1. Most of the data he cited for celiac disease was correct, but he was attacking those following a gluten-free diet wouitht a celiac diagnosis. He said that non-celiac gluten intolerance is not identifiable by laboratory tests. That is patently incorrect and dismissive of those who are gluten sensitive without villous atrophy. There is at least a 15 fold increase of gluten sensitivity, as measured by serum anti-gliadin antibodies, as compared with celiac disease.
2. There is value of questioning many things provided one does not attack based on personal bias and intolerance. Given his careless disregard for the facts, I'd say that this article qualifies as slanted, unwarranted and baseless attack on those who follow a gluten-free diet in the absence of a celiac diagnosis.
3. There are many studies showing that the EMA and tTG are missing as much as 50% of milder cases of gluten induced villous atrophy. Because of his sloppy research, seronegative celiacs are thus being criticized for following a diet that is, by his own admission, healthful for them.
4. Who is best equipped to judge whether the removal of a particular food is making them healthier? A physician? A lab technician? A journalist? or the person who has chosen a restrictive, often inconvenient diet? My vote is for the latter.
5. Asking questions is usually a good thing. However, discrediting individuals for their dietary choices, especially when they often have to overcome resistance from relatives and friends, based sloppy, inadequate research is not very valuable to anyone.
6. I emailed the writer the same day I read his article. He hasn't responded.
7. Academic questioning and skepticism can be very valuable. But if we don't first do our homework, the questions we ask are foolish and reflect that we are ill informed. That is what this article reflects. Unfortunately, because he is an artful and effective writer, he has quite effectively discredited many folks who are trying to help their children despite a resistant spouse or members of the extended family who, because they see the child as deprived, "treat" her or him with tasty and addictive gluten foods.