Totally agree about the need for longer-term studies, but the evidence presented here are still quite interesting. And as Capped pointed out, 6 subjects are hardly a solid clinical trial. We need more proof, but the data does point out some key differences that could make fructose a less desirable choice than glucose, health-wise.
The argument about no one ingesting glucose alone is what's misleading in the context you put it though, for all things being equal, the subjects were given fructose alone as well, and both sugars and the g+f combination also had marked differences.
Now you're right about the fact that we don't eat any sugar as is, but with the prevalence of high-fructose corn syrup and other fructose derivatives present in the vast majority of convenience, pre-packed foods, I think it's a factor that does matter.
Fruits are not the same, as their caloric density and relative carb-content can't be compared to manufactured foods. I mean, 1 cup rasberry has 14 gr of carbs, with 4-6 being fibers. Compare that to an equal amount of snack foods like crackers or sugary foods like a Twinkie....
All in all, I don't think fructose in itself is evil, but the trend of the industry to include it as the sugar-equivalent of choice is.