Both of their claims are based on Yasko as a source, who is also quite bad at interpreting research. Her claims are completely baseless.
Regarding Dr Jockers being heterozygous, the so-called "risk" allele has a 30% or higher allele rate in Caucasians. 42% of Caucasians are therefore heterozygous for it, and another 9% are homozygous for it. Prevalence rate for aggregated ethnic groups are only marginally lower.
So over half of Caucasians "have" that CBS SNP. And if we add in the other two very common CBS SNPs which don't do anything, I'm sure we can bring that up to around 90%.
Does that mean 90% of the world have ammonia issues? Not even close. But if any random patient with sulfur intolerance or similar symptoms walks into the clinics of one of those doctors, odds are very good that they will have a CBS variant - because nearly everyone on the planet has those variants.
If these clinicians were doing research, they'd see that the healthy non-symptomatic controls have the same variants at the same rates. And to reach even their "clinical" conclusions, they are ignoring and/or contradicting both the existing research into the effects of those SNPs, as well as the known prevalence rates of those SNPs in the general population.
Blaming those SNPs for symptoms is nearly as pointless as saying that having 10 fingers causes the same symptoms. Those CBS variants don't indicate dysfunction ... they just indicate that the patient is a standard human being.
It's not the single SNP, it's the combination of that one with others forming a dynamic. Genetics is a systems science, not a singular causal one. A SNP is a factor, not a cause. Current science is predicated on a model of logic of single cause, single effect. Until a model of systems thinking becomes more dominant -- which I believe is the future of medicine -- people will continue to misunderstand genetics by trying to fit it into single cause, single effect linear thinking, which is what you're doing here. You're applying outdated logic to something that doesn't abide by it.
But also, let me remind everyone here that no science is 100%. I don't dismiss all of Yasko's research, just many of her treatment protocols. Otherwise it's like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. By pointing out potential flaws or inconsistencies or problems, you're implicitely dismissing healing protocols that have been hugely beneficial to a lot of people, myself included.
Even in the pharmaceutical world, a lot is not known, many drugs seem to work despite not fully understanding their mechanisms and having controversial theories behind them and varying interpretations. That is just the nature of medicine. We don't live in a world with 100% guarentees, and it seems like that's an unrealistic demand on this forum and possibly a reflex to simply dismiss everything and perhaps finding excuses to remain sick. There will always be a reason someone can find to dismiss something. But that's missing the point because what we're looking for here is the best possible means to health no matter how "proven" or "unproven" it is.
If I tell you that a protocol is working for me and I give my best theory as to why and back that up with valid theories made by people with valid credentials, yes there still may be flaws there. That has never not been the nature of science. So I seriously question the motivation of anyone trying to imply someone's experience is not valid because the science is imperfect. The science will always be disputed and imperfect, even when it comes to the "gold standard" of western medicine, and that's acknowledeged across the discipline. So I presume there is another motivation in doing so that's rather unsavory.
One can comment on a forum to try to help others or provide useful information, and one can comment simply to baselessly dismiss others. Why is this forum so full of the latter?