I clicked the wrong abstract for the second, it was linked to my dairy and cancer site. The third isn't counter of my opinion. Low consumption of diary products had decreased etc. This isn't linked to a higher consumption of dairy or dairy itself being the indicator of the positive feed back fro the consumption of milk.
Invalid Link Removed
The problem wit that site is that it has an inherent bias - i'll show you the problem with trying to establish causation with correlation
Exhibit A
One study cited states this:
In 1940 Meeker and Kesten showed that animal protein (casein) was more atherogenic that plant protein (soy). Carroll and his co-workers showed that most proteins of animal origin were more cholesterolemic for rabbits than were proteins of vegetable origin, although there was some overlap. Cholesterol turnover is slower and fecal excretion of cholesterol is reduced in rabbits fed casein as opposed to those fed soy protein. The mechanisms underlying this effect are moot.
Problem is, the link between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol has been, well, debunked. It's not as simple as you may think and you can search my post history for discussion on cholesterol and atherogenesis.
Another issue with what you have cited is that they claim cancer is started by specific proteins - if this were true, the wider body of data would also show this. Alas, it does not (you obviously did not read the links I posted). Proteins will propagate cancer, as anything that promotes healthy cell expression will also promote dysfunctional and mutated cell expression. It's a fact of life. That's not to say it will
cause cancer, but any protein has the capability of spreading it.
The conclusion of another study cited in that article:
Conclusions High milk intake was associated with higher mortality in one cohort of women and in another cohort of men, and with higher fracture incidence in women.
Given the observational study designs with the inherent possibility of residual confounding and reverse causation phenomena, a cautious interpretation of the results is recommended.
If this is an article you wrote, I highly encourage non-selective sourcing of evidence. View the evidence as a whole, because, well, you have been debunked.
