I call total BS on this.
Celiac is a well-known, serious illness induced by allergy to gluten. And now these aholes are trying to say: well, either you’re 100% allergic to gluten or 0% allergic. You know, sort of like how everyone is either seriously allergic to various types of pollen or not allergic at all, with nothing in between. Oh, wait ....
Did you miss the part of the results that show no difference between high, low and no gluten diets?
How many glutens are there? How many shapes and types of allergens are there? Allergy to gluten is like being allergic to Black Walnut pollen but not allergic to pine pollen. I know, that’s a hard thing to grasp, even if you’re not allergic to catnip but are allergic to cat dander.
The study questioned non-celiac gluten sensitivity. It doesn't question the reality, or seriousness, of celiac disease (which, by the way, is not caused by allergy).