> Question.  Milk contains casein, a foreign protein.  Does the
pasteurizatio=
> n process somehow alter casein such that a healthy protein becomes
unhealth=
> y?

According to the Westin Price advocates, it makes all the difference in the
world.

> It would not be relevant whether the milk was raw or pasteurized.

Why? You're going to have to do better than just making a statement. Raw
milk advocates state that pasteurizing ("cooking" the milk, if you will),
makes enormous changes, including rendering casein dangerous.

Your statement that it is not relevant could only be proved, to "their"
satisfaction, if raw milk was used in the studies.

> Urban populations in third world countries are more likely to use
> powdered milk than fresh milk.
> Powdered milk extends into the rural areas and is sold in bags of 10 - 15
kg.

I abbreviated my point somewhat in my post. What I originally argued was
that in the U.S., where most of the studies take place, the only milk
involved would be pasteurized. If any of those studies include data from
third world countries where milk is more likely to be raw, it should be
significant.

For instance, lactose intolerance is lowest in the U.s., where nearly 100%
if milk is pasteurized. It is highest in third-world countries where raw
milk would be more common. According to the gentleman I was arguing with it
should have been the opposite, since he claimed lactose intolerance to milk
was caused by pasteurization destroying the naturally occurring lactase in
the milk.

You see, regardless of what study I posted, he always made pasteurization
the root cause rather than the compounds in milk itself.