The uncertainty surrounding the refreshed looks at long-term milk/calcium consumption and osteoporosis doesn't even allege this; in fact, the study that reinvigorated investigation was comparing milk drinkers to non-milk drinkers, specifically, in an epidemiological framework. That study simply observed that fracture rates aren't reduced. If you're going to overreact with wholesale dismissals like "milk isn't healthy", then go ahead and throw out vegetables because there was like that one study like that one time that showed that people who ate carnivorous diets exhibited better health markers than those who didn't consume animal protein or ate a balanced diet including vegetables. But then you have to throw out red meat because about a billion studies decades ago linked it and saturated fat to a bunch of stuff they later decided was caused by other stuff. Some of that stuff is in milk. But broscientists didn't like the idea of not eating red meat, so they made sure to make every possible qualification for red meat under the presumption a person would do everything else right with their diet to accommodate it (i.e. avoid massive intake of sugar/starch) while also carefully deflecting any established negative health consequences to other potential culprits of dietary context.
Nailed it.
I've heard this as well, the best I heard are from humans.
Just between you and I, the stuff about the best milk coming from humans is a red herring. I've got one word for you: golden retriever.
