I do get the impression that the methylation protocol, when discussed on this forum, often descends into pseudoscience.
This is not to say that methylation does not help some ME/CFS patients; however, no other protocol used by ME/CFS patients gets into this highly ornate Nth degree discussion on how, when a ME/CFS patient has found no benefit from methylation, there may be blockages or obstacles to it working.
When the methylation protocol does not help, it's not just a simple case of accepting that methylation was not useful for the patient; if it did not help, then there is this idea that if the patient could just make some cunning adjustments to their protocol, it would suddenly begin to work.
With other ME/CFS protocols or treatments (such oxymatrine, inosine, Valcyte, low-dose naltrexone), patients may try them, and if they are found not to work for them, that is that, and a patient will move on to another protocol to try out.
But not so with the methylation protocol. If that does not work, patients then get involved in all this ornate speculation about methylation blockages or obstacles, which sound like very science-like, but I am not aware of any empirical evidence supporting the idea that methylation can be blocked by one of the "cogs" getting stuck in the machinery of methylation.
What's worse, although there is no empirical evidence for overcoming these blockages that I have come across — and not even any decent anecdotal evidence (I don't know anyone on this forum who has overcome these mythical blockages) — people on will often talk about all this Nth degree discussion on methylation blockages as if were fact.
When you present as a fact something that at best is highly speculative, that is pseudoscience.