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.
This isn't a drug study. It's about food and nutrition, one of the most intentionally misled topics around. I put the blame for that squarely on those who sponsor studies like this that don't help anyone. They are just muddying the waters further. Any food you look at will have some good qualities, like being a good source of Vitamin C. It's like saying a block of calcium is a good source of vitamin C: of course it is! But that doesn't mean it's healthy to eat
Almost everything we have in modern medicine is.
This whole position is nonsense. The paper stands on its own.