection to his views: his school does lots of drug research! Either way, I sense something hidden and undisclosed.

Dr. Seres, disclose all your financial support

Dr. Seres, you are a licensed professional? And yet you make these false, misleading and unscientific comments in a video endorsed by your peers at Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons? You’ve lowered the bar quite a bit over there, where pseudo-science and old-fashioned beliefs appear to reign). Then again, maybe it’s all about drug research, grants and deals made over dinner for the well-connected at Columbia U?

Doc, you should disclose how many millions in drug research and drug-company grants Columbia U. gets annually in your video so we can all see that information. Also include the total amount of grants given to Columbia University Medical Center from all sources, including food, chemical and device companies, and all other corporate donations and payments (both annually and the aggregate for the last 10 years). I bet that’s millions more.

Also, disclose all of the drug-research grants you have received over the years, plus all consulting, speaking, lunch seminars or “educational” work you’ve done for drug, food, chemical or device companies (or the myriad of surrogates and sub-contractors who do their bidding). Tell us who they are and include how much you were paid for all those services over the last 20 years, including all travel, lodging or meals you received as gifts or financial support for your services. After all, they only give grants, money and gifts to those friendly to their cause! Right Doc?

Eggs have great nutrition

In his egg video, Dr. Seres again exposes how little he knows about nutritional science and related areas like dietary reference intakes, healthy food combining, human health and research conventions and methods. After debunking so many of his articles and video comments (where he often relies on “the exception proves the rule” approach, similar to Anahad O’Connor), he looks like a nutritional impostor to me! He promotes misinformation to the public too often, which I find both unacceptable and galling.

If he really knew his nutrition science, he would recognize that:

1. Eggs are a healthy, whole, unprocessed food, something most U.S. adults need more of.

2. Eggs offer high-quality protein (perfect protein score for amino-acid content and digestibility).

3. Eggs are low in saturated fat, and contain healthy MUFAs and PUFAs.

4. Eggs have a glycemic score is 0, fantastic in our carb-addicted, overweight country.

Eggs also include a broad range of important nutrients, including key vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants, helpful for thousands of critical digestive, metabolic, hormonal, immune, muscle, bone, brain and nerve functions. BTW, Doc, did you see those Advisory Committee guidelines and analysis for nutrient shortfalls in the U.S.? Missed that part too did you?

Those nutrient shortfalls start on page 80 and include vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin E, folate, vitamin C, calcium, and magnesium. Potassium, iron and fiber are also included as under consumed nutrients (ironic that eggs offer many of those very nutrients, isn’t it Doc)?

Other experts have found many additional nutrient deficiencies and shortfalls based on variables like poor soil composition, GMOs (which are untested in humans and often limit the uptake of minerals), excessive processing, and other nutritional issues which Doc Seres never address in his nonsense, reductionist video or articles. In fact, I’m curious why Doc Seres never seems to write about those important and timely issues of food and nutrition safety, nutrient shortfalls, etc?

Remember, an egg represents new life! Nature has perfected the egg over millions of years. An egg represents a portable container that carries all of the nutrients needed for a new, growing life (although most commercial eggs are unfertilized and can’t grow a baby chicken). Common sense dictates that an egg offers significant and valuable nutrition, which Dr. Seres completely ignores! Talk about bias, nonsense and reductionist flimflam! Again, this from a doctor and nutrition professor who seems to know nothing about the terrible, disease-driving SAD (Standard American Diet)?

One regular, large egg has the following great nutrition (double for 2, some minor rounding included):

About 6 grams of high-quality, digestible protein (eggs have the highest protein efficiency ratio score and a perfect digestibility score).

less than 1 gram, glycemic score of 0.

Monounsaturated: 2 grams
Saturated fat: 1.5 grams
Polyunsaturated: 1 gram
Trans fats: 0 grams

Eggs have key vitamins:
Vitamin A
B vitamins
Vitamin D
Vitamin E
Vitamin K
Choline (a vitamin-like nutrient many people are deficient in)

Eggs have key minerals:

Eggs have key antioxidants:

Given the exploding weight and obesity problems we have in the U.S., along with rising type-2 diabetes and the myriad of other lifestyle-driven chronic conditions and diseases, Doc Seres decides to attack eggs?

How does any rational, educated person continue to demonize eggs? How does a claimed nutrition professor dismiss all of the nutritional benefits of this whole food to obsess over a single, exaggerated (and debunked) risk, so blinded by flawed reductionism, pseudo-science and disproven dogma? And how does someone who proclaims to have nutritional expertise not understand the healthy mix of fats in eggs, including the important role carotenoid anti-oxidants in lowering Ox LDL, which is far more atherosclerotic than LDL?

The extreme bias and ignorance exposed here disqualifies anyone claiming to be a professor, nutrition director or expert in the nutritional field (I also saw that he is writing a new nutrition textbook. Yikes!). It should also prevent Dr. Seres from publishing any further publically-available articles or videos. Providing false or misleading information to the public is unethical and could cause harm to many, yet his college and hospital approve!

Eating patterns not fat-phobia

Another salient point is his alien notion that someone only has 2 fried eggs with butter for breakfast. Most people have more than his 2-eyed emoji plopped on a plate, including coffee, tea or juice, maybe some veggies, fruits or other carbs (hopefully non-refined). Herbs and spices are often included as well. A breakfast like that is a very healthy, balanced choice (including those awesome, protein-rich, nutrient-dense eggs)!

Even the new USDA-guideline snapshot offered this common-sense view about overall eating patterns, again debunking Dr. Seres entire approach of nutrient isolation, reductionism and fear mongering in his video (how can a nutrition professor not understand the importance of an overall eating plan or pattern):

An eating pattern can be defined as the combination of foods and beverages that make up an individual’s complete dietary intake over time. An eating pattern is more than the sum of its parts; it represents the totality of what individuals habitually eat and drink, and these dietary components act synergistically in relation to health.

Here are several links that provide more nutritional details and benefits for eggs, butter and beverages):

(Note: you need to select the 1 large egg)




(This USDA database has complete micro-nutrient content)


(This link has nutrition info for a pat of butter)


(USDA info for butter)




A study that explores the anti-oxidant capabilities of carotenoids like lutein and zeaxanthin found in eggs (including effects on OxLDL):




These show effects of coffee and tea on LDL oxidation and other effects:






Dr. Seres egg and fat claims: ridiculous squared

If you went through this entire post and source links so far, you surly know how biased, fat-phobic, false and unscientific Doc Seres’ claims are about eggs and fat. Dr. Seres’ unscientific claims continue to show extreme bias and inexcusable nutritional ignorance. And his bio says he is the Director of Medical Nutrition and Associate Professor of Medicine in the Institute of Human Nutrition at Columbia). Really?

Doc Seres poor source material

When I debunked Doc Seres so thoroughly in a previous post last March, it was obvious that his working knowledge of nutrition, nutrition research, health and research history (many thousands of positive studies), micro-nutrients, anti-oxidants and the great safety record for supplements vs. drugs was shallow and amateurish at best, reckless and unprofessional at worst.

Doc Seres often relies on sensationalistic, mass-media articles as the source material for his overblown, attention-seeking work (articles written by non-experts that feed his existing bias in a terrible mix of gullibility, blind acceptance and belief). His research savvy is transparently weak and downright cringe worthy (see my previous debunking post mentioned and linked below).

Doc, the NY Times is a mass-media publication, not a credible source for health, science or research news. Many of their anti-supplement articles, including those by Anahad O’Connor, are biased, amateurish and manipulative, focused on the most sensationalistic and dramatic story elements (often using a few assumed victims for “the exception proves the rule” approach), based on conjecture and omitting critical details like dosages (people often take more than recommended but the supplement is blamed), confounders, lifestyle and the patient’s health history (supplements can mix with other supplements or drugs but this info is often ignored by docs and writers too).

The overall safety record for tens-of-thousands of supplements is good, far better than prescription drugs. Medical errors and misdiagnosis add many more deaths and injuries annually (see quotes below). And many nutritional supplements do have supporting studies (which O’Connor clearly doesn’t read or care about). He consistently takes the anti-POV and as a telling example, he deleted truthful comments I added to his FB article postings, again demonstrating his amateurish science and research chops). O’Connor studied psychology, yet he feels entitled to write about topics like supplements, research and nutrition.

O’connor has built his recent career on writing some of the most slanted and flawed anti-supplement articles I’ve ever read, but he gets lots of buzz from his overblown, flimflam work (no doubt bloating his ego well beyond his actual knowledge, science skills or savvy). They are classic, press-release articles, which he mostly paraphrases like most mass-media hacks.

O’Connor’s anti-supplement articles are an obvious mix of sensationalism, manipulation and misinformation (taking a few examples of possible, often unproven problems or poor study designs, then he exaggerating them to apply to all supplements and manufacturers), failing to distinguish between vitamins, minerals, fish oil and weight loss pills (which I never recommend), and omitting important details like existing FDA regulations (new supplements, ingredients and labels do have to be submitted before products are marketed, along with cGMPs, proper claims, adverse event reporting, etc.). It’s hundreds of pages of regulations!

Like Dr. Seres, O’Connor’s work is a discredit to ethical, competent, science-based writers everywhere and I will need to debunk his work more deeply in the future (I’ve debunked some of his article content in other posts like Doc Seres has used). O’Connor recently helped to create that horribly biased, anti-supplement, PBS/Frontline show (aired January 19, 2016).

The show was based on O ’Connor’s biased material and it was textbook O’Connor: An old-style witch’s brew of sensationalistic stories, exaggeration (again, a few supplement companies with apparent problems are used to undermine thousands of ethical companies with high standards and good FDA compliance), pseudo-science, hype (Offit was interviewed as usual), conjecture and manipulation, rounded out with assumptions and leaps of logic (1 + 2 = 10,000)! Many questions went unanswered (answers simply implied) and I saw little science or credible detail to latch onto.

Frontline’s Findlay smelling fish oil is great theater, but not a valid scientific test to discern oxidation levels or any possible health effects (I have human studies that show less inflammation and peroxidation from fish oil consumption and no ill-effects for oxidized fish oil). Of course, Frontline’s bias means only the negative theories or studies are presented, ignoring any positive or conflicting studies. And like O’Connor I predict that Findlay is a biased, shallow science amateur.

Here is Adam Ismail’s insightful debunking of Frontline and O’Connor’s nonsense, biased, overblown claims about fish oil (it has more science and credibility than the entire show):


Here are few, early articles rebutting many of the show’s basic claims and narratives:



As I mentioned earlier, science is a process, it’s ongoing. For Frontline to show such bias and to exclude all of the numerous studies showing benefits for fish oil, and to also exclude the thousands well-run supplement companies in order to highlight a few questionable ones undercuts any claim of journalistic integrity, balance, accuracy or fairness.

I predict that few or none of their staff or the correspondent for the show is well-grounded in science or research (if they were, they would never had produced the show)! And I can say with confidence that Frontline has produced a unacceptably biased, deceptive program that serves to misinform the public. I also noticed the Frontline/NY Times marketing campaign, well planned, with their videos and additional articles showing up all over! It’s all so exciting, isn’t it?

For now, this recent complaint to two top editors of the NY Times explores the Times’ long history of anti-supplement bias, and the willful manipulation, serial exaggeration and glaring flaws that epitomize O’Connor’s and the Times’ inaccurate supplement articles:


To show why I debunked Doc Seres before, here is an example quote from that previous debunking I did (Dr. David Seres Debunked), comparing his biased and misleading supplement-claims (using some of O’Conner’s handiwork), to the far bigger problems with prescription drugs, which Seres and O’Connor consistently ignore, even as millions are killed and injured annually (can you smell the cash from all those drug ads?):

Shocking reality: drugs vs. supplements

I bet you didn’t know that drugs kill at least 115,000-120,000 people annually (when taken as directed, based on FDA reports). Some estimates range up to 140,000 annually (it’s often hard to prove which drug or combination killed someone, especially when they are taking several per day).

Compare that number to supplements, which have apparently killed zero (0) people in 30 years, based on over 50 U.S. Poison Control reports. In other words, over about 30 years of reporting, total drug deaths are about 3 million people in the U.S., while dietary supplements have apparently caused NO deaths (even at well-over 60 billion doses annually). Drugs also cause annual adverse reactions at a shocking high rate compared to supplements: Serious adverse events from drugs are approaching 400:1 compared to supplements (see more details and FDA links below), even for similar annual consumption of supplements and drugs.

And here is related quote I mentioned, offering some additional shocking statistics for supplements vs. drugs (see link below):

Additional details for side effects: supplements vs. drugs

As I mentioned above, here are some additional details comparing side effects for supplements and drugs. According to the FDA’s own tracking for supplements and drugs, there were just over 3,000 assumed (but unproven) supplement reports in 2013 compared to about 1,780,000 for drugs in 2013 (2.26 million in 2012 and 2013). That’s not a typo, the reported serious adverse events for drugs are over 1.75 million events annually and rising quickly (up over 50% in just the last few years).


It’s obvious to me that Dr. Seres avoids writing about all the millions of unnecessary deaths and injuries from modern medicine (I wonder how many errors he has made in his career and how many patients have deteriorated or died under his care), nor does he appear to read full studies or analyze them appropriately. He does appear to embrace those overly dramatic headlines and study abstracts (a short summary of findings, often slanted to boost media and public interest), with a gullible amateur’s grasp of study conventions, limitations, caveats, and the totality of all related studies which he consistently ignores. It’s bias squared/squared!

This partial quote is from the link below, and the numbers for deaths, injuries and costs are well-documented, yet we obsess about supplements and ignore all of this carnage:

Medical practice causes millions of deaths and injuries annually. The numbers are both staggering and grim, affecting the lives of millions more family members and friends. Yet the numbers are a normal part of medical practice, affecting lives and ruining families every day, even as mass media rarely reports these widespread problems (see source links below for articles and research):

  • More than 4 million people are treated for drug side effects at doctor’s offices and ERs annually (about 12,000 per day), costing billions for treatment
  • About 140,000 die annually from taking prescription drugs as directed
  • About 200,000 people are injured by preventable hospital mistakes annually, contributing to numerous deaths and injuries, costing about 20 billion for additional treatments
  • There are 10-12 million patients misdiagnosed annually, costing lives and billions in additional costs
  • Total medical costs are approaching 3 trillion annually (we spend the most by far), yet the health and longevity in the U.S. is ranked well below other advanced countries, often 25th or lower


Also these links support my content for deaths and injuries from prescription drugs and medical procedures (again, Doc Seres, O’Connor and Frontline, why don’t you ever mention these terrible stats, far worse than anything supplements have caused?):



Doc Seres relies on Relative Risk (RR)

Doc Seres also has a poor understanding of Relative Risk (RR) and other forms of research manipulation, leading to over-hyped conclusions and outright misinformation. For example, RR is a drug research (and anti-supplement) convention that’s misleading; it’s really a marketing tool and it often misrepresents study findings (see my previous post called, Forbes Bias and Misinformation for a detailed explanation of why RR is marketing hype dressed up to look like science, linked below).

In short, RR reduction or increase is often used to exaggerate small, unimpressive Absolute Risk (AR) findings in a small percentage of subjects (only those few subjects who met preset endpoints or events), which are then used to pump up findings into far bigger numbers without disclosing the small numbers involved (which significantly weakens the study findings).

A decrease in outcomes from 2 per 100 to 1 per 100 is 1% in Absolute Risk (AR) numbers but exploded into an exaggerated 50% decrease in RR Reduction, based on only those 3 people (RR is based on a small percent of total study subjects, often dozens to hundreds, rendering those hyped numbers questionable and suspect). The gullible media and docs don’t seem to notice this major flaw in RR stats or studies.

RR is routinely used to drive media attention, new journal subscribers and the purchase of study reprints (top medical journals make millions off these tactics) and yes, research titles and abstracts are often given more dramatic titles and RR findings to drive media attention, buzz and resulting sales.

Here is an insightful article with expert quotes that debunks the use of RR (I didn’t add to my Forbes Bias post on RR so I decided to include it here, with the Forbes Bias post link having a complete debunking of RR below that):


Forbes Bias and Misinformation

Doc. Seres, like most docs, is often captivated by those exaggerated RR numbers, especially in the anti-supplement studies he likes to flaunt in his articles (the flawed, non-replicated ATBC and SELECT studies are ones he often touts, based on their inflated RR numbers), and the studies he references are often biased, poorly designed and debunked long ago (see quotes below). No matter for Doc Seres!

More bias more ignorance

I predict that Doc Seres follows Doc Offit closely and that they probably know each other, which seems so creepy (they quote the same, bogus studies like the Finnish Smokers/ATBC, CARET and SELECT to attack supplements), studies that have been debunked for years because of their flawed, reductionist designs, placing isolated, synthetic, nutrients in the role of drugs, when any savvy nutritional professional should know that nutrients work synergistically and are less effective in isolation (synthetic forms are not always nutritionally functional or helpful to the body). Many of those anti-supplement studies use food questionnaires and estimate nutrient intakes while they often ignore relevant confounders, with some going back to the 1980s. Yet Doc Seres doesn’t question, he “believes!”

And those flawed studies are often used often by Doc Seres (and Offit) to attack supplements in general (ignoring the high-risk subjects used in the studies), making sweeping, unscientific leaps of logic and claiming that beta carotene or vitamin E are dangerous for everyone! Those studies used older, high-risk cancer subjects with unhealthy lifestyle habits like heavy smoking and alcohol use, asbestos exposure, and other problems, and the findings have been shown to be biased, suspect and statistically insignificant in later follow-ups (see quote and link below for more details).

This insightful, 2015 quote from the link below encapsulates the points I’m making here (it explores many more important points about research confounders and other study flaws, especially in cancer studies like the ATBC and CARET, and makes credible points that neither Doc Seres or Offit ever mention in their political, nonscientific, overblown talking points):

Often medical-related stories reported in the general media are rarely accurate. A case in point was the results of the CARET study and the ATBC study. In each case, the journal involved prereleased results of the study and ultimately the story was reported in a completely deceptive way—at least that is how it was reported in the news. What the public read and heard was that ß-carotene could cause lung and prostate cancer. Many people, both lay people and medical professionals, approached me at the time declaring this very same statement. It is still repeated both among practicing physicians to their patients and even in medical articles. Similar distorted stories about other supplements have since appeared in the media and medical literature.


And this telling quote about a re-analysis of both ATBC and CARET studies that again debunks Doc Seres and the media-hyped findings, with credible insights about what the studies really showed (citations removed to avoid confusion):

The beta-carotene controversy began in 1996 after two studies–the Finnish Alpha-Tocopherol Beta-Carotene (ATBC) and the Beta-Carotene and Retinol Efficacy Trial (CARET)–unexpectedly determined that supplements of this nutrient increased the risk of lung cancer among people who were either smokers or exposed to asbestos, a known carcinogen. Some researchers, such as Lester Packer, Ph.D., of the University of California, Berkeley, questioned the validity of these studies, in part because they were contradicted by hundreds of others.

When researchers reexamined the data for the ATBC study, they found that beta-carotene supplements did not increase lung cancer risk unless the subjects smoked more than a pack of cigarettes and consumed one or more alcoholic drinks daily. In the CARET study, smokers and heavy drinkers had twice the lung cancer risk if they also took high doses of beta-carotene. But when alcohol consumption was factored out, the increase in lung cancer associated with beta-carotene was not statistically significant among people who smoked less than a pack a day. Furthermore, former smokers had a decreased risk of lung cancer if they took beta-carotene supplements.


Do you see how nuanced and less dramatic the findings are? That’s how the actual studies should have been reported by the journals and the press, along with all the caveats regarding the use of synthetic supplements, too-high or low dosages, questionnaires (often unreliable), the high-risk subjects and their lifestyle habits, including how long it takes for cancer to develop (often several decades).

This is yet another example of reductionism, where the findings were grossly over-simplified and exaggerated by journals to increase media coverage (and giving the public misinformation in the process)! Doc Seres’ quotes these studies often, making this dramatic and exaggerated claim for the ATBC and CARET studies:

For example, in large randomized trials, beta carotene increases the incidence of lung cancer.

See how overblown and inaccurate his claim is? He has taken a study with more complex, less dramatic findings and made it a talking point (and one of his favs). He states it as blanket fact, as though they studied normal healthy subjects, ignoring the actual study of long-term, heavy smoking, high-risk cancer subjects and the use of a single, synthetic carotene form (of 6 common forms, hundreds total), etc.

It’s clear that his claim is inaccurate and misleading and it really doesn’t apply generally (more detailed debunking of ATBC and SELECT studies in my Dr. David Seres debunked post). Sadly, these deep biases and leaps of logic are common for many Docs who are quick to blame supplements for heart disease or cancer in high risk-subjects!

His recent egg debacle is yet another example that exposes Doc Seres’ fundamental incompetence and penchant for misleading the public through biased, outdated and irresponsible statements about nutrition.

Here are some additional links related to this debunking:

http://www.endsicknessnow.com/3-harmful-nutrition-myths (especially myth #3)

Shocking Myths About Statins and Heart Disease!

This link explores some of the media nonsense that contributes to our health misinformation and hyped-up headlines:


In short, Dr. Seres is simply not the credible expert he claims to be. Do you see all that scrambled egg on his face too?

Link to Dr. Seres video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bbNIQWGszs

As you can surely see, Dr. Seres is spreading misinformation about eggs, presenting them in a buffoonish, reductionist light while ignoring the multitude of nutritional and health benefits they offer. His video is bogus, unprofessional and misleading.

I’m debunking Doc Seres because once again, he seems to have no idea what he’s talking about, yet he puts up these misleading articles and videos. His continual efforts to spread misinformation based on weak, reductionist studies or mass media sources is simply unacceptable. No one should pay any attention to his bogus proclamations again. His work is simply untrustworthy!

An important point I have made in many previous posts (including the one debunking Doc Seres articles and videos last March) is telling, and these are things any MD should know: single studies prove nothing by themselves. It takes multiple, independent replications before any conclusions can even be considered. Even then, science is ongoing, it’s a process!

Yet Doc Seres has clearly abandon this standard, repeating the same old debunked claims and shallow talking points for years. Also, he seems not to know that many studies are ghost written and manipulated, with misleading conclusions (quotes above and in my previous debunking demonstrate that truth), using poorly-done reductionist designs and execution (including the extensive use of RR in almost every study done).

I bet Doc Seres thinks lots of lab and small-mammal studies are “compelling” too, even though they almost never translate to human subjects. About 85-90% of the effects seen in-vitro or in small-mammal research are never replicated in human subjects. It’s true, most lab and small mammal studies fail to carry over to us in the vast majority of studies, yet those are relied on by most medical practitioners as important and significant (and media often misleads you by reporting those studies as though they are human studies).

Overall, Doc Seres is a discredit to the nutrition field, to science and to professional standards. His irresponsible and misleading writings and video comments are an embarrassment to more enlightened nutritional professionals everywhere. He gives dedicated, hard-working, truth-seeking nutrition researchers, writers and practitioners a bad name by spreading so much misinformation! I can only condemn his sloppy, amateurish work.

I finished my last debunking of his misleading articles with a list of criticisms and an award of sorts. I decided to carry that work forward and to add to it to this post, because I recently saw more of his ridiculous and overblown claims beyond this video and other work I’ve seen. There’s a good chance I’ll write yet another debunking of his continued misinformation.

What I see in Doc Seres’ egg video and other nutrition articles:

  • Biased
  • Overblown
  • Exaggerated
  • Shallow
  • Simplistic
  • Amateurish
  • Gullible
  • Sloppy
  • Unscientific
  • Irresponsible
  • Incompetent
  • Unprofessional
  • Misinformation
  • Reckless

Congratulations Dr. David Seres!

You are a double inductee into my Hall of Shame. Yes, you are now a two-time winner of my Hall of Shame for your ongoing nutritional quackery!

If I have any updates, I will add them here:

Update: It’s 3/1/16 and last week, I contacted Ronald Drusin, MD, Vice Dean for Education at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. I asked why Dr. Seres was an Associate Professor there because I have debunked his work in detailed articles, from his bogus claims about supplements to his nonsense claims about eggs and fat:


http://www.endsicknessnow.com/dr-david-seres-debunked-again (this post)

I closed by asking why professors there aren’t required to stay current.

No shock, he never responded. Nothing! I’m mentioning this so people realize how closed-minded, arrogant and disinterested medical school admins and teachers are in actual truth about research, science and health!

© 2016 by Steve Carney/End Sickness Now


lorrie steinberg January 23, 2016 at 6:35 PM

Excellent article. I will certainly digg it and suggest to my friends. I’m sure they will benefit from your site!

Bennie January 23, 2016 at 7:27 PM

I appreciate the dedication you put into your blog and the detailed information you provide. It’s nice to come across a blog that isn’t the same rehashed information. Fantastic read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.

Barb January 23, 2016 at 10:06 PM

My brother recommended I might like this website. He was right. This post truly made my day.
I’ve spent so much time looking for this fat/cholesterol information! Thanks!

faet January 24, 2016 at 12:25 AM

Thankx for posting this article as I have wondered about those guidelines for years!

daniel January 25, 2016 at 2:05 AM

Excellent post! We are linking to this particularly great post on our site.
Keep up the good writing.

marcela grainger January 25, 2016 at 2:09 AM

Your method of explaining everything in this article is nice, and I think everyone can understand it, Thanks a lot.

amie antonio January 25, 2016 at 6:54 PM

Its truly remarkable post, I have got much clear idea on the issues from this article.

Adelaida January 26, 2016 at 10:36 PM

It’s a shame you don’t have a donate button! I’d certainly donate to this fantastic blog!

I guess for now i’ll settle for bookmarking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to new updates and will talk about this site with my Facebook group.

tabitha January 27, 2016 at 1:02 AM

Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you writing this article and the rest of the website is very good.

suzanne January 27, 2016 at 11:33 PM

Hey very interesting blog!

ahmad January 27, 2016 at 11:55 PM

Quality posts is the secret to invite the viewers to go to see the website and I think that’s what this site is providing.

teodoro jones January 28, 2016 at 9:24 AM

I like the helpful information you provide in your articles. I plan to bookmark your blog and check again here regularly. I see lots of good stuff here!

leanne January 30, 2016 at 3:19 PM

Hi there,
I am so thrilled I found your site, I was browsing Google for something else. I would like to
say cheers for a fantastic post and a all round interesting blog (I also like the theme/design). I don’t have time to go through it all now but I have saved it for later. Keep up the great work!

jacklyn jardine January 31, 2016 at 5:44 AM

Hi there! I could have sworn I’ve been to this site before but after browsing through a few of the posts I realized it’s new to me. I’m definitely pleased I found it and I’ll bookmark and check back often!

giselle February 1, 2016 at 7:11 PM

I like the helpful information you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your site and check again here regularly. I plan to read more of your articles when I can return!

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: