I don't have any medical background. But I do know how to find information and read it - and regarding many (but not all) of the SNPs on the Yasko panel, their is no information corroborating Dr Yasko's opinions. And frankly, if you read carefully, she's not even claiming that those SNPs are relevant. The SNP is listed, the gene is spoken about in general terms, with no connecting of the dots between the genotypes of that SNP and how they affect the gene. Some of the main bits of the panel are correct - the most harmful MTHFR genotypes, for example. Really I have no idea what the treatment is, and don't care to get into that or comment on it. I'm not commenting on her clinical work, which I have no knowledge of - I'm commenting on the SNP testing and the conclusions drawn from them. No - You do not get to tell someone to shut up just because they are disagreeing with the theory. If you want a pulpit, start a blog. And I do believe very much in the value of genetic testing. What I object to is pulling conclusions out of thin air or based on personal experience, and morphing that into scientific fact. If Yasko has discovered something so important, why not publish something about it? If it's true that these SNPs are so important, why hasn't anyone at all published anything about most of them? I have looked extensively and there is absolutely nothing supporting most of the conclusions drawn about the tested SNPs from the Yasko panel. Hence I think it's pointless to create a complicated and somewhat expensive "personalized" treatment based on the equivalent of guess work. If someone asks for help interpreting their results, I'm going to stick to the results that are meaningful, and ignore the ones that are not. Great. Since you understand it so much better, you can explain to me how it's known that BHMT-04, as one of many examples, is meaningful?