So... in other words... Yasko and Lynch are just peddling their wares?!
That very much seems to be the case for Yasko, based on the complicated and protracted regimens for which she sells a lot of expensive supplements. Lynch might just be blindly repeating Yasko's claims - this seems to be a very prevalent problem both with patients and practitioners.
But what about the people who have followed the Yasko/Lynch protocols (or Freddd or whoever else) based on their 23andMe results, and have found better health?
Freddd's protocol has nothing at all to do with 23andMe or Yasko. There's also no way to know how many have been helped by Yasko's protocols, because she doesn't bother to publish anything. Is it any better than placebo? How many have experiences which contradict the expectations of her protocol? We don't know.
My observation here on this forum is that many people with supposed CBS +/+ have none of the problems which Yasko claims they should have. And many who are -/- do seem to have sulfur issues. This suggests that CBS is indeed not connected to problems.
But because 50% of the population is +/+ or +/- for C699T and 35% for A360A, nearly everyone is going to "fail" the test and have a variation which supposedly requires treatment. And some of those really might benefit from a lower sulfur diet for reasons completely unrelated to CBS, and some might simply experience a placebo effect or assume it must be helping even if they don't notice any changes.
Does this mean you disagree with the notion of addressing the CBS mutation before you're able to address the MTHFR mutations? (Or are you saying there's no point in addressing mutations at all?)
There are no CBS variations on the Yasko list which require any treatment, because there is research showing that they have very little or no impact at all. Some people might feel better if they avoid sulfur, but it has nothing to do with their 23andMe results.
My Homocysteine is very, very, very low. It's at a 4, well below the lab range for normal. I've read in a few places how this is connected -- again -- to the CBS. But you're saying no? Just trying to understand. I'm lost!
No, it's not due to CBS variations. It might possibly be due to other factors which speed up the functioning of the enzyme produced by the CBS gene, but that is purely speculation. More likely is that it doesn't involve CBS at all.
