Talk:Casein/Archive 1

I think you mean
I think you mean "Rennin", rather than "Renin". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.162.139 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Casein is also used as an artist's medium. Anyone having expertise about this, please inform us.

non-animal derived synthesis
if anyone has any info on how it may be synthesized from non-animal sources, please post, or contribute. this would make a very interesting and relevant addition.

The section about parents of autistic children and casein-free diets is obviously a copy/paste from some unreferenced article. Noone knows who "Greg" is. I think it should be removed and replaced with something more relevant. Matt dinsmore 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fix it; don't censor it.


 * The wholesale deletion of the reference to casein's possible relationship to autism (and other behavioral disorders) is inexcusable. Good editors fix, not censor. A Fact tag would have been far more appropriate than removing all reference to the entire issue from the article. --Kaz 01:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the following sentence from the article make sense to anybody?? "When coagulated protein and casein for the coagulated protein." It completely baffles me...

Casein plastic
Background: When I was a child, a creamery close to our home had a small casein "factory" in the rear. The casein product was dried in ovens at a temperature of about 125 degrees and shipped, and the whey was fed to pigs that the owner raised on a nearby farm.

At age 18, I enlisted in the Marines and was issued a pair of shower shoes with soles made of casein plastic. This was 1948. I have used those shower shoes virtually continually since then (even though I had to replace the bindings) and the soles, though worn but not cracked or broken, are just as pliable as when I first got them. The casein plastic was definitely superior to the plastics manufactured today.

Lloyd Martinson

lwmarthad@comcast.net

---Please, add international phonetic pronunciation--

For a social history of casein plastic please see http://www.caseino.internet-today.co.uk/social2.htm The advantages of casein plastic include the ease with which casein can be dyed and the many attractive combinations possible. Casein was popular in the fashion industry because small batches of buttons could be dyed to match fabrics at very short notice. Casein though does not have the mechanical properties offered by many modern plastics and can be brittle. Even so my feeling is that the section on the applications of casein could be expanded to take in casein as one of the first semi-synthetic materials. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Rational skepticism banner
This banner does not mean that all of the possible autism-aggrivating and cancer information will go away; rather the rational skepticism project exists to make sure that articles like this one present the whole story. The information on the possible links to cancer and autism will be improved at the same time as the counter arguments are presented, in an NPOV and factual manner. There have been problems in the past with people seeing this banner added to pages like alternative medicine or dyslexia and panic/edit wars have ensued. I just thought I'd give fair warning that the article will be changed, and that both sides will be presented.-- S c or pio n4 5 1 rant 03:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it should still be noted that casein could only produce an addiction-like response if people who suffered from it had injected half-digested cheese into their brains. --89.212.75.6 20:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The use of the word 'premature'is POV as it presupposes that at some stage (when the research has 'matured') then casein free diets will be useful. NPOV would state that claims that a link exists between casein and autism have been unsubstantiated. It isn't that the research hasn't matured, its that the claims appear to be unfounded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.215.238 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please be careful about your cites. In particular, cites that fail to show a statistically significant effect do not shot that there is no effect.  A study with 94% certainty of an effect "shows no statistically significant effect" but is far from "showing no effect".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Dew (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Casein Development
"Casein was developed as a safe protein based binder to be used in glues for children. It was among the first attempts at making a non-toxic (edible) glues for use by young children" - can anyone substantiate this?? I'm searching for sources. Nicholas SL Smith 03:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Casein Research

 * Types of Casein (Beta (A1, A2, A3?), Kappa)
 * Research on Beta Casein http://betacasein.org/index.php/pi_pageid/95 -- is this a reliable site? --71.175.49.61 (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Casein Solubility
This article states that casein is both 'insoluble in water' and that it is 'poorly soluble in water' - reconcile these. Also, confusion over caseins solubility in high/low pH media. In my experience purified casein is soluble in water at high (>10) pH, and stays soluble in a buffered solution when the pH is brought back to 7. Someone with more knowledge should probably clarify this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.63.153.140 (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Unclearity
"It does this because casein from the milk binds to the molecules in tea that cause the arteries to relax, especially a catechin molecule called EGCG." - Does it mean that adding milk causes the arteries to relax, or does it mean that it disables it? Though the context is that casein disables the good effects of tea, its not clear if it's neutralizing the effect or doing something bad, if the context wrongly is out of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.183.150 (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
The section in this article on cancer seems to be lifted directly from an article I just read on the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/a-cure-for-cancer-eating_b_298282.html

That source isn't cited. Additionally, since the source is an interview, it should be phrased as a quote, not listed as if it were fact.

Cancer
The whole section on cancer is nothing more than a bad infomercial for a guy trying to sell his book. The huffington Post is not exactly a peer reviewed medical journal but is being cited as some sort of authority on cancer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.15.103 (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you know anything about the China Study, it's not just a 'book' trying to be sold. It's a study that took many years to perform by some experienced scientists. To write it off as an "infomercial" is silly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.172.9 (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the veracity of the source, if it's a quotable source, not marking it as such is plagiarism. It needs to be referenced.--Stevenredd (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about a recent edit: Revision as of 01:24, 14 January 2011 by Kelly2357. This edit changed the section about cancer from saying that "Whey protein ... was shown to be protective" to adding another reference and changing the sentence to saying that casein is protective against cancer. However, that's decidedly not what the first article says: The abstract on pubmed specifically states "Results from animal studies suggest that whey protein, but not casein protein, may provide protective effects against experimentally induced breast cancer in animals" and their concluding sentence is that "These results suggest that consumption of whey protein-containing diets may reduce the risk of developing colon tumors." The study itself only compared casein vs. whey diets, not against a non-casein control, so there's no basis for the change that was made to the article.DavidAndersen (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr Campbell did another study in which rats were fed a wheat protein diet in conjunction with the amino acid which wheat is deficient in (lysine). This study is described in http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/81/16/1241.short. The result is the same "cancer promotion" as with casein. The conclusion is that any diet consisting of the complete set of amino acids will cause cells to grow, either normal cells or cancer cells. As Campbell says (see http://www.vegsource.com/news/2009/09/dr-campbell-responds-to-dr-mercola.html) "Wheat protein, unlike casein for example, did not stimulate cancer development but when its limiting amino acid, lysine, was restored, it acted just like casein.".

The study with the 5% casein diet failed to produce cancer as the aflatoxin wasn't able to metabolize (detoxify) to form the carcinogenic aflatoxin metabolite. Instead the rats suffered liver damage from the toxic effect of aflatoxin and died early. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GBPhil (talk • contribs) 20:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Misleading quotation
In addition to the concerns noted above, the implied quotation from the original researcher, T. Colin Campbell addresses not whether high protein diets cause cancer (he does not make this assertion - he specifically denies causation) but whether it promotes the growth of cancerous tumors. It does, but this is not surprising. Casein is a nutrient with high bioavailability: of course it promotes the growth of tissues, whether cancerous or not. That is the role of a nutrient! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydub1969 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

T. Colin Campbell does, clearly, claim that casein is especially carcinogenic. To quote The China Study: "Let there be no doubt: cow's milk protein [casein] is an exceptionally potent cancer promoter in rats dosed with aflatoxin." (p. 62). Why "exceptionally"? Because "[i]n these experiments, plant [gluten] protein did not promote cancer growth, even at the higher levels of intake. [...] Gluten, the protein of wheat, did not produce the same result as casein, even when fed at the same 20% level." (p. 59). 108.3.204.44 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

To be considered carcinogenic it must be shown to have the ability to damage DNA, disrupt DNA replication accuracy, or prevent the immune system from ridding the body of random cancerous cells. For example, Human Growth Hormone is "cancer promoting" but is technically not carcinogenic, either, because it does none of the above. The bioavailability in humans of most digested plant proteins is far less than milk or egg proteins. So it could simply be what the former person asserted combined with these animal-derived proteins having higher digestibility. Other animals, such as goats and horses (including large racing ones... horses, not goats, heh heh) can live entirely off grass or oats or corn with all the proteins they could ever need. Humans are not like that. There is never going to be a pro body builder who lived entirely on oats. Heck, you’ll get pretty sick in a matter of months if all you eat is corn, even if you cook it (you’d get ill even quicker if it was raw). The proteins in them remain mostly unused by us. And there is zero doubt that human ancestors ate a lot of animal products, so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be adapted for them. Some hominid ancestors/cousins of ours ate mostly animal products, like Neanderthal Man. There are a few undisputed contributors of cancer in the modern world that are present in every human population where you see high rates: major toxins, radiation sources, poor sleep patterns, and/or lack of regular exercise. It is also true an ultra-low calorie diet will reduce your cancer chances dramatically, but that's at a huge reduction of quality of life. -Reticuli 66.178.144.167 (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but that's a distinction without a difference. In the modern world, we're exposed to enough proper carcinogens to guarantee some baseline level of mutation. Who gets cancer becomes a complex story of genetics, occupation, behavior, and, yes, exposure to "cancer promoters." Particularly "exceptionally potent" ones that form a major part of many people's diets. 207.19.143.1 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The National Cancer Institute defines a carcinogen as "any substance that causes cancer." Source --Aronoel (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But it does not CAUSE cancer. In-vitro you will never see such characteristics.  The correlation is entirely the result of its stunning nutritional value.  It’s good for you and it’s good for the cancer cells, just like HGH.  You have to be exposed to real carcinogens or radiation or have some genetic defect to get cancer.  Good nutrition promotes the growth of pre-existing cancer cells.  Casein is the most optimal in its continuous-digesting of the three top bio-available and broad-spectrum-amino-acid proteins (the other two being egg and whey).  As such, it is the most functionally nutritious of all the proteins by a large margin.  You'd have to injest whey once an hour to get similar effects.  The rest is unfounded assumptions and pseudo-science.  If you want WORSE or LESS OPTIMAL nutrition or you want to STARVE YOURSELF or go on a ULTRA-LOW-CALORIE DIET, then yes... you will have a much lower cancer risk STATISTICALLY.  That does not mean casein is carcinogenic.  Don’t worry about it unless you get diagnosed with cancer, then you can starve yourself and take chemo to your heart’s content... the whole point of which is to wear your body and the cancer down, to tax them to their limits, with the expectation the cancer can't win such a war of attrition. -Reticuli 66.178.144.217 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Industrial Production
Some food products contain casein but not actual milk. Is this casein produced in vats, like insulin, or extracted from milk? 67.160.220.242 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Info about the section of NCC
--222.67.216.108 (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+nomenclature+casein&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0


 * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+classification+casein&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.216.108 (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+EC+casein&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.216.108 (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com.hk/scholar?hl=en&safe=strict&q=allintitle%3A%20casein%20CAS&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws

--222.67.216.108 (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.google.com.hk/search?hl=en&safe=strict&q=nomenclature+casein+site%3Aedu&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

Perhaps, I have to leave this with my clones .....@___@ --222.67.216.108 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's happening for the time being......
--222.67.216.108 (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casein&diff=363843448&oldid=362931507

--222.67.216.108 (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casein&diff=363845558&oldid=363843860

Isn't casein the majority of the protein in milk?
Casein (from Latin caseus "cheese") is the predominant phosphoprotein (αS1, αS2, β, κ) that accounts for nearly 20% of proteins in cow milk and cheese Isn't it the other way around? As in it's 80% and 20% whey protein? -iopq (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Opioid Section
This section seems to focus too much on autism and only mentions one of a number of opioid peptides that the protein can fragment into. I think much of the references to autism should be removed since the statments tend to advocate against the ingestion of the protein, especially since they are coupled with statements suggesting casein and gluten free diets. This section would be better served with more complete information about the opioid peptides that are derived from a casein source and to which opioid receptors they act as an agonist or antagonist. Here is a reference I found that could be used to expanding this information. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9216246 Alister 77 (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

After some further research I would like to make a suggestion. Perhaps the “opioid” section should be removed from “Controversies” to a new section “Bioactivity”. I suggest this because there are many peptides derived from, and encoded in, milk protein. Of these peptides, only a few are opioid, others are ACE-inhibitory, Immunomodulatory, Antithrombotic, Mineral binding, and Anticariogenic. Meisel, H. (2005). Biochemical properties of peptides encrypted in bovine milk proteins. Current Medicinal Chemistry, 12(16), 1905-1919. Teschemacher, H. (2003). Opioid receptor ligands derived from food proteins. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 9(16), 1331-1344. It also occurs to me that people are associating “opioid” with drugs. It may seem to some that people are getting addicted to foods with casein in them because of these bioactive peptides. There’s a difference between opioid alkaloids (like heroin) and the atypical opioids encrypted in milk protein. This should be clarified. Janeckah, A., Fichna, J. , & Janecki, T. (2004). Opioid receptors and their ligands. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, 4(1), 1-17.

Alister 77 (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Casein
Can someone who knows more than me check that 80% figure at the start of the article? I'm not sure about the edit (it occurred during a mixed batch of vandalisms) and I'm finding it hard to check out. Thanks. Peridon (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it was done without an explanation nor a footnote, I reverted it before I read your comment. It seemed like a large change. I think it is up to the changing editor to provide a credible explanation and/or citation. Student7 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Come on...
Let's get to the bottom of this already. Oh wait, we never will, cause money's more important than health or honesty.

Without going into details I have a personal, and several first hand accounts of the effects of dairy ingestion on CERTAIN individuals who seem to MOST LIKELY have this casomorphin production and powerful, horrible negative effect from dairy ingestion. It is NOT lactose intolerance. This theory will continue to be falsely disproven, intentionally or as a result of incompetence, as we see many published studies demonstrating.

The main point here is that I removed an unsubstantiated sentence saying "casein cannot be denatured". Several articles state that casein denatures even when heated slightly, such as Milk skin. If it is the case that it does not denature, to maintain neutrality, immediately following that statement the phenomenon it actually exhibits that is commonly confused with denaturation should be described or mentioned. It damages us so much when articles are indirectly biased, while technically containing all statements that make it "neutral", even if the order they are presented in gives an average reader a lopsided perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.225.224 (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong percentages for human milk
The stated Percentage of total protein for human milk as stated at the beginning of this article does not agree with the abstract of the referenced article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.217.74 (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This article (even just the abstract) should be helpful.  Especially "The principal proteins of human milk are a casein homologous to bovine B-casein, a-lactalbumin, lactoferrin, immunoglobulin IgA, lysozyme, and serum albumin."  But I don't know how to paraphrase that and keep it true to its meaning.  I would also like an expansion on "homologous to bovine B-casein" (How do they differ?), but I don't have ready access to the article itself which might say. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Page vandalised or misedited?
Under "Description" the paragraph starts:

Casein bites peoples heads off there bodies ...

This seems a bit strange? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.227.111 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What is BCM7?
What is BCM7 ? (Why would someone include a quote with "BCM7" in it without explaining what [the hell] it is?) 109.149.158.177 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A bit of searching Wikipedia indicates it is Bovine β-casomorphin 7. I provided a wikilink, but probably some further explanation is needed. Deli nk (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Casein compared to soy
The article referenced at seems suspicious. Nutrition Digest appears to be a newsletter, not a peer-reviewed journal.

The Nutrition Digest article does contain this sentence, which ends with 3 footnoted references: "Eliminating foods with known sensitivity as well as potential food antigens caused by foods such as wheat (gluten) and dairy (casein) decreases the chance for cross reactions with the thyroid gland (3,4,12)." But, of the 3 references given, the 1st and 2nd refer to a Journal of Nutritional Endocrinology 2002 syllabus, and appear to be recorded lectures rather than actual journal articles; and the 3rd is to an about.com page titled "The Top Five Supplements for Thyroid Support". -- Rogermw (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Amino acid profile
I think it would be useful to list an average guideline of what the amino acid profile is for casein protein. If it has the 8 essential amino acids then we can also call it a complete protein. According to http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/dairy-and-egg-products/15/2 it appears to be, says an Amino Acid Score over 100 is complete or at least high-quality and cottage cheese got 158 and cottage cheese is mostly casein. --Ranze (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

someone please add info about the role of calcium carbonate in cheesemaking
Someone (who knows what they're talking about--i.e., not me!) please add info about the role of calcium carbonate in cheesemaking: why you add it, what it does chemically, what it does functionally. Thanks! philiptdotcom (talk) 19:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

China Study Controversy
Where's the controversy in the China Study paragraph? There's nothing in the current text that suggests any controversy. barraponto (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Considering the resonance of the China Study conclusions, it would be important to at least mention that this study is criticised (for instance: ) FredericGo (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Have I missed something? Although The China Study is mentioned in the reference list, there is no mention of the claimed link between casein and cancer and other diseases, in the Wikipedia text. Is this because the writers disapprove or are unable to comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.83.176 (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

And at the end, "The book was criticized by blogger Denise Minger". Why is it notable that a blogger with no qualifications criticizes the findings of a PhD and Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell? I dare say her opinion is not notable in the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.175.166 (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Micelles and cottage cheese
Far as I know cottage cheese is the cheese with the highest protein. I assume casein protein. I was reading this article and it said Micellar is the best kind of casein, as it metabolizes slowest.

I assume this means non-micelle casein metabolizes quicker.

I am wondering if the process of cheese-making, cottage cheese technique in particular, denatures this arrangement, or if the protein is still Micellar. I am not able to tell this from the article and would like to see this pointed out. 64.228.91.73 (talk) 06:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Why is there a complaint about primary sources in the Health Issues section?
Why is there a complaint about "primary sources" when all around the article sources are simply websites for the dairy industry? So links to dairy industry links are not an issue. Links from primary sources that are the world's top cited article in casein over the last year are in risk of being deleted? the dairy farm lobby just own Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.83.218.106 (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Medical content requires a higher level of sourcing than other Wikipedia content. Medical claims should be based on high quality secondary sources rather than primary sources (see Identifying reliable sources (medicine) for details). Currently, the section titled "Health issues" includes controversial (and perhaps not widely scientifically accepted) claims sourced in part to primary sources or sources that may not be high quality.  The medref tag is therefore warranted.  Since I was the one who added the tag, do you think I am part of some dairy farm conspiracy to control Wikipedia content?  Deli nk (talk) 14:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Deli, since there is a section where two medical claims for casein (in the dentristry industry) are based in cingle articles and you had no issue with that, yes, I believe you are, because you kept for months the claim of a blogger over the claim of one of the most reputable health expert and Author of The China Study. As a single study is not as good as a series of studies, the claim of a blogger shouldn't be present as a rebuttal of a study. So for you a pro-casein blogger is as good as a randomized study of over 87.000 subjects, a study not contradicted over 10 years after its publication by any secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.83.218.106 (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Either you are really, really confused or you are just being malicious. Where the hell did you get "for you a pro-casein blogger is as good as a randomized study of over 87.000 subjects" from anything I said???  And, really, you're going to double down on your claim that I'm part of a dairy farm conspiracy?  Deli nk (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Lobbies making Wikipedia a banner for themselves
So no China Study, no research on the link between prostate cancer and casein, nothing, but to say that beef is good for you, no problems with the beef boys here in Wikipedia. You are not a gatekeeper, you're just a paid servant, because no one with a neutral perspective would allow for such implications not to be made public. Jokapedia, it is... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.251.98.128 (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

80% of the iron supplements article says citation needed for a couple of years now. No problema over there. Here in casein, of milk, or whatever article relationg to money-making companies, anything that is not "peer-reviewd-meta-analysis-multi-year-properly-formatted" study gets discarded. In other articles users will just change the sayings of the edit. But in anything remotely relating with the beef and dairy industry edits with proper relevance will be just deleted based in some obscure claim. So you want to tell me why you don't care about blogger claims and you don't care about The China Study? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.251.98.128 (talk • contribs)

Inorganic elements?
Does "inorganic elements" mean "all elements except carbon"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.211 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Dead link
reference 2 is invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.218.163 (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks for the tip! Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

china study
The following content was added over the summer and recently moved/jiggered. This is not encyclopedic content and needs secondary sourcing on findings (not on "china study" per se). Moving here so it can be worked on: ===The China Study on cancer=== The China Study is a book written about a large-scale study done with the support of the Chinese government and provincial governments across China. It concluded that populations with greater than 10% of the protein in their diet from casein were at risk of cancer due to casein acting as a cancer promoter. Neal D. Barnard focuses on the putative addictive nature of milk products and opiate products associated with A1 milk in particular, and notes that "The problem with milk is not simply its casein—that's the part that produces the casomorphin opiates. The nutrient 'package' in milk—loads of sugar (lactose), animal protein, and fat—triggers the production of IGF-I in the body, and that may be the reason it is linked to certain forms of cancer." Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The China Study is a Pro-Vegan book whose wikipedia page contains numerous controversy warnings. The factor of heavy slant and bias for this source should be noted and discussed or completely removed if it is decided to be an unreliable source. Here are some sources that discredit The China Study, all with useful data and information:

217.165.62.188 (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Anon

Pseudoscience, plagiarism
About this dif; this introduced dangerous pseudoscience (the stuff about autism and diet) and plagiarism from. The content added from the latter source is an extensive quote (without quotation marks); the source itself is in a journal published by MDPI, a borderline predatory publisher. Please also note the conflicts of interest declaration by one of the authors of that review. The people who most strongly believe that A2 milk matters are the people who created it and make money off it; the rest of the world finds the evidence to be "meh" at best. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The COI issues of the authors raise concerns. If it is CC BY than not plagiarism. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Didn't say it was a copyright violation. Copying someone else's words without quoting them = WP:Plagiarism and is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

About this words of "this introduced dangerous pseudoscience (the stuff about autism and diet)", it is a mistake: the subject of diet and autism was already present before my edits. What I did was adjust the conclusions of the 2008 Cochrane review, which did not reflect what the source says, and added two recent reviews of 2014 and 2015 from Gluten-free, casein-free diet page.

The same problem with the conclusions of the Cochrane review occurred in the Gluten-free, casein-free diet page:

In fact, we can read in the abstract of the 2008 Cochrane review: There were only three significant treatment effects in favour of the diet intervention: overall autistic traits, mean difference (MD) = -5.60 (95% CI -9.02 to -2.18), z = 3.21, p=0.001 (Knivsberg 2002) ; social isolation, MD = -3.20 (95% CI -5.20 to 1.20), z = 3.14, p = 0.002) and overall ability to communicate and interact, MD = 1.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 2.90), z = 2.77, p = 0.006) (Knivsberg 2003) (...) Current evidence for efficacy of these diets is poor. which is not the same as there was a lack of evidence that such diets have any impact on behaviour, cognitive or social functioning in autistic children.

I also added this sentence "and should be only used if an allergy or intolerance to gluten or casein is diagnosed. " which reflects the conclusions of the sources, as we can see in the abstracts, and its inclusion in the Potential health issues section makes a lot of sense:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26418822 ''The evidence to support the therapeutic value of this diet is limited and weak. A gluten-free and casein-free diet should only be administered if an allergy or intolerance to nutritional gluten or casein is diagnosed.'']

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24789114 ''We observed that the evidence on this topic is currently limited and weak. We recommend that it should be only used after the diagnosis of an intolerance or allergy to foods containing the allergens excluded in gluten-free, casein-free diets. Future research should be based on this type of design, but with larger sample sizes.'']

There is no pseudoscience in my text, it is correctly adjusted, so I will restore it.

And about plagiarism, I think as, there is no plagiarism  I cited and linked the authors and the paper, and  cited and linked the (open) license   Copyright and License information: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) I copied the text to avoid problems of misinterpretation.

Well, I now see that there is a COI with some of the authors, which I have not noticed. I understand that we can not use this source. My main goal was to document the fact that some people can tolerate milk from mammals such as sheep and goats (which contain A2-like beta-casein and not A1), but not cows.


 * You are overstating the case for gluten-free diets for autism. Please don't do that. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No,, I'm trying to do just the opposite. And I think that your latest reversion is not justified.
 * As you know, I very appreciate your work and we have achieved very good results working together, as here (I also want to thank the collaboration of ). But in this case, I think you're not understanding me.
 * People seeking information want details. Otherwise, they will go to seek more information elsewhere: unverified, extensive, and of questionable accuracy from hundreds and thousands web pages and charlatans.
 * Clearly and obviously, gluten-free diet can not be a standard treatment for autism. That would be an extremely simplistic and dangerous idea, but currently there is much confusion and lack of knowledge and charlatans take advantage of it. The issue is to put this in its exact context: there may be a subgroup of patients who might benefit from a gluten-free diet, but the symptom or testing profile of these candidates remains unclear.
 * Not to mention this is equivalent to not talk about x drug treatment for x disease because it is only useful in a small group of patients; or not to mention rare diseases, because affect a minimal fraction of general population; or removing all sections of research of Wikipedia pages.
 * Our mission in Wikipedia is not to act as "censors", our duty is to reflect the existing information in a neutral manner, with all points of view.
 * Giving the accurate information provided by the sources with more of detail, and not hiding it, is not "overstating the case for gluten-free diets for autism", but quite the opposite, which can avoid unnecessary dietary restrictions and let clear that these diets should be only used if an allergy or intolerance to gluten or casein is diagnosed (diagnosed: that is to say, by a physician specialist, not by quacks, parents or self-diagnoses).
 * I hope I was able to explain well.
 * Best regards. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  12:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I have updated the content here to reflect the 2015 review.
 * Look, having a child with autism is huge deal - a life changer.   Going on some fad gluten/casein-free diet puts an additional huge burden on people.  The internet is full of garbage like this.  The "charlatans" you mention are exactly the ones saying "your child may benefit" from this".
 * Until there is good evidence' showing that a) a clearly defined set of people (not a situation like now where the symptom or testing profile is unclear), b) do benefit, there is no way this article or any other one is going to feed the charlatanism with "may benefit a subset of people with autism that we cannot define well".
 * When people come here for information they should see "there is no good evidence that a gluten or casein free diet is useful in autism", until there is good evidence. There is a bright line here.
 * Pushers of alt-med and pseudoscience in Wikipedia always exploit the ambiguity of "no good evidence now" to say "X may be effective for Y".  Pushers of alt-med and PSCI always claim censorship when they are presented with policy on this.
 * We have had this discussion before.  I have already notified you of the PSCI Discretionary sanctions.
 * I appreciate your other work here too, and your support while i was indeffed. You are arguing for content that violates PSCI.  Please stop doing that. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well,, I see that we slowly move forward and we understand each other. :) With your new edition restoring a part of the content  the conclusions are consistent with the findings of the sources. Thanks! and also thanks for your nice words.
 * But I do not agree that I defend pseudoscience, quite the opposite, as I explained here and on several occasions.
 * Yes, having a child with autism is huge deal - a life changer. But the possible inconvenients of a diet are minimal when it is effective, because the true burden is the disability caused by the disease. Anyway, selecting the information with the aim of directing the reader is not our mission, but to be faithful to the sources and be neutral.
 * Still need explanations for your removal of this sentence : "and should be only used if an allergy or intolerance to gluten or casein is diagnosed. "
 * Best regards. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  19:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, if your kid gets an infection you should give him or her antibiotics. If your kid breaks their leg, yes you should get that set.  And yes, if your kid has celiac, you go gluten free.   it is not worth mentioning. Jytdog (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That makes sense.
 * I'm happy to have reached an agreement. Thank you very much!
 * Best regards. --BallenaBlanca [[Image:BallenaBlanca.jpg|25px]] [[Image:Mars symbol (bold blue).svg|12px]] (Talk)  10:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Casein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111222012222/http://www.weidmann-electrical.com:80/en/markets-a-products/board/cellulose-based/laminated-board to http://www.weidmann-electrical.com/en/markets-a-products/board/cellulose-based/laminated-board
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131107035921/http://www.tappi.org/Downloads/unsorted/UNTITLED---PLA0433pdf.aspx to http://www.tappi.org/Downloads/unsorted/UNTITLED---PLA0433pdf.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131107035921/http://www.tappi.org/Downloads/unsorted/UNTITLED---PLA0433pdf.aspx to http://www.tappi.org/Downloads/unsorted/UNTITLED---PLA0433pdf.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Autism content
The following was added by User:VernaMM in this dif and re-added in this dif:

Milk-free diets are effective and necessary in a subset of subjects with autism. Folate receptor autoantibodies are very common in autism spectrum disorders, estimated to occur in about half of subjects with autism. In cerebral folate deficiency due to folate receptor autoantibodies, autoantibodies prevent folate from crossing the blood brain barrier, effectively starving the brain of folate. Autoantibodies have been shown to be markedly reduced on a milk-free diet, and to be exacerbated by a high milk diet.

These sources do not comply with WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Even if the sources were MEDRS, it's WP:SYNTH. A primary study suggests a milk-free diet might help cerebral folate deficiency syndrome + a review finds that lack of folates contributes to cerebral folate deficiency syndrome and autism = a milk-free diet must be effective against autism as well!
 * Primary sources: 27013943, 18355335, 19282368.
 * Secondary source: 26924398. I'm not familiar with the journal Biochimie to give an opinion on whether it's high quality. --RexxS (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Secondary source: 26924398. I'm not familiar with the journal Biochimie to give an opinion on whether it's high quality. --RexxS (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Cerebral folate deficiency syndrome (on which we don't have an article) was first reported on in 2004 15581159, followed by a NEJM paper 15888699 that has >100 citations.
 * The link with milk consumption looks very preliminary and at the moment seems anecdotal with surrogate end points. We need a controlled trial to demonstrate that the symptoms improve. Meanwhile the abstract of the most recent secondary source does not mention milk or casein (can't get the fulltext) so I reckon this isn't ready for prime time. JFW &#124; T@lk  10:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Autism is well researched. We need more than the preliminary sources provided. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Extraordinary statements like "Treatment with pharmacologic doses of folinic acid has led to reversal of some symptoms in many children diagnosed with cerebral folate deficiency syndrome and autism, especially in those positive for autoantibodies to FRα" need extraordinary evidence.

Body of the text says "More recently, treatment with high-dose folinic acid in a subset of children with autism, in whom the neurologic presentation is not complicated by other genetic or metabolic disorders, has resulted in remarkable improvement in functional deficits [134] and [135]. "

134 is whose methods are "Children with FRAs were treated with oral leucovorin calcium. Treatment response was measured and compared with a wait-list control group." "Wait list control"? Seriously no blinding, no randomization.

135 is and did not give folinic acid but was a letter. It states "high-dose folinic-acid supplementation improved the core symptoms of autism in these children.6" and simply links back to the first paper. Gah  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 11:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Casein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928023201/http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=160 to http://www.ccmr.cornell.edu/education/ask/index.html?quid=160
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.weidmann-electrical.com/en/markets-a-products/board/cellulose-based/laminated-board
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070925001225/http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Fankhauser/Cheese/CHEESE.HTML to http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/Cheese/CHEESE.HTML

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Composition Section
The last paragraph in this section reads:

Casein breaks down in the human stomach to produce the opioid peptide casomorphin. Casomorphin is an exogenous opioid peptide pertaining to the class of exorphins which include opioid food peptides like Gluten exorphin and opioid food peptides. Exorphins mimic the actions of endorphines because they bind to the same opioid receptors in the brain.

This is unsourced. I will remove it unless someone can find a source for it. Michaplot (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Have a look under Casomorphin. - Snori (talk) 03:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Is this reference intended to support my desire to remove the unsourced claims in this article? If so, great, let's remove these three sentences. If you think that any of the sources in the Casomorphin article could be used here, then by all means put them here as citations, however, it seems that the casomorphin article contradicts the claims made here.Michaplot (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really, I was just trying to be generally helpful :-). I see on that page "Although they have not yet been proven to be formed in the human digestive system" which directly contradicts what's currently said in this article - but to be honest the ref given isn't clear to me. As always, good reputable secondary sources are far better that raw scientific articles. - Snori (talk) 22:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Addition to Uses Section
I was editing and improving the calcium caseinate article for my chemistry seminar class and noticed that much of my information on food content and uses was more relevant to casein in general rather than simply calcium caseinate, so I decided to add that here.

--Bcmonigold (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)