Except it is not bad science. Gluten and Gliadian are opiates that are found in Triticum (wheat). These opiates have a psychological effect on the brain. A certain segment of the population has a severe reaction to these chemicals, and can not eat wheat. I am surprised the article did not go more into this. There are dozens of scientific papers in mainstream journals covering this. Yes, the article does not cite like a scientific paper, but it is popular science, not a scientific paper for specialists. Scientific journals reflect what it says.

But if you want me to speculate, which I do not feel speculates very far...we know from court records that tobacco companies purposefully spiked their product with nicotine so as to cause more tobacco sales. What chemicals have we seen a spike in from wheat from the industry in the past decades? The chemicals with opiates.

On the fringes of social science, some people think wheat was a grass which was harvested originally for its opiates, not its nutritional effect. It is not the only plant with multiple purposes - cannabis can make hemp, but also has psychological effects. The extreme version of this theory is the agricultural revolution was started by a bunch of drug addicts trying to get their opiate fix from wheat.

See that is speculation. Although speculation which could possibly have some grounding. What is scientific and grounded is that some people have a negative reaction to gluten and gliadin. Which this article is about. I am surprised they did not talk about how gliadin is an opiate, because there are many scientific papers on that. You can look it up yourself. I wrote a biology paper on this once. I can post the references to the scientific literature if anyone is interested and does not know how to look it up themselves.

Stating "scientific journals reflect [this or that]" and then saying "you can look it up yourself" immediately makes people assume you're either (1) an expert speaking authoritatively, or (2) just another pseudo-science internet crank. I don't know you or your credentials... but I'm guessing the HN crowd isn't going to prescribe you expert status.

In short: I'm not going to do the legwork for you. I have no horse in this race. But... I would have liked to check out credible journal articles suggested by someone that is (perhaps) more informed than me -- I wouldn't even know what to search for on Google Scholar.

Out of curiosity, which of the indicators of bad science from that letter do you believe apply to this article?