On Thu, 17 Dec 1998, Ron Hoggan wrote:

> Actually, lactose intolerance may well occur in conjunction with casein
> intolerance. Further, it is often difficult to get testing for intolerance
> to this milk protein.

What is the cause of this?  Do people who are lactose intolerant develop
problems with the protein due to lack of exposure to it or is there some
other cause?  I've often wondered if people who avoid dairy products (for
whatever reason but specifically because of milk allergy) become lactose
intolerant because they don't _need_ to be able to digest lactose.  Any
idea?

Re my tomato allergy:
> How was that allergy diagnosed? Perhaps your allergy is very different from
> an IgG or an IgA immune response to milk proteins.

I believe it's an IgE response.  I was diagnosed as a small child, so I
don't know much more than that about the test.  I'm allergic to peppers as
well.  In any case, I wasn't comparing the type or severity of my reaction
to anyone else's.  I was attempting to point out that the fact that
tomatoes are "bad" for me, does not make them "bad" for anyone else.
Therefore, the fact that one individual may be allergic to milk, does not
necessarily imply that milk is "bad" for everyone.

> of e-coli? It is not a radical concept to believe that diet can
> dramatically influence many or all body systems.

I can accept that.  I still object to Susan's original statement that
_everything_ fed to cattle "affects" us via cow's milk.  I have trouble
accepting that _everything_ makes it into the milk and that _everything_
is necessarily bad for humans.  It just seems like too broad a statement
to be accurate.

> Sure. I have cited 20 of the most recent of the 200+ reports

Yes, and I do appreciate you taking the time to do that.  I also
appreciate that you do not appear to be insisting that milk causes every
disease known to man.  That is what I have objected to in the past with
these types of exchanges.  I have seen people make huge, unbelievable (to
me, anyway) claims, with very little evidence beyond anecdotes.

> Your last sentence is quite objectionable. Do you discount Occam's razor?
> Hans Selye's work? I'm not as great a fan of the peer review process as you
> seem to be.

In all honesty, I am not a huge fan of peer review.  However, I think it
is better than the alternative.  We have seen a lot of that alternative
here.  I have been a subscriber since early 1997.  I have seen several
anti-milk zealots appear here and post dramatic messages about milk being
the root of all evil and the cause of every disease known to man.  When
pressed for more information on their position, these same people tended
to resort to ad hominem attacks, rather than provide credible,
non-emotional evidence.  It was some of these same individuals whom Susan
quoted when I asked for more information.  That was why I pressed for
citations of reviewed work.  I trust the peer review process (fallible
though it may be) more than I trust emotional anecdotes from people whom I
do not believe to be reliable.

Regarding your comment about open-mindedness, I think that applies both
ways.  I have not made any sweeping statements with regard to dairy
consumption by humans.  I never touch the stuff because it makes me
violently ill.  However, I would not extend that, as some other people
seem willing to do, and say that milk _must_ be bad for everyone based on
my own experiences with it.  I have read what the anti-milk people have to
say.  I simply don't agree with it, not due to closed-mindedness, but
because I think that they are wrong.  Also, I am insulted by their
tendency to react emotionally, rather than rationally, when confronted
with dissenting opinions.  This suggests to me that they have no rational
basis for believing as they do.

Amanda Ackerman