Dear Amanda,
I feel compelled to jump in on Susan's behalf.
>> First I will list your ?s. Answers are listed below:
>I said:
>> 1. People are only lactose
>> >intolerant have no reason to be concerned with the structure of casein
>> >because it does not affect them.
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. Also, many folks are only tested for IgM and IgE
reactions so the IgG and IgA reactions are not tested, to the detriment of
the patient's health (personal observation).  There are a number of peer
reviewed reports which indicate a negative biochemical impact of some of
the partial digests of casein, one of which is identified as caseomorphin
(1). As the name implies, it is an exogenous opioid- acting peptide(2).
As early as 1982, Mycroft et al. identified MIF-like substances in
the digests of cow's milk (3).
>I'm sorry.  I don't see an answer to this or any of my other comments about
>milk.  You provided a list of substances.  Casein is not one of them.  How
>do you contend that casein affects people who are not allergic to it?
As indicated above, caseomorphin alone can impact on the psyche,
vasoconstriction, and neurotransmission...... often in the absence of a
detectable immune response (See Reichelt at:
http://www.panix.com/~donwiss/reichelt/
> I am
>allergic to tomatoes but I don't insist that everyone else should avoid
>them, simply because they make me violently ill.
How was that allergy diagnosed? Perhaps your allergy is very different from
an IgG or an IgA immune response to milk proteins.
>Susan said:
>> >2. Just as gluten shows up in our breastmilk, everything the cows are
>> >> fed affects us.
>I said:
>> >>This is simply not true.
The recent, rather startling news that e-coli in cattle can be reduced to
10% of its prior levels by switching cows from grain feed to forage(4)
should dissuade you from such certitude. Who would have imagined that
feeding grain to cattle would have such a dramatic impact on the incidence
of e-coli? It is not a radical concept to believe that diet can
dramatically influence many or all body systems.
>I still see no evidence from you as to how these substances affect us.
>Proof would consist of epidemiological studies, proving that they cause
>illness.  Can you provide that?
Sure. I have cited 20 of the most recent of the 200+ reports in the peer
reviewed literature which show a connection between cow's milk proteins and
type 1 diabetes mellitus (5 to 23). Run a Medline search. You'll see what I
mean.
That's just one disease. The work in the realm of molecular mimicry, with
regard to autoimmunity, is beginning to show that much autoimmunity is the
direct result of cow's milk proteins, soy proteins, and gliadin proteins.
You might also look at some of my work in the realm of immunoregulatory
function of some of these peptides:
Hoggan, R. (1997b). Considering wheat, rye, and barley proteins as aids to
carcinogens.  Medical Hypotheses. 49, 285-288.
>I am still waiting to learn what all these diseases are.  Again,
>peer-reviewed epidemiological studies would serve to bolster your position.
See above. Autoimmunity, cardiovascular disease, psychiatric illness,
malignancy.
>Additionally, the scientific community does not respect internet listservs
>as a valid source of "proof" of anything.  I am looking for something from
>the scientific literature showing that these substances are detrimental to
>humans.
I have provided an extensive list of peer reviewed publications in support
of the position that these substances are detrimental to human health.
>When I say "scientific literature", I am talking about things that
>have been published in respected scientific journals after being subjected
>to the process of peer-review.
>You see, peer review is the corner-stone of modern science.
That is questionable. I would have said that an open mind was a more likely
candidate for the position of "cornerstone of modern science".
> It means that
>other scientists with no interest in the work have looked at it and
>evaluated the data and methodologies to see if they make sense.  Without
>that process, nothing that is published is worth the paper it is written
>on.
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. Nonetheless, some of my work has survived that process and
subsequently been published. The problem with that process is that it
suppresses truly innovative ideas. The report of helicobacter pylori as a
factor in peptic and duodenal ulcers in the late 70's is just one example
of the problems with peer review.  I think it is too often a process
that maintains the current paradigm for an overlong period due to the
excessive investment of time and ego by those in power.
That trend of suppressing new ideas in the name of science can be traced
right back to the early 1800's when Ignaz Sammelweiss demonstrated a
decline in deaths from childbirth fever during the trial period of one
year. It seems that the death rate dropped from 9% to 1% when the medical
staff washed their hands regularly. Sammelweiss' peers thought it was
ridiculous to imagine that ivisible "atomies" could be carried
on the skin and clothing from the scene of an autopsy to the delivery room.
 Therefore, his results were dismissed and many, many women continued to
die of child birth fever, for another half century or so, when Louis Pasteur
"discovered" the same darned concept (but in less depth). Because Pasteur
had peer support, the concept began to gain credit in the scientific
community.  The peer review process has done plenty of harm to modern
science. I suspect that an open mind is the real cornerstone of modern
science.
Sincerely,   Ron Hoggan