Actually the information regarding MTHFR C677T is "science". It's been thoroughly researched and is known to cause specific problems, which can be dealt with in straight-forward ways. No guesswork needed: if it's +/+, then gene activity is at 30% of normal.
If it were as effective a "science" in it's interpretation as you imply people would be getting much better results. So what results should they get if they follow the advice based on this one thing. What are all the effects of having this and how does it allow pinpointing the protocol that produces people well along the road of healing.
How about coming up with a protocol based on this and doing a 1 year A-B comparison with crossover for those not having substantial recovery at the end of the first year. Better yet let's use the 3 months that Rich suggested as plenty long to determine if what the person is doing is working well.
I have seen nothing to suggest that other in the science of being able to produce this information bit that there is any effective science in it's application. Where are all the healing people?
The only definitive way to tell which folate and cobalamin combinations are going to work for person x taking into account all of the person and their multitude of genetic differences is are several trials. THEN the person knows what works best for them, not according to somebody's hypothesis. Let's collect the data on results from people and apply some analysis.
A person can start something and 3 months later decide that they are not having the predicted results and trying something else, yes, science include predictions and comparing results. Not just untested hypothesis. That type of design where the protocols are switched are called A-B crossover designs.
Most hypotheses never make it as far as an established and validated theory. Hypothesis is a starting point. Then comes trials and analysis. Then comes modification of hypothesis. Then comes trials and analysis and modification of hypothesis. So were are the results and analysis. Of the people basing their protocol on this hypothesis how many will be approximately ready to start rehabilitation in a year?
So why not explain the full protocol based on this hypothesis and trot out a bunch of people that have healed far enough to start rehabilitation via the specified protocol?