Ist authoritynutrition.com sicher?

Another scientific denialist site that promotes misleading information regarding human health and nutrition while claiming to be scientific. They make false claims regarding the lipid hypothesis, cite studies which have since been retracted and make many claims with improper attribution to the so called "sources". For example claiming humans need carnosine in their diet when we produce it biologically, in addition to claiming many nutrients are required to be consumed through animal products which we either produce naturally or can acquire them through other means. They are also making a wide range of unscientific and otherwise harmful claims in regards to gluten and whole grains. Basically giving the impression that an unhealthy meat based diet is healthy and a healthy plant based diet is unhealthy.

Articles are not rigorously scientific, even though they claim to be so. Articles are contradictory, for example: "6 shocking reasons why gluten my be bad for you" and in them, reason 5 is based on an idea which is "far" from being proven (emphasis in bold), but then goes on to detail this logic as if it makes perfect sense. Studies to back up claims are one sided, as in the articles claiming that gluten free diets helped relieve autism... but not the studies that found no evidence. Advice at the end is medically unsound: "go 30 days without gluten, see how it goes, if it doesn't go well, stop using it." While on the contrary, you must eat gluten to have an accurate Celiac diagnosis, and other factors can be correlated to improved well being after avoiding gluten: weight loss due to change in eating habits, better food diversity, etc. Is there a conflict of interests where someone is payed by gluten-free food producers to spread the scare? (Just as "the yeast connection" was the health scare in the 90's with handsome profits for those selling alternative foods?)

A major proponent of the "Low-Carb" gluten free fad diet and some pseudoscience along with other controversial ideas within the scientific community. For example the website states that saturated fat is healthy - despite the scientific literature saying it increases risk of e.g. heart disease as accepted by the majority of scientific societies and institutions. The author claims that gluten is also unhealthy by which the current evidence explicitly states the opposite for non-celiac patients since it improves the microbiota of the human gut. There are many more examples of falsehoods or controversy on the site. The author often retorts to logical fallacies like appeal to nature, appeal to emotions, or claims medical conspiracy theories. Whatever is being said should be taken with a grain of salt. I would avoid it unless one wants to filter the science through someone with an obvious agenda and inadequate expertise on the subject.