Nezam El-Tayebat Fact CheckA scientific assessment of the “نظام الطيبات” nutrition system
Choose country

Mostly false Certainty of evidence: low provisional C-EGG-02

All eggs (chicken, quail, pigeon, ostrich, etc.) are harmful because an egg is an embryo / contains the 'full components of a living organism'.

Safety note: Eliminating eggs together with dairy, poultry, legumes and many vegetables (as in the overall system) can make it hard for children and pregnant women to meet protein, B12, iodine, choline and iron needs; such restrictions should be discussed with a doctor or dietitian.
Conclusion: The 'egg is an embryo, therefore harmful' argument is not supported by evidence.
  1. Original statement
  2. Scientific assessment
  3. In plain language
  4. Studies on this claim
  5. Regional context
  6. What applies in my country?
  7. References

Original statement

البيض على جميع الاصعده حتى بيض التعبان مضر وبيض التمساح وبيض النعامه وبيض الحمامه وبيض السمان ... فانت بتاكل جنين جنين على وشك ال الخروج للحياه

verbatim according to source. Translation by the project; the Arabic wording is authoritative.

Translation

All eggs (chicken, quail, pigeon, ostrich, etc.) are harmful because an egg is an embryo / contains the 'full components of a living organism'.

Origin

Source status
Video transcript (own words)
Attribution
Elawady (machine transcript)
Video
Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live!لايف تاريخي في الهري منه😂😂😂 (Open source)
Published
25 January 2026
Timestamp
not available (transcript has no timings)
Attribution uncertainty
Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); wording may contain transcription errors; no timestamps available.
Claimed mechanism

Eating an embryo / complete organism is harmful.

Claimed health effect

General harm (unspecified).

Population concerned

general population (not specified)

Geographic restriction by Elawady

none found

Diverging source versions

Source status
Archive quote (no location given)
Attribution
Elawady (archive paraphrase; source video not given)
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/rule/industrial-eggs/
Attribution uncertainty
The archive presents this in a 'د. ضياء يقول' box without a video reference; exact wording by Elawady not verified.
Source status
Video transcript (own words)
Attribution
Elawady (machine transcript)
Video
Dr Diaa Al Awady د ضياء العوضي is live! الهرم الغذائي الجديده (Open source)
Published
20 January 2026
Timestamp
not available (transcript has no timings)
Attribution uncertainty
Archive transcript (YouTube CC or AI-generated); wording may contain transcription errors; no timestamps available.
Source status
Archive food list
Attribution
Archive food list (eltayebat.com)
Origin
https://eltayebat.com/foods/
Attribution uncertainty
Food-list entry; no reasoning or source given on the list itself.
Source status
Third-party site (unofficial)
Attribution
Third-party site (mytayibat.com); unofficial by its own statement
Origin
https://mytayibat.com/forbidden
Attribution uncertainty
Lowest attribution level: unofficial third-party site. In its footer it calls itself the "official educational platform"; this self-description is not verified as authorised by the heirs or the archive.

Scientific assessment

Mostly false – Essential parts of the statement are not supported by the evidence or are strongly exaggerated.

Certainty of evidence: low – Further research is likely to change the assessment considerably.

1. What was claimed?

Every kind of egg is harmful because eating an egg means eating an embryo that is about to come to life.

2. What is demonstrably correct?

An egg contains the nutrients needed for embryo development (protein, fat, cholesterol, choline, vitamins). Eggs, like other animal foods, can be contaminated (Salmonella, environmental pollutants) - see C-EGG-08 and C-EGG-09.

3. What is wrong or exaggerated?

Commercial table eggs from laying flocks without roosters are not fertilised, so they do not contain a developing embryo. Being 'nutrient-complete for an embryo' is not a known mechanism of harm. Large prospective studies and meta-analyses find no consistent harm from moderate egg intake (up to about one egg per day) for cardiovascular disease or overall mortality.

4. What remains unclear?

Very high intakes and some subgroups (e.g., people with diabetes, heart failure risk) show inconsistent signals in observational data (see C-EGG-04).

5. Which studies support it?

None found for the stated mechanism.

6. Which studies contradict it?

I-EGG-01, I-EGG-02, I-EGG-05 (no association of moderate egg intake with CVD or all-cause mortality).

7. What applies to Germany and Europe?

In Germany and the EU, eggs are part of standard dietary guidance as a protein source; table eggs are generally unfertilised.

8. What is known about Egypt?

The same biological facts apply. Backyard flocks with roosters can produce fertilised eggs; fertilisation itself is not a recognised health hazard.

9. What practical conclusion is appropriate?

There is no scientific basis for avoiding all eggs on the grounds that they are 'embryos'. Individual reasons (allergy, personal or religious choice) are a different matter.

Assessment details

Rationale for certainty of evidence

The mechanism is not formulated in a testable way. The factual premise is partly wrong (most table eggs are unfertilised), and large cohort studies do not show general harm from moderate egg intake (see C-EGG-04). Certainty is low because 'harm' is unspecified.

Source quality

Own words (machine transcripts) and archive paraphrase.

Regional transferability

Universal claim.

Individual exceptions

Egg allergy (see C-EGG-01). Raw or undercooked eggs carry a Salmonella risk, which matters especially for infants, pregnant women, older and immunocompromised people.

Regional scope of the claim
general (biological/medical)
Last reviewed
25 October 2026 provisional

In plain language

Dr. Elawady said that all eggs are harmful because they are embryos. Most eggs sold in shops are not fertilised and contain no embryo. The nutrients in eggs are not known to be harmful in normal amounts. Large studies in many countries did not find that eating up to one egg a day raises the risk of heart disease or death. The claim has no scientific support.

Studies on this claim

Studies supporting the claim (0)

No studies in this group.

Studies contradicting or limiting the claim (3)

  • Eggs and heart disease: 1.7 million people

    Drouin-Chartier JP et al.. BMJ 2020 · PMID 32132002 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.m513
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkfull text checked★ key study

    Eating up to one egg a day was not linked to heart disease or stroke.

    All eggs (chicken, quail, pigeon, ostrich, etc.) are harmful because an egg is an embryo / contains the 'full components of a living organism'.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Is egg intake associated with cardiovascular disease risk?

    How was the study done?

    Three prospective US cohorts (NHS, NHS II, HPFS) plus systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohorts (PROSPERO CRD42019129650)

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    215,618 cohort participants (14,806 CVD events); meta-analysis 33 estimates, 1,720,108 participants, 139,195 CVD events; US women and men free of CVD, diabetes and cancer; meta-analysis of global cohorts

    What was actually found?

    Cohorts: an egg a day or more vs <1 per month HR 0.93 (0.82-1.05). Meta-analysis per egg/day: CVD 0.98 (0.93-1.03); Asia 0.92; in people with type 2 diabetes possibly higher risk (1.25, 0.99-1.59).

    How large was the observed effect?

    Pooled Cox models; random-effects meta-analysis

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    For most people, an egg a day is not linked to heart risk.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Observational; egg eaters had less healthy profiles (residual confounding possible); heterogeneity; few people above one egg a day; possible higher risk in type 2 diabetes is uncertain.

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts the archive claim.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    European cohorts: no association.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot prove absence of any effect at high intakes or in people with type 2 diabetes.

    Scientific details →

  • Eggs, cholesterol and heart disease in 50 countries

    Dehghan M et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2020 · PMID 31965140 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/nqz348
    Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key study

    Eating an egg a day was not linked to cholesterol levels, heart disease or death.

    All eggs (chicken, quail, pigeon, ostrich, etc.) are harmful because an egg is an embryo / contains the 'full components of a living organism'.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Is egg intake associated with blood lipids, CVD and mortality across income levels?

    How was the study done?

    Prospective cohort analyses of PURE and of patients in ONTARGET/TRANSCEND trials

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    146,011 (PURE) + 31,544 (trials); PURE general population (21 countries) and patients with vascular disease (ONTARGET/TRANSCEND)

    What was actually found?

    PURE >=7 vs <1 egg/week: composite HR 0.96 (0.89-1.04); mortality 1.04 (0.94-1.15); major CVD 0.92 (0.83-1.01); no association with lipids. ONTARGET/TRANSCEND similar (composite 0.97, 0.76-1.25).

    How large was the observed effect?

    Cox frailty models

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Moderate egg intake appears neutral worldwide.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Single FFQ; Few very high consumers

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Contradicts.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    Includes European countries.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot exclude small effects.

    Scientific details →

  • Eggs and risk of death: 2.2 million people

    Mousavi SM et al.. Adv Nutr 2022 · PMID 35396834 · DOI 10.1093/advances/nmac040
    Meta-analysisindependent cross-checkabstract only checked★ key study

    Egg intake was not linked to overall or heart deaths; a small link with cancer deaths was found.

    All eggs (chicken, quail, pigeon, ostrich, etc.) are harmful because an egg is an embryo / contains the 'full components of a living organism'.

    Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate · Certainty of evidence: see overall assessment of the claim

    Original publication · Scientific details

    Study explained simply
    What did the researchers want to find out?

    Is egg consumption associated with all-cause and cause-specific mortality?

    How was the study done?

    Systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of 33 cohorts

    How many people, animals or samples were studied?

    2,216,720 participants; 232,408 deaths; General population

    What was actually found?

    Highest vs lowest: all-cause RR 1.02 (0.94-1.11); CVD 1.04 (0.87-1.23); CHD 0.98; stroke 0.81 (0.64-1.02); cancer mortality 1.20 (1.04-1.39). Per egg/week: +2% all-cause, +4% cancer, -4% stroke mortality (linear). Certainty low to moderate.

    How large was the observed effect?

    Random effects

    What do the results mean in everyday life?

    Up to one egg a day appears compatible with a healthy diet.

    What are the study's limitations?

    Overlap with other meta-analyses; Heterogeneity

    What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

    Mostly contradicts; notes uncertainty.

    Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

    High.

    What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

    Cannot prove causation of cancer deaths.

    Scientific details →

Studies with mixed or unclear results (0)

No studies in this group.

Regional context

Germany / EU

In Germany and the EU, eggs are part of standard dietary guidance as a protein source; table eggs are generally unfertilised.

Egypt

The same biological facts apply. Backyard flocks with roosters can produce fertilised eggs; fertilisation itself is not a recognised health hazard.

What applies in my country?

General scientific assessment

Mostly false The 'egg is an embryo, therefore harmful' argument is not supported by evidence.

The following areas of food safety are relevant to this statement:

  • Veterinary medicines and antibiotics
  • Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)
  • Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.)
  • Animal husbandry and feed
  • Controls, imports, recalls, labelling

Eggs

Choose a country to see the checked information for it.

Limits: legal rules describe what is allowed, not what every single food contains. Measurement data come from samples and are meaningful only together with their method details.

Country of residence or purchase Compare with another country

References

  1. Egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease: three large prospective US cohort studies, systematic review, and updated meta-analysis.. Drouin-Chartier JP et al.. BMJ 2020 · PMID 32132002 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.m513
  2. Association of egg intake with blood lipids, cardiovascular disease, and mortality in 177,000 people in 50 countries.. Dehghan M et al.. Am J Clin Nutr 2020 · PMID 31965140 · DOI 10.1093/ajcn/nqz348
  3. Egg Consumption and Risk of All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies.. Mousavi SM et al.. Adv Nutr 2022 · PMID 35396834 · DOI 10.1093/advances/nmac040

← Back to overview