This is an incredibly misleading title on two studies that has been repeatedly misreported as confirming the absence of gluten sensitivity. In fact, if you get away from the junk science journalism, these studies suggest scientifically sound reasons for non-celiac enteropathy in the absence of an immune-moderated response towards gluten.<p>That's not even getting into how terribly flawed the selection process was in these studies, and how the selection criteria was designed to exclude those who had been diagnosed with celiac or gluten-sensitive enteropathy in the first place. Or how the first study was so small as to be statistically insignificant. Or how the control also produced gastrointestinal symptoms similar to the experiments.<p>Also: dude, why don't you worry more about your own diet and less about those of perfect strangers? Who gives a shit why people eat gluten-free? It's their fucking body; quit trying to police their diets because you read some junk science on a blog.
I don't buy this "rigorous" experiment. So from 37 self identified gluten sensitive patients most of them have nocebo effect? Great. It clearly doesn't prove that gluten sensitivity doesn't exist, it proves that if you pick people from the self identified group than most of them are pretending (also can't actual sensitives have nocebo effects?). Surprise, surprise, it's already predicted that only 1% of the local population is gluten sensitive yet 18% buys gluten free products, probably many of them self identified gluten sensitives.