I can see why you are asking about this article, Raw. The whole time I was reading it, I found it hard to pinpoint the author's point of view - was he for or against eating gluten?
First of all, the article is run on the Gizmodo blog, which has its own history of "attention-grabbing" articles. However, this gluten article is not an attention grabber.
The article itself correctly discusses clinical gluten intolerances, including symptoms
The curious part of the article is Tarantola's claim that "for a lot of people, the gluten-free lifestyle may do more harm than good." His reasons are (1) gluten-free processed foods often substitute more fat and sugar; (2) many people assume gluten-intolerance without getting a doctor's diagnosis, which includes a blood test and intestinal biopsy; and (3) claims for gluten-free benefits are considered exaggerated.
Tarantola's sources for the article all seem to be mainstream-medical celiac authorities, so I would say that the opinions are what the medical establishment wants us to believe.
I am a self-diagnosed gluten sensitive person. I was raised on wheat as a daily staple. As a child, I suffered from rashes and bowel problems. I discovered my own gluten intolerance when I went to college (in the 1960s) because my then-fiance's roommate was from Hawaii and ate rice instead of wheat, and I ate at their house often enough to discover that my symptoms appeared only when I did eat wheat. Nobody said "celiac" in those days, but I read the works of J. I. Rodale, who was a staunch anti-wheat crusader.
As to why this article was written, I think that Mr. Tarantola needed an article because it's his job to write articles, and he just happened to pick gluten for his topic this time.
