> it must be proven safe first on a case by case basis
Do you hold "natural" foods to the same standard? On average they tend to have far more genetic variation away from "known good" genomes, yet I don't know anyone who thinks that clinical trials are warranted when Farmer Bob's corn cross-pollinates with Farmer Joe's corn.
> that doesn't mean that the pasteurization process produces the same resulting denatured proteins our body does.
It's possible that there's a significant difference, but assuming we process denatured proteins similarly a reasonable null hypothesis that one probably shouldn't reject merely on the basis of a single p=.049 study. Just how strong is the evidence that convinced you it causes cancer?
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/everything-we-eat-cause...
> Lactose is a sugar, and we simply do not benefit from diets high in sugars and carbs.
Yeah but you didn't mention sugar and carbs in general, you mentioned lactose specifically. Why? Was it just an example (it didn't come across that way)?
> contains hormones that are not biologically inert for humans (we are not baby cows)
I remember looking up the concentration of the hormone in human milk for comparison and finding that it was 50x higher than what people were whining about in cow milk. Do you think human milk is dangerous too?