"Lactase nonpersistence is most prevalent in people of East Asian descent, with 70 to 100 percent of people affected in these communities."
Masai herdsmen are East Africans; so I find that statistic bewildering. "Lactase nonpersistence" means the decline of the production of the enzyme lactase beyond infancy. I don't know whether lactase nonpersistence is equivalent to lactose intolerance.
A (very small) percentage of the population is alergic to peanuts. They can even die if they ingest a peanut by accident. Does it make so that "peanuts are bad for you"? Can I make this argument? Milk is perfectly fine and is an important part of a healthy diet, for 90% of the population of the Americas, Europe, Africa etc. The magnitude of the propaganda to make people think otherwise simply baffles me.
> Tell that to the Massai, that live basically on a diet of milk, meat and blood
They also live a mainly active, nomadic lifestyle herding cows rather than sitting down staring at a computer screen - and usually die in their forties.
They specifically adapted to survive on that diet due to both group level isolation and individual upbringing (gut bacteria development). Different socio-cultural groups often have different tolerance for common food items.
It's indifferent to the question. Some food is either healthy for human consumption or it's not. The argument is: if a population of humans exist that makes milk a very substantial portion of their diet, and is perfectly fine, arguing that it's bad for humans is complete stupidity.