What's really crazy is that sometimes the placebo can still bring people relief even after knowing that it's a placebo

Sure, but that's just the placebo effect? I thought the double-blind process referred to something else in particular (hence the "double" part of the blind):

A double-blind study blinds both the subjects as well as the researchers to the treatment allocation [1]

In any case, I was mostly just curious, don't intend to nit-pick the title :)

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK546641/

Source?

This is all I could find on the subject:

nonceliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS), has resurfaced in the literature, fueling a debate on the appropriateness of the GFD for people without celiac disease. Although there is clearly a fad component to the popularity of the GFD, there is also undisputable and increasing evidence for NCGS.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25583468/

And:

NCGS is included in the spectrum of gluten-related disorders.[3][4] The definition and diagnostic criteria of non-celiac gluten sensitivity were debated and established by three consensus conferences.[4][14][15][16][17] However, as of 2019, there remained much debate in the scientific community as to whether NCGS was a distinct clinical disorder.[18]

So there’s definitely debate in the community about it, I would love to see some of these many tests done to prove it was not being caused by gluten if you could point me in the right direction, I’d appreciate it.

If the experimenter never really interacts with the participants and there is no subjective measurement being made there isn't really any benefit to being double blind, it's just overhead at that point

And they’re two scientists so it’s really double single blinded win!

Yes, I think some treatments cannot be done without the scientist knowing.

There is a little bit of wiggle-room because "double-blind" isn't fully defined.

It usually means neither the clinician nor the patient know what is being given. But sometimes that is impossible (eg if the comparison is of two types of surgery) so the assessor may be blinded instead. It is also possible to blind the statistician and authors (so they analyse/write up without knowing which treatment is which).

We've never got around to making the labels more exact, we just state who is and is not blinded. "Double-blind" and "triple-blind" are often used when two or three parties are blinded but neither term defines exactly who is blinded.

Researchers wouldn't find out until after they question the subjects.