The production in this piece is generally quite excellent. Good interviews, at times very engaging and emotional. It's a good subject matter for a no-narration, and I really enjoy hearing pieces that use that technique. But to my ears, in order for non-narrated pieces to work well, I believe there needs to be a strong sense of direction and formal motivation. That exists to an extent, but it feels loose and repetitive to me. I often wasn't sure why I was hearing THIS particular person at THIS particular moment. There wasn't a strong sense of narrative tension. It often felt like a succession of people all saying the same thing. I understood this device as a way of communicating how common and similar the experience is, but I felt like I "got it" long before it ended, and that point could've been made with less repetition. My main issue with the piece is that it feels too long for the subject matter -- I felt like it was being stretched to fill an hour. I'm glad to learn about the experiences covered in the piece, but I thought it could've been said in half the time.

I was diagnosed with celiac about 6 months ago so this story really helped as part of my life-long learning related to the disease. This piece offers a realistic but emotional view of what it's like to have a disease that people often don't know they have. The way it takes you though the process of uncertainty and fear about what a person is afflicted with to the clarity after learning that they have it is inspiring. The subjects came from a variety of backgrounds and were at different stages of having celiac, which showed how pervasive the disease dubbed, "great pretender" can be. I would have liked to hear a little more from some different doctors and health officials to give it some more credibility.