Survey study that has absolutely no form of control for dietary intake of other co-related nutrients? Yeah, not buying it.
Choline consumption is highly correlated with animal products, so a simple survey wouldn’t be able to suss out whether it’s choline or the fact that you’re eating more cheeseburgers and steak that’s correlated with disease. Add this to the fact that grilled meats contain known carcinogens in their char, and you remove anything that would make this study informative or compelling. There isn’t even a covariance analysis between their different “risk factors,” since it would totally eviscerate the entire study. The only thing the table shows is that family history of cancer is the biggest correlative with cancer mortality. Wow.
The survey is bunk, the methodology is bunk (no effort to validate results or assess observer biases), and the results are bunk (look at the quintile table). This is overly cautious science with no valid conclusion. No one should accept an R-squared value of less than .09 as a correlation. They even recognize that despite their results, there’s really nothing backing up their claims.
You want a solid result? compare choline supplemented rats to unsupplemented.
Or better yet - survey cancer rates and survivability within the nootropic community, most of whom use choline.