Attack of the gluten intolerant sex addicts, Mark Morford

[Orrex]

39. That's simply an ad hominem objection

A claim is true or false regardless of potential profit. For instance, when we observe that chondroitin supplements offer no demonstrable benefit for joint health, we need not consider the huge profits that the multi-billion dollar supplement industry reaps from its propaganda about that dubious product.

If you want to tailor your diet to suit your own comfort, then I say go for it. Never have I asserted otherwise, in fact. However, when you perform a best-guess self-diagnosis based on your own anecdotal observations, then it is grossly irresponsible to assert your musings as if they were medical fact. You might even be overlooking an additional serious condition in favor of a handy quick-fix. In short, you can't credibly claim to be gluten intolerant without a diagnosis to that effect. You can assert your belief in your gluten intolerance, and you can assert your discomfort following ingestion of gluten products, but absent a formal diagnosis, then it's irresponsible to make a hard claim about it. If another person bases a medical decision upon your testimony, then you have done a gross disservice to that person.

I know from experience that you like to invoke freedom of choice and the first amendment as a defense for unsubstantiated medical claims. You are free to choose whatever you please, and you are free to assert whatever you care to assert, but that doesn't mean that you are correct or justified in doing so.

So, anyone can make fun of this if they want, but why shouldn't people pay attention to the way food makes them feel? Do I really need some doctor to tell me what to eat to make me feel my best? That's a pretty ridiculous notion.

It sure is, which is why I would never make such a preposterous assertion.