I don't see any reason to question your summary of research (this isn't quite the same as saying I agree with your conclusions, just that there seem to me to be no inherent contradictions in your summary and analysis of research). I do believe in the need for evidence-based research and the scientific method in general.

Your summary does not state whether the raw milk being studied by Stanford in 2014 or described in the list of negative effects was inspected by the dairy (or whatever the source). Surely this study would have been observational; the researchers couldn't have passed a review board if they had intentionally provided subjects with a product that they believe could have been harmful. Assuming that the subjects provided their own raw milk, it's critical to know if the milk had first been scientifically tested by the dairy or whatever source. (I drank raw milk for about a year in the early 70's believing it contained more nutrients than pasteurized milk (I had no lactose intolerance). The milk was inspected and certified by the dairy in Atlanta where I was. I didn't read of any harmful effects on subscribers. (Of course, that's not proof that there were no effects.)

If there is research that objective clinical screening of raw milk before consumption doesn't significantly prevent disease outbreaks, illnesses, hospitalizations, or deaths, then commercial raw milk should at least come with a warning, if not be curtailed altogether (this is a matter of health policy).

Supposing that a consumer believes that commercial pasteurized milk causes health problems for him / her personally. There is a solution that doesn't involve eliminating pasteurization, i.e. avoid dairy milk altogether.

A thorough clinical evaluation of benefits and risks of replacing dairy milk with non-dairy milk would for more people be more useful than a study evaluating the risks of unpasteurized dairy milk products.