I have read all this controversy and have to say that I'm very perplexed. Hope nobody is hurted by my opinion, but I always distrust of someone who demonizes so much a WHOLE cathegory of food that is so basic for human diet.
Recommending moderation is always good, mainly if you speak of dairy foods that have a relatively high fat and calory content- but calling them "junk food" looks much more like a personal attack than a correct information.
No doubt that dairy products, like any other food, can be substituted with something else without compromising the nutritional balance, but this doesn't mean that they're unnecessary or harmful.
As for the allergies, the fact that many people have an intolerance to some milk component doesn't mean that milk by itself is a poison. Why warning people who's not allergic? The good reasons for including dairy products in the diet are AT LEAST as many as the good reasons for avoiding them, so maybe the truth is (as usual) in the middle.
Another thing...the question of scientific papers. I'm not referring to this specific controversy, but, generally speaking, having found one or two or even ten papers saying "something" means, in itself, less than nothing. The medical literature is endless, and if you look well you can find papers maintaining ANY theory, even the weirdest.
The assertion that most scientific papers are false as they're financed and influenced by the Great Industry is a commonplace and in most cases is untrue. No doubt that the industries finance lots of scientific studies, but publishing them WELL, on a good named journal, is still another kettle of fish. The reliability of a theory must be judged not by the number of papers maintaining it, but by the so called "impact factor" of the journals where they have been published (and as far as I know, believe it or not the most prestigious ones are pretty honest).
In main cases, nature is analogic, not digital...and it's hard to be so absolutely certain of something as someone here seems to be.