Sources? Qualifications of claims?
I'm new here, so pardon me if I still don't know how things are done around here (for ex., how "bold" -- to speak Wikipedia-ese -- one should be). So I'll pose ?s here on the talk page instead of making any changes directly to the main content.
First, thanks for the info about Yasko methylation. Very interesting! (And potentially very useful.) But there are a few statements that might warrant qualification or expansion. For ex.:
"The following explanations of the SNPs are from a number of sources, although specific SNPS, the categories, and the behavioral effects are mostly from Yasko."
What does "from Yasko" mean? From unpublished material? From a non-peer-reviewed book? Many of these SNPs get zero hits on a Medline search.
"If you are interested in pursuing Yasko Methylation, your best care will be given as a patient of Dr. Yasko."
I can see that the best person to help you pursue Yasko Methylation would be Yasko, but is that the same as saying that will mean the best care?
In my mind, this page serves three purposes.
People who are interested in Yasko methylation often reference SNPedia when researching and discussing the involved SNPs. (There is also a Yasko category on the Promethease reports, by the way.) Actually, this page has been a part of SNPedia for quite some time. I just put some effort into developing it. There is an audience for this stuff. Along those lines, there seems to be quite a lot of anecdotal stories from the parents of Autistic children who have gone to Yasko and are seeing very obvious improvements. In online forums for chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia, you'll see real grass-roots interest in pursuing her treament (but outside of her practice) in addressing their problems. Is it part of the standard of care in nutrition? Absolutely not. I think you're politely asking, "What is this garbage?" And I know I personally would like to see this stuff either refuted or to make its way into the standard of care.
Second, I totally agree with what you say about the SNPs getting zero hits and the only source as to their function or benefit is Dr. Amy Yasko herself. When I say it comes from Dr. Yasko, it generally would be a non-peer-reviewed book, or statements gleemed from treatment notes, or one of the sources at the top of the page. Another editor has already fact-checked something I put on VDR. As it turns out, they were right, I got the effects reveresed. About putting this stuff on SNPedia in general, I feel much more comfortable putting her views on a page about Yasko methylation than I do directly editing her views directly into the SNP pages. Along those lines, if there are SNPs that only Yasko is talking about, yeah, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to point them out in this article.
Third, and I admit I could be wrong here, because the topic is Yasko methylation (and not an SNP page), I felt that I had a little more license to express her views here without qualifying everything. Still, references would be good. But they're all going to lead back to just a handful of documents (likely some of the ones listed at the top).
BTW, I agree with your statement about "...the best care". My intent there was to try to discourage people from thinking they could just look up the SNPs, read Yasko's treatment protocol, and to start guzzling down supplements. -McJosh 14:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- So far, I think both comments above are 100% correct. SNPedia is not restricted to fully verifiable information, so skepticism is justified. We try to highlight what is 'known' and claimed, so that further deeper analysis can continue. I'm personally quite skeptical of anything which is too strongly associated with any one person, and this Topic is the best example I have of that concern. All are encouraged to add whatever qualifiers or doubts you may have, to the Yasko Methylation page. Be Bold --- cariaso 15:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Direction that I'm considering going with the edits
Here is the direction I'm thinking about going with my edits:
- We current have commentary at the gene level, but I think I want to see commentary on each SNP
- Each gene should have a category of how these interact with the other genes (COMT and VDR/Taq, for example)
- A section with just peer-reviewed sources. How many articles are there on an SNP? What do they say? I think it would be good to illuminate what Seven7 was saying and show the SNPs that only seem to make an appearance under Yasko and don't have any other literature behind them.
- Go ahead and list the dietary supplements that Yasko recommends for each gene
These three are more opinions:
- Reorder the SNPs by Yasko's order of treatment, which I believe is SHMT/ACAT, CBS, MTHFR, MTR/MTRR, BHMT, MAO A, SUOX, NOS, VDR.
- I'm personally torn a bit between by two things. One is the constant media attention on how the "western diet" and "western lifestyle" is the source of many of our health problems in America. The other is the high frequency of mutations that Yasko treats. The connection seems a little too good to be true, and people should rightfully be skeptical. I can't answer that question, but I think I'd still like to see the frequencies of these genotypes listed side-by-side with the presentation here, even if it is duplicated to some extent on the individual SNP pages. A probability analysis of Yasko Methylation would likely suggest that it has something that applies to just about everyone.
- More on previous point, I'm wondering if another page should go more towards the broader category of nutrigenomics. There are other SNPs outside of Yasko which potentially could benefit from a similar idea (using nutritional supplements to address genetic weakness). And I think that even the things Yasko advocates would have less problems if they weren't bundled up under one provider's name, and individually evaluated under a banner of nutrigenomics. For example, you have this [Italian nutrigenomic panel]. They have another panel that [seems more like Yasko] and is called an Autism Panel.
I'm really not sure what to do about this kind of semi-quackery. It's not full-quackery, so I wouldn't just delete it. But it is a mixture of actual science and quackery.
The genes are actually interesting ones. But, for example, mutations in COMT (even though only half of white people have it) are one of the many genetic changes that together make white people have the intelligence and personality of white people (capable of creating western civilisation) instead of black people. "Curing" those mutations would make the west more like Africa. The scientists whose DNA is mentioned on dbSNP have the mutation. Clearing dopamine from the frontal cortex 33% slower is a useful mutation for half the people to have. --06:11, 23 October 2013 User:CarlKenner
- The population frequencies for
- show only subtle differences across the HapMap populations. The slight trend for Caucasians appears to be quite comparable for Gujarati Indians. Given the high number of Gujarati Jains and their religious emphasis on non-violence I can speculate there may have been some pressure against the 'warrior' genotype, but I don't see evidence it has produced a society which fits neatly into your Western/African divide. Even if there was a substantial population frequency difference, Most Reported Genetic Associations with General Intelligence Are Probably False Positives so extrapolating such tenuous evidence to explain the trajectories of global societies seems unfounded. I think you are seeing what you want to see, without significant evidence. --- cariaso 17:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I came across geneticgenie while researching ehlers danlos syndrome and thought a lot of these genes and metabolites looked familiar. most of what they were saying made sense. so i was surprised to find this big warning banner at the top of yasko's snpedia page.
let's take a look at what the links actually say about yasko, and whether they're warranted.
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Nonrecorg/clayton.html quackwatch generally hates anyone who isn't a republican MD with degrees from harvard and yale. in this case they criticise yasko simply for attending a naturopathic institution in the past, and for claiming she can help with various neurological and autoimmune disorders. which is basically her whole schtick in the first place, so no new information here.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/crank-conferences-a-parody-of-science-based-medicine-that-can-suck-in-even-reputable-scientists-and-institutions/ this article has nothing to do with yasko, except for a complaint that RNA is unstable in solution. woo, big deal. so are many drugs. (i can't find anything about RNA on yasko's current website.) in fact it presents her as one of the more responsible attendees.
http://autism.about.com/b/2008/02/27/snake-oil-for-autism-have-you-been-a-victim.htm this link has absolutely nothing to do with yasko except for a comment by a guy complaining about his wife and house payments, but the url implies that the article says that yasko is selling "snake oil for autism"
I can't access the 23andme thread since my subscription has long since expired.
if you want to accuse someone of being a fraud, please do it in a forthright manner by criticizing the science, not the person. why are these links prominently displayed at the top of the article as a warning to the reader? they have practically nothing to do with the content of the article, which is basically "here are some genes Yasko thinks are interesting in the context of mental disorders" which is supported by the work of other scientists.
propose deleting the links unless someone has a good reason not to
- fenn 2014-02-04