Did you see this Q & A in The New York Times today?

I have no idea why they titled this Gluten & Gluttony. Am I missing something?

And the "answer" given made me feel like the author took a few quotes from a doctor that specializes in celiac disease and then twisted the "answer" to lead the reader to the conclusion that "there is no benefit to eating a gluten-free diet unless you have been diagnosed with celiac disease."

True, it has not been proven scientifically that a gluten-free diet benefits other ailments. And for the record, I  strongly encourage people to first try to get properly tested for celiac disease before going on a gluten-free diet.

However, I still had a few issues with the given "answer". I'm sure the author didn't have any ill intent when writing this "answer", but as we all know, there are still millions of people that have undiagnosed celiac disease or gluten sensitivity. Knowing this makes me feel that articles such as this one are downplaying these numbers and even subtly mocking people that are trying a gluten-free diet and claiming to feel better without an official diagnosis of celiac disease. There was no mention of other auto-immune diseases that could be associated with celiac disease, while celiac disease is often overlooked. Wouldn't a well rounded journalistic approach have been to mention this and also mention some of the shocking numbers of undiagnosed patients along with the scientifically proven fact that gluten-sensitivity, although not officially celiac disease, is just as much of a deadly danger? 

Speaking of gluten-sensitivity, remember when it didn't exist because it hadn't been proven scientifically?