There are very few foods in the world as wholesome, and yet as simple, as the egg. Whether it be from a chicken, a quail, or something as elusive as the ostrich egg (impossible to flip with a normal spatula), eggs are a self-encased, wholesome source of protein and one of the few foods on earth that carries natural vitamin D. Scrambled, poached, sunny-side up, even hard-boiled–there are as many ways to enjoy the egg as there are delicious meals that include them as an ingredient. But there are some who would say that cooking an egg is the worse possible thing one can do. It would be heresy, they would state, to ruin something widely consider to be a literal “super food.” Placing heat on the egg divests the egg of its base nutritional superpower, and thereby can actually be made bad for human consumption. This argument is based on the way human beings consume protein, of which eggs have a plentitude. Scientific research has supported the notion, to a certain extent, that humans digest meat and animal products (e.g. eggs) more efficiently in their natural raw state. Cooking, as it were, changes the literal chemistry of the egg and can produce mutations in its molecular structure, as well as unwelcome protein links that have been linked to a number of health related disturbances. Translation–cooking an egg destroys its “perfect food” reputation and creates a toxic mess compared to the perfectly pure source of protein, vitamins, and minerals found in a raw egg. Yet raw eggs, as any raw meat or animal products, do carry a risk of spreading salmonella bacterium, which can have extremely adverse effects on humans. Diarrhea, extreme abdominal pain, and nausea are but a few of the symptoms this bacterium causes. However, research has shown that salmonella has little to no effect on healthy people, made healthier, perhaps, by eating raw eggs. Which begs the question, which came first?