greenshots
Senior Member
- Messages
- 399
- Location
- California
If you are tenacious, Yasko does answer but only when others can't really find the answers for you. I've heard she works 12-14 hr days, 6 days a week so it makes sense to use your other resources first. Below is Dr. yasko's own answer about sulfates/sulfites and the CBS from March 10th, 2012. I had also asked my doctor about this a week or two ago and she sent me her answers a few days ago so I thought I'd post it down below for a more complete answer.
Hi Angela,
1)Sulfate levels may be used as a way to assess sulfite processing. Sulfites are converted to sulfates by SUOX which uses B12 and molybdenum in the reaction. If sulfate levels are high it may indicate that sulfite levels were too high and you want to be sure that you have enough B12 and molybdenum support in place such that the levels of molybdenum and B12 are not depleted in the process of converting sulfites to sulfates. Also high sulfites (by default high sulfates) is an indication that you may have too much activity via the transulfuration pathway and so you do not yet have the methylation cycle in balance.
2)There are three enzymes in the body that need molybdenum: sulfite oxidase (SUOX), xanthine oxidase, and aldehyde oxidase. Xanthine oxidase helps to convert intermediates to uric acid. Milk that has been homogenized increases the level of xanthine oxidase in the milk. This may be a more subtle aspect of dairy free diets to limit excess xanthine oxidase in the system. Too much xanthine oxidase, like increased sulfite oxidase activity runs the risk of depleting molybdenum. Finally aldehyde oxidase is involved in addressing yeast (Candida) in the body. The net effect of homogenized milk + Candida + high levels of sulfites is to increase the activity through these three molybdenum containing enzymes and potentially deplete levels of important intermediates.
3) High levels of overall sulfur in the body can trigger the cortisol stress reaction. There are entire PPTs I have given on the topic of stress. Also high levels of sulfur groups in general can exacerbate other situations in the body with excess glutamate and throw off the epinephrine/norepineprhine ratio. As I spoke about when reviewing the methylation cycle this past Oct (see that DVD/PPT too) one way to look at the methionine portion of the methylation cycle is that it serves as a way to have sulfur and ammonia groups tied up or complexed in molecules. As you work your way through the transulfuration pathway it frees up sulfites and ammonia that the body then needs to deal with and eliminate.
To summarize, in my opinion the issue with high sulfates is three fold, one it indicates high levels of sulfites and excess transulfuration activity, two it suggests that molybdenum and B12 may be depleted from the system and three that the cortisol reaction and imbalances in norep/epi may be a factor due to high total levels of sulfur containing groups.
With love, hope and a hug,
Dr.Amy
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:47 pm Post subject: My doctor's response
I should have known my doctor wouldn't ignore my question. I've included her response as well.
Here is my doctor's reply:
Angela,
I have gone through and responded to each area of inquiry regarding sulfites/sulfates and the CBS/SUOX issue. As you know, I have been working on this issue for quite some time and ultimately, I've found that it comes down to being able to accept new evidence. So many in science and medicine are like any other field. We learn things one way and have a devil of a time learning it in another. We resist change. And we resist it even more so when someone comes along and easily dismantles all that we believed in and shows us an entirely new way! How dare she! Yet when you look at the science, its not contradictory at all.
For example, when people look at Dr. Waring's work regarding sulfur, they fail to consider each child's severity and individual responses. Some of the children did do well on sulfur donors but I highly doubt these were the CBS/SUOX kids. There were also those who did not respond well to sulfates at all and upon further study, I believe they would have found these children have the CBS and/or SUOX defects. It isn't an all or nothing concept here. Both sides are right depending on their population. However, Yasko sees the sickest kids out there and these are the kids that are not going to be the typical responders by any stretch of the imagination.
As for Jill James work, she did reveal that glutathione and other methylation pathway co-factors (SAH/SAM ratios) came up to better (athough not normal levels) but the end point is that despite improvement in methylation parameters, the children were NO BETTER. Perhaps they had better tests and maybe this would even lead to improved health (fewer viral illnesses) yet I was at The MIND Institute when she delivered these findings and she admitted that NONE of the children had any real changes in their autism. Better tests sound nifty to a scientist but ask any parent what they want to see and they'll categorically say "I want my child to be like everyone elses," yet this clearly did not happen. She may have proven that you can throw many things against a brick wall and plenty will stick but no testing was done to see what the ammonia and sulfite levels were in these now "improved" children or wheher those with the CBS took longer to respond (as they did in Rich's case studies) despite the fact that they all essentially remained outwardly unchanged. I believe these kids have factors such as the CBS (and even worse defects) so would not have significant changes in their autism. Dr. james isn't wrong, she did see an improvement in methylation tests. I also don't believe Dr. Yasko was wrong, since the kids didn't really improve. It doesn't have to be all or nothing as people try to make it.
In Dr. van K's study, he did show that after a period of time, methylation parameters would improve (glutathione, SAM/SAH) yet he did not have the funding to fully test the downstream results and look at ammonia levels, sulfite levels, etc. And, while many of these CFS patients did improve, some going back to work, many had only slight improvements (but were far from functional!) and I believe further study would reveal that these people had more severe defects such as the CBS, SUOX, ACAT, & SHMT. Though his was just an initial study, it most certainly confirmed what Dr. Yasko has said all along, that this CBS up regulation drains the pathway. Yet it also showed that there were other ways to get there since his simpler protocol was quite helpful. The next step is to look beyond bringing up the methylation parameters by testing toxic intermediates downstream, in order to see how these correlate with those least benefited by even the Simplified methylation protocol. I believe this is where the rubber will meet the road.
I could also go through and delineate how this applies to Dr. Cutler's work as well. He is brilliant and has helped many adults and children, however, the fact remains that he hasn't been able to help many of the sickest kids and adults. I believe that further scrutiny would reveal that this is related to too much sulfur (or ammonia) accumulating in those who cannot process them. However, there are probably other factors as well, such as the ACAT, SHMT, or other issues we haven't yet discovered. In all honesty, I think the fact that Yasko was an outsider helped clarify things. When you are in the midst of things, you can easily miss the forest for the trees and oftentimes, it helps to have a fresh perspective. Moreover, Amy has now had a decade's worth of research under her belt.
Furthermore, while The DAN! has been a blessing to many, the kids who have not responded have moved on to the last bastion of recovery and healing--Yasko. She clearly has a wealth of information and knowledge regarding the sickest segment of the population yet instead of welcoming her ideas and theories they have been universally shunned. Why is this? It seems odd until you delve deeper. The fact remains that scientists are highly competitive professionals who put a lot of time, resources, and energy into their life's work and theories. It must be very hard then, to have someone else such as an outsider, come along and casually delineate a comprehensive theory that weaves everyone's together while going deeper still to reveal the bigger picture.
Don't forget how dligently scientists from around the world struggled to keep their secrets to themselves with the discovery of HIV/AIDS. People were dying in droves yet these men and women were more concerned with receiving the credit and achieving the the nobel prize.The point is, scientists are humans, not deities, and they can make mistakes for a number of reasons.
I certainly don't mean to imply that Dr. James, Cutler, Waring, etc., have knowingly sacrificed anyone in order to achieve such glory because I honestly don't believe that. They are clearly brilliant, dedicated researchers who like most everyone else, see their own little piece of the puzzle and have their own agendas and beliefs. Think for a moment.......have you ever been so absolutely "sure" about something, only to find out later that you were quite wrong? It's not easy for most of us and yet, in order to truly move forward,we have to deal with it. Yet, we are all human and as such, tend to muck things up. Many of us seem driven toward "black & white" or "all or nothing" theories so that you're either in one camp or the other when we should really be using any & all information in order to discover the source for healing our most precious resources.
And while others may say that even with a CBS up-regulation, The Urea Cycle should be plenty adequate in compensating for the excess wastes, how many children with more severe forms of autism or adults with debilitating cases of CFS have well functioning Urea cycles? If nothing else, Dr. Martin Pall's work on the NO/ONOO cycle has shown this is definitely not the case, therefore, this is a specious argument. For example, I could purchase an anti-bear whistle and blow it three times a day and when I don't see bears, is it really because of the bear whistle? Or, could it be that we didn't have a bear problem in the first place? Or maybe the bears are in an entirely different area. As thinking beings, we can come up all kinds of highly rationale sounding arguments for one thing or another yet it doesn't make it categorically true. Bottom line, if Dr. Pall, and a plethora of other researchers, have shown deficiencies within the urea cycle, how can this possibly compensate for excess CBS dumping? And why do so many chronically ill adults and children remain chronically ill, despite these highly valuable tools & treatments? It seems prudent to look beyond the surface so we can answer these troubling questions instead of continuing to argue about why someone else is wrong and another is right. I think most of us have found that truth tends to lie somewhere in the middle.
Yet instead of working together, thats not how things seem to work. Ultimately, you have to play the game and if Dr. Yasko has broken any laws of the universe, its that she's decided not to play. She chose to focus on recovering these kids first and foremost and I commend her for that. She had years of being a highly respected scientist and yet willingly chose not to spend her time in the research lab but to fix our future generation, all with a huge price--her reputation. How many people would do this? While I'd like to be able to count myself in her league, of this, I am highly dubious. As you know, I may not always agree with Dr. Yasko's methods or theories but I do respect the fact that when she's wrong, she openly admits it. She also used to think that the more sulfur the better and has since had to change that for these particular defects.
I could also go on to detail the fact that high sulfur levels raise cortisol levels or that the G6PD enzyme is impacted by sulfur, yet you've undoubtedly read about that in the Dr. Yasko posts my assistant, Renee, sent you. Angela, when people question you or accuse you of being "blinded" or "somehow misguided," you can tell them quite simply that you see the shades of grey in the world. Both sides have a story to tell and it isn't limited to one side of the story as so many ardently attempt to make it. The fact of the matter is, they may have helped many people but there are also many others left sick & floundering, many of which Dr.Yasko has pieced back together. What of them? Unfortunately, nothing is truly black and white, especially in recovering yourself or a child.
All the best to you!
April
April Ward-Hauge MS, NP, BCIM
Autism Nutrigenomics Treatment, Inc
& Adult Biomolecular Medicine
Hi Angela,
1)Sulfate levels may be used as a way to assess sulfite processing. Sulfites are converted to sulfates by SUOX which uses B12 and molybdenum in the reaction. If sulfate levels are high it may indicate that sulfite levels were too high and you want to be sure that you have enough B12 and molybdenum support in place such that the levels of molybdenum and B12 are not depleted in the process of converting sulfites to sulfates. Also high sulfites (by default high sulfates) is an indication that you may have too much activity via the transulfuration pathway and so you do not yet have the methylation cycle in balance.
2)There are three enzymes in the body that need molybdenum: sulfite oxidase (SUOX), xanthine oxidase, and aldehyde oxidase. Xanthine oxidase helps to convert intermediates to uric acid. Milk that has been homogenized increases the level of xanthine oxidase in the milk. This may be a more subtle aspect of dairy free diets to limit excess xanthine oxidase in the system. Too much xanthine oxidase, like increased sulfite oxidase activity runs the risk of depleting molybdenum. Finally aldehyde oxidase is involved in addressing yeast (Candida) in the body. The net effect of homogenized milk + Candida + high levels of sulfites is to increase the activity through these three molybdenum containing enzymes and potentially deplete levels of important intermediates.
3) High levels of overall sulfur in the body can trigger the cortisol stress reaction. There are entire PPTs I have given on the topic of stress. Also high levels of sulfur groups in general can exacerbate other situations in the body with excess glutamate and throw off the epinephrine/norepineprhine ratio. As I spoke about when reviewing the methylation cycle this past Oct (see that DVD/PPT too) one way to look at the methionine portion of the methylation cycle is that it serves as a way to have sulfur and ammonia groups tied up or complexed in molecules. As you work your way through the transulfuration pathway it frees up sulfites and ammonia that the body then needs to deal with and eliminate.
To summarize, in my opinion the issue with high sulfates is three fold, one it indicates high levels of sulfites and excess transulfuration activity, two it suggests that molybdenum and B12 may be depleted from the system and three that the cortisol reaction and imbalances in norep/epi may be a factor due to high total levels of sulfur containing groups.
With love, hope and a hug,
Dr.Amy
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:47 pm Post subject: My doctor's response
I should have known my doctor wouldn't ignore my question. I've included her response as well.
Here is my doctor's reply:
Angela,
I have gone through and responded to each area of inquiry regarding sulfites/sulfates and the CBS/SUOX issue. As you know, I have been working on this issue for quite some time and ultimately, I've found that it comes down to being able to accept new evidence. So many in science and medicine are like any other field. We learn things one way and have a devil of a time learning it in another. We resist change. And we resist it even more so when someone comes along and easily dismantles all that we believed in and shows us an entirely new way! How dare she! Yet when you look at the science, its not contradictory at all.
For example, when people look at Dr. Waring's work regarding sulfur, they fail to consider each child's severity and individual responses. Some of the children did do well on sulfur donors but I highly doubt these were the CBS/SUOX kids. There were also those who did not respond well to sulfates at all and upon further study, I believe they would have found these children have the CBS and/or SUOX defects. It isn't an all or nothing concept here. Both sides are right depending on their population. However, Yasko sees the sickest kids out there and these are the kids that are not going to be the typical responders by any stretch of the imagination.
As for Jill James work, she did reveal that glutathione and other methylation pathway co-factors (SAH/SAM ratios) came up to better (athough not normal levels) but the end point is that despite improvement in methylation parameters, the children were NO BETTER. Perhaps they had better tests and maybe this would even lead to improved health (fewer viral illnesses) yet I was at The MIND Institute when she delivered these findings and she admitted that NONE of the children had any real changes in their autism. Better tests sound nifty to a scientist but ask any parent what they want to see and they'll categorically say "I want my child to be like everyone elses," yet this clearly did not happen. She may have proven that you can throw many things against a brick wall and plenty will stick but no testing was done to see what the ammonia and sulfite levels were in these now "improved" children or wheher those with the CBS took longer to respond (as they did in Rich's case studies) despite the fact that they all essentially remained outwardly unchanged. I believe these kids have factors such as the CBS (and even worse defects) so would not have significant changes in their autism. Dr. james isn't wrong, she did see an improvement in methylation tests. I also don't believe Dr. Yasko was wrong, since the kids didn't really improve. It doesn't have to be all or nothing as people try to make it.
In Dr. van K's study, he did show that after a period of time, methylation parameters would improve (glutathione, SAM/SAH) yet he did not have the funding to fully test the downstream results and look at ammonia levels, sulfite levels, etc. And, while many of these CFS patients did improve, some going back to work, many had only slight improvements (but were far from functional!) and I believe further study would reveal that these people had more severe defects such as the CBS, SUOX, ACAT, & SHMT. Though his was just an initial study, it most certainly confirmed what Dr. Yasko has said all along, that this CBS up regulation drains the pathway. Yet it also showed that there were other ways to get there since his simpler protocol was quite helpful. The next step is to look beyond bringing up the methylation parameters by testing toxic intermediates downstream, in order to see how these correlate with those least benefited by even the Simplified methylation protocol. I believe this is where the rubber will meet the road.
I could also go through and delineate how this applies to Dr. Cutler's work as well. He is brilliant and has helped many adults and children, however, the fact remains that he hasn't been able to help many of the sickest kids and adults. I believe that further scrutiny would reveal that this is related to too much sulfur (or ammonia) accumulating in those who cannot process them. However, there are probably other factors as well, such as the ACAT, SHMT, or other issues we haven't yet discovered. In all honesty, I think the fact that Yasko was an outsider helped clarify things. When you are in the midst of things, you can easily miss the forest for the trees and oftentimes, it helps to have a fresh perspective. Moreover, Amy has now had a decade's worth of research under her belt.
Furthermore, while The DAN! has been a blessing to many, the kids who have not responded have moved on to the last bastion of recovery and healing--Yasko. She clearly has a wealth of information and knowledge regarding the sickest segment of the population yet instead of welcoming her ideas and theories they have been universally shunned. Why is this? It seems odd until you delve deeper. The fact remains that scientists are highly competitive professionals who put a lot of time, resources, and energy into their life's work and theories. It must be very hard then, to have someone else such as an outsider, come along and casually delineate a comprehensive theory that weaves everyone's together while going deeper still to reveal the bigger picture.
Don't forget how dligently scientists from around the world struggled to keep their secrets to themselves with the discovery of HIV/AIDS. People were dying in droves yet these men and women were more concerned with receiving the credit and achieving the the nobel prize.The point is, scientists are humans, not deities, and they can make mistakes for a number of reasons.
I certainly don't mean to imply that Dr. James, Cutler, Waring, etc., have knowingly sacrificed anyone in order to achieve such glory because I honestly don't believe that. They are clearly brilliant, dedicated researchers who like most everyone else, see their own little piece of the puzzle and have their own agendas and beliefs. Think for a moment.......have you ever been so absolutely "sure" about something, only to find out later that you were quite wrong? It's not easy for most of us and yet, in order to truly move forward,we have to deal with it. Yet, we are all human and as such, tend to muck things up. Many of us seem driven toward "black & white" or "all or nothing" theories so that you're either in one camp or the other when we should really be using any & all information in order to discover the source for healing our most precious resources.
And while others may say that even with a CBS up-regulation, The Urea Cycle should be plenty adequate in compensating for the excess wastes, how many children with more severe forms of autism or adults with debilitating cases of CFS have well functioning Urea cycles? If nothing else, Dr. Martin Pall's work on the NO/ONOO cycle has shown this is definitely not the case, therefore, this is a specious argument. For example, I could purchase an anti-bear whistle and blow it three times a day and when I don't see bears, is it really because of the bear whistle? Or, could it be that we didn't have a bear problem in the first place? Or maybe the bears are in an entirely different area. As thinking beings, we can come up all kinds of highly rationale sounding arguments for one thing or another yet it doesn't make it categorically true. Bottom line, if Dr. Pall, and a plethora of other researchers, have shown deficiencies within the urea cycle, how can this possibly compensate for excess CBS dumping? And why do so many chronically ill adults and children remain chronically ill, despite these highly valuable tools & treatments? It seems prudent to look beyond the surface so we can answer these troubling questions instead of continuing to argue about why someone else is wrong and another is right. I think most of us have found that truth tends to lie somewhere in the middle.
Yet instead of working together, thats not how things seem to work. Ultimately, you have to play the game and if Dr. Yasko has broken any laws of the universe, its that she's decided not to play. She chose to focus on recovering these kids first and foremost and I commend her for that. She had years of being a highly respected scientist and yet willingly chose not to spend her time in the research lab but to fix our future generation, all with a huge price--her reputation. How many people would do this? While I'd like to be able to count myself in her league, of this, I am highly dubious. As you know, I may not always agree with Dr. Yasko's methods or theories but I do respect the fact that when she's wrong, she openly admits it. She also used to think that the more sulfur the better and has since had to change that for these particular defects.
I could also go on to detail the fact that high sulfur levels raise cortisol levels or that the G6PD enzyme is impacted by sulfur, yet you've undoubtedly read about that in the Dr. Yasko posts my assistant, Renee, sent you. Angela, when people question you or accuse you of being "blinded" or "somehow misguided," you can tell them quite simply that you see the shades of grey in the world. Both sides have a story to tell and it isn't limited to one side of the story as so many ardently attempt to make it. The fact of the matter is, they may have helped many people but there are also many others left sick & floundering, many of which Dr.Yasko has pieced back together. What of them? Unfortunately, nothing is truly black and white, especially in recovering yourself or a child.
All the best to you!
April
April Ward-Hauge MS, NP, BCIM
Autism Nutrigenomics Treatment, Inc
& Adult Biomolecular Medicine
