Current study says it's bad for you. Next study says it's good for you. Next study says it's bad for you. Next study says it's good for you.
This study is good because group A paid for it. This study is bad because group B paid for it. This study is good because group B paid for it. This study is bad because group A paid for it.
Hahaha. Just wait 25 minutes and someone else will tell you it's actually good for you, then just avoid any and all other nutrition advice for the rest of your life.
Unfortunately, the medical industry (and their lack of focus on nutrition) has done a rather poor job illustrating why milk is bad for you. The studies do support that, but due to poor communication, you get people hand waving away the results suggesting it will be shown to be good for you next week, i.e. this thread.
I can't help but draw parallels to the 60's, when the causal link between smoking and lung cancer was absolutely apparent. Yet, most doctors smoked, so few actually recommended people cut it out. As a result, millions of people perished or had serious health complications. Yes, it's incredibly unfortunate the medical authorities have failed us - but it's not entirely their fault. Doctors receive no nutrition training during their education - none!
What milk though? UHT nonfat milk is not milk, it's what they fed the pigs with to gain weight. For years, I've been drinking raw milk without any issues. In fact, I have UHT milk spoil and never the raw kind. Never had any stomach upset, nothing! The taste is without a match! No need to homogenize - in raw milk, fat is evenly distributed. It's medicine, not food! You should try it! Organic Pastures is widely available in California! And as a bonus - try their raw cream and cheddar! Yum! In fact, the cream has the most precious nutrients in milk, it's much healthier than butter.
NutritionFacts.org should rebrand to VeganPropaganda.org, because that will reflect its mission much better! Otherwise, it's the most single-sided nutrition site I've encountered so far!
There's evidence on both sides, many conflicting studies and findings and so on. The Greger guy cherry-picks - he's a propaganda leader, not a scientist!
This study is good because group A paid for it. This study is bad because group B paid for it. This study is good because group B paid for it. This study is bad because group A paid for it.
And so on. And so on. And so on.
And, of course I'm generalizing.