You have a bit of an attitude on this, don't you? And not just this post. You seem somewhat obsessively negative about Domino's.
To quote psawyer from another discussion:
"Contrast this with the joke of "gluten-free" pizza at Domino's--what a crock that is."
Although I certainly have a negative view of how Domino's has handled itself, and I'm certainly not the only one, I would be hard pressed to call myself obsessive. I believe that the harm they've done by introducing that product is enough to warrant the negativity. But that discussion has been expanded in other posts already.
The study here is just an example of "How much poison is in the well today?" Ignoring the extremely small sample size and whether or not the study was blind, it simply doesn't change the fact that they would need an extremely high passing rate all the time for their product to be acceptable.
The odds of getting salmonella from raw chicken eggs has been estimated at about 1 in 20,000, but that is still a great concern in the food industry. I don't think a raw-egg pizza would go over very well with the general public if that was suddenly available, but the implication of risk should be the same.
I guess it's kind of interesting that three pizzas randomly tested were "safe" but there is no statistical implication from that testing that the average Celiac should to apply to his/her decisions about eating it. At worst it is leading someone to believe that it is safer than it really is.
What success rate would a restaurant have to have for a Celiac to feel comfortable eating there? 100%? 99.9%? 90%? 85%? If the study provided something like that, then people could make their own informed decision, but otherwise it's just statistical noise.
Male, born 1979.
Diagnosed via endoscopy/biopsy 09/2010.