A couple of decades ago I looked into who subsidizes all sorts of health and food related research. What I found was quite astounding. Industry subsidizes more studies than the public is aware of, from the meat, dairy, and other industries. Unfortunately, there is an incestuous relationship between the USDA and FDA and industry; it's been this way for decades. One of the best examples of many is how Nutrasweet came onto the market despite being known as a neurotoxin. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_805581

So I have to ask who subsidized the studies you have cited. I am not saying that your conclusions about raw milk are wrong with regard to lactose issues, but this is the place I prefer to start my own research — finding out who is behind the studies.

I am also curious how it is that humans have consumed milk and butter for thousands of years as a staple in their diets. https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/updates/two-types-of-raw-milk

There are many arguments both for and against drinking milk, whether raw or pasteurized. My feeling is that if milk causes a person lactose problems then why drink it at all, and why take some supplement when it clearly has adverse consequences? It's like eating cake, cookies, pasta, and refined bread but hoping to address your blood sugar issues with a supplement or an injection so you can keep eating these things.