The several points made do not support the charge implied in the subject
line,ie. no conjecture of fraud in the pay of commercial intrests. I have
access to online journals at a local university and the journal is there.
Many smaller and not domestic journals are not bought by libraries but are
made avalible in large collections by services which sell these packages.
One implication you made was about peer review, because you downloaded the
article says you too had access to it and on the top of their home page is
this:
"A peer review journal for health professionals and researchers in all
areas of epidemiology"
As to milk byproducts being excluded, it all depends on the question being
asked as to the direction research takes. Without rereading whole milk
was the topic being questioned. Adding otherof the many milk products
would only be a confounding set of variables. If you wish to know about
milk products as a whole, that is a different question and the research
would tbe different accordingly. Many of the points presented were
irrelevant as to the question of milk consumption and risk factors and
even the only possible point of intrest questioning what was not recorded
in the diet is intresting but not conclusive so as to allow excluding any
possible notion. The wild eyed frothing at the mouth does support folk
coming to some conclusions.