Talk:Casein

Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Other : *A history of extraction and commercial use needs to be added to the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:52, 30 May 2012 (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 [1] (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べーた-casomorphin 7. I provided a wikilink, but probably some further explanation is needed. Deli nk (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2012 (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)

References

Casein compared to soy

The article referenced at [2] 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)

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 Wikipedia: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)

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."

References

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:

References

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

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)

 Fixed. Thanks for the tip! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience, plagiarism

About this dif; this introduced dangerous pseudoscience (the stuff about autism and diet) and plagiarism from PMC 4586534. 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 Jytdog "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 [3]. 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:

Gluten-free, casein-free diet	Casein
This version... [4] A 2008 systematic review from the Cochrane Library indicates that a gluten-free and/or casein-free diet has not been shown to have any effect on the behavior or functioning of individuals with autism (...)	I did the same in Casein page, modifying this previous inaccurate text...: [5] Although research has shown high rates of use of complementary and alternative therapies for children with autism, including gluten or casein exclusion diets, as of 2008 there was a lack of evidence that such diets have any impact on behaviour, cognitive or social functioning in autistic children.
... was updated with: [6] Cochrane Library - Gluten and Casein-free diets in autism spectrum disorder (2008) The Cochrane review found that well relatively commonly used the evidence to support the diets use in children with autism was poor.	... with this other text, similar to what we can read on the current version of Gluten-free, casein-free diet page [7] (evidence limited and weak). [8] Although research has shown high rates of use of complementary and alternative therapies for children with autism, including gluten or casein exclusion diets, there is limited and weak evidence that these diets are effective as a treatment for autism,

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:

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.

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 Doc James, there is no plagiarism [9] I cited and linked the authors and the paper, and cited and linked the (open) license [10] 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.

References

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, Jytdog, I'm trying to do just the opposite. And I think that your latest reversion [11] is not justified.

As you know, I very appreciate your work and we have achieved very good results working together, as here [12] (I also want to thank the collaboration of Rslateriii). 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 (Talk) 12:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

References

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, Jytdog, I see that we slowly move forward and we understand each other. :) With your new edition restoring a part of the content [13] 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 [14]: "and should be only used if an allergy or intolerance to gluten or casein is diagnosed."

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

References

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 (Talk) 10:24, 4 November 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/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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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.

References

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: pmid:27013943, pmid:18355335, pmid:19282368.

Secondary source: pmid: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 pmid:15581159, followed by a NEJM paper pmid: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 | 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あるふぁ" 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 [15] 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 [16] 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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)

Opening paragraph capitalisation and context

The opening paragraph says, in part, “The j Casein has a wide variety of uses...”. Whatever “j Casein” is it shouldn’t be mentioned without prior explanation and not should casein be capitalised. Scotia70 (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainxvel (talk • contribs) 08:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification

This article verifies the information under Uses--Food re: casein reducing burning feeling caused by capsaicin and can be used to replace the citation currently in page, which does not contain the information in question. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-babble/201702/why-does-drinking-milk-ease-the-pain-eating-spicy-food Based on the entry for Psychology Today in the Encyclopedia Britannica it looks like a reputable source. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Psychology-Today 12.187.77.2 (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible vandalizing?

At the start of the second paragraph, the word 'Funny' appears to take the place of Casein. Not sure if something's up... 113.197.9.10 (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC) -Newbie editor