My first rule with any site claiming to have profound research on topics such as autism, gluten sensitivity in non-celiacs, "leaky gut", etc: is something being

My first rule with any site claiming to have profound research on topics such as autism, gluten sensitivity in non-celiacs, "leaky gut", etc: is something being sold anywhere on the site? If so, most credibility is being lost, as there is clear motive for what I've come to call "selective science". Second rule: how frequently are correlations between different groups, subjects or metrics referenced versus biochemical changes, group-vs-control measurements, etc. More frequently? Even more credibility lost. Third rule, and more of a "gut instinct": is it written in an objective tone, or is there language priming the reader to react to something in fear or uncertainty. A paper shouldn't be trying to engender an emotional response. If it is: credibility lost. Puts the author in the realm of psychics who claim to speak to your dead relatives for you. Fourth: Is there a statement of potential conflict of interest? If not, odds are there is one. My son is autistic. He's not sensitive to gluten, he and his sister got all their vaccinations, he gets Tylenol or Ibuprofen when in pain, and he will not be subjected to chelation, rice water diets, or any other such nonsense. Real studies will change and influence how his condition is managed. Meta-papers like this are tantamount to numerology essays about the connection between JFK and Lincoln's assassinations.