Attack of the gluten intolerant sex addicts, Mark Morford

[Orrex]

19. I think he's making a larger point than gluten

Morford is making a reasonable observation based on statistical probability; the sudden recent incidence of gluten-intolerance is conspicuous, considering the frequency of actual diagnosis of the condition. It is not inappropriate to question the increased frequency of the condition. It is possible that more people are diagnosed because more people have become aware of it and have consulted their doctors. It is also possible that more people are self-diagnosing for other reasons.

Pharmaceutical companies famously propagandize new diseases, convincing people that they're suffering from some malady that the company's patented drug can treat. When this happens, we criticize the companies for manufacturing or embellishing a problem for the sake of profit, even if people honestly claim to suffer from the described condition.

How is this different from the gluten trend? Morford correctly notes that gluten-intolerance was nearly unheard of a decade ago, but today you can't go to a deli or coffee shop without seeing a "certified gluten-free!" sign proudly emblazoned.

"But I really am gluten intolerant," someone will claim. Fine with me. But how does that differ from the person who claims to suffer from the syndrome now treatable by this or that patented pharmaceutical?


I absolutely don't doubt that people suffer from gluten-intolerance. However, it's curious that we are so quick to cry foul when Morford questions the reality of one condition, in exactly the same way that we cry foul when drug companies assert the reality of others.