MTHFR and the Reductionist Reflex
An Essay on the Test, the Supplement, and the Person
Author’s Note
This essay uses establishment terminology — MTHFR, methylation cycle, dihydrofolate reductase, polymorphism — strategically. These are the names by which the relevant biochemistry is known and the language in which the relevant research is published. Using these names is not an endorsement of the framework that calls them the level at which life happens. The argument of this essay is that life does not happen at this level, and that the entire diagnostic apparatus built around testing genetic variants and prescribing molecular cofactors operates downstream of where the action actually is. The mainstream evidence cited below — Bailey and Ayling in PNAS, Smith and colleagues in AJCN, Morris and colleagues in AJCN — is establishment-against-itself evidence: published in flagship journals, edited and approved by some of the most-cited researchers in their fields, never retracted, and quietly ignored by the clinical practice it should have ended.
This essay builds on prior work in this series. The treatment of the immune system as a conceptual rescue device for germ theory was developed in What Is the Immune System? The treatment of antibodies as inferred rather than observed entities was developed in What Is an Antibody? The reading of MTHFR polymorphisms as adaptive response to industrial folic acid exposure was first sketched in What Is Dyslexia? The philosophical foundations drawn on here belong to Thomas Cowan, the Baileys, Stefan Lanka, Mark Gober, Harold Hillman, Bruce Lipton, and the broader terrain tradition. Where their language is used, attribution is given. Where the argument depends on a particular interpretive overlay, that overlay is named as such.
The Finger
You raise your finger because you decided to raise it.
The decision came first. Your motor cortex did not generate the decision — your motor cortex transmitted the decision, after the decision was already made, to the muscles that perform the movement. The chemistry of the synapse, the neurotransmitters at the neuromuscular junction, the calcium ion that triggers the actin-myosin contraction in the muscle fibre — every one of these is downstream. Every one of them happens because you decided. None of them happens and then you decide.
Anyone who has ever decided to do anything has direct, immediate, repeatable evidence of this. You can test it right now. Decide to raise your finger. Watch what happens. The decision is upstream of the chemistry. The chemistry is the means by which the decision becomes movement. The chemistry is not the decision.
Medicine pretends otherwise. Medicine pretends the chemistry produces the thought, the genes produce the person, the enzyme produces the mood. The pretence requires that we agree to ignore what we directly experience every time we move. It requires that we treat ourselves, when on the examining table, as objects we do not experience ourselves as being when we are off it.
The MTHFR test is one expression of this pretence. It looks at a stretch of DNA — a polymorphism in the gene that codes for the enzyme methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase — and proposes to explain the patient’s tiredness, anxiety, foggy thinking, miscarriages, depression, and difficulty concentrating as downstream consequences of the upstream genetic variant. The patient’s life — the food, the relationships, the toxic exposures, the meaning, the work, the love — is offstage. The DNA is centre stage. The patient is told they have a defect. They are prescribed methylated folate. They are managed.
This essay is about why the test is wrong, why the framework that produces the test is wrong, and where the action actually is.
Support This Work
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
Paid subscribers get access to all books — including The DMSO Book, The Kitchen Remedies Guide, Chlorine Dioxide, The PSA Trap, Breast Cancer, and more — with 1-2 new books added each month. Plus the Deep Dive Audio Library: 180+ in-depth audio book summaries and discussions.
I do this work independently, outside the institutions these books so often describe. No foundation grants, no academic approval, no editorial gatekeepers deciding what’s acceptable to publish. Your subscription makes that independence possible.
Pricing Update: The annual subscription moves from $50 AUD to $50 USD on May 7 (now extended from May 1) — the first change in five years. Current paid subscribers keep their existing rate. Free subscribers can lock in the current price by upgrading before May 7.
Stage One: The Chain of Unproven Assumptions
The MTHFR story, told the way it is told to patients and to the more sophisticated alternative-medicine clientele, sounds like this. There is an enzyme called methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase. It converts one form of folate (5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate) into another (5-methyltetrahydrofolate), which then donates a methyl group to homocysteine to form methionine, which then becomes S-adenosylmethionine, the universal methyl donor for hundreds of biochemical reactions in the body. About thirty to forty percent of the population carry one of two common variants in the MTHFR gene — the C677T variant and the A1298C variant. Carriers of these variants have reduced enzyme activity. Reduced enzyme activity means reduced ability to produce 5-methyltetrahydrofolate. This means impaired methylation, which means impaired detoxification, neurotransmitter synthesis, DNA stability, and a long list of other consequences. The solution is to bypass the broken enzyme by supplying the active form directly: methylfolate, methylcobalamin, and the rest of the methylation-support stack.
Each step in this story rests on an assumption. None of the assumptions has been demonstrated. The clinical practice operates as though all of them are settled.
The mitochondrion problem
The methylation cycle is taught as a sequence of reactions occurring in mitochondria and cytoplasm, catalysed by named enzymes, transferring methyl groups between named substrates. The whole architecture depends on the structures being real and the reactions occurring in living tissue as they occur in test tubes.
Harold Hillman spent four decades documenting why this assumption is unsafe. When a tissue is prepared for electron microscopy or any other form of cellular examination, the animal is killed, the tissue is excised, the tissue is fixed or frozen, the tissue is embedded in resin, the tissue is sectioned into slices thinner than a wavelength of visible light, the sections are rehydrated, the sections are stained with heavy-metal compounds, the sections are mounted, and the sections are bombarded with electron beams. What is observed at the end of this process is not a living cell. It is a chemically saturated, dehydrated, sliced, irradiated artefact of the preparation procedures. The structures drawn in every cell biology textbook — ribosomes as perfect circles, the endoplasmic reticulum as a tubular network, mitochondria as bean-shaped organelles with cristae and matrix — are derived from these preparations.
Cowan, drawing on Hillman, makes the point about ribosomes with a single observation. In every electron micrograph and every textbook drawing, ribosomes appear as perfect circles. To find a ribosome, the cell has to be homogenised — put in a blender. Any structure that always appears as a perfect circle in a two-dimensional cross-section must, if real, have been a perfect sphere in three-dimensional living tissue. When a perfect sphere is put in a blender, it cannot come out as a perfect circle. This violates the basic geometry of how spheres divide. The circles are not spheres. They are stained gas bubbles — artefacts of the homogenisation, fixation, and staining process. Hillman concluded that ribosomes as drawn in the textbooks cannot exist inside an intact cell.
Hillman extended the same argument to the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi apparatus, the unit membrane, and the nuclear pores. None of these structures has been observed in living tissue. All of them are visible only through preparations that kill the tissue first. The endoplasmic reticulum, Cowan notes, was “invented” — the term is precise — to solve the problem biologists faced when they theorised that DNA is contained in the nucleus, which is bound by a membrane. Some structure was needed to connect the nucleus to the rest of the cell so that the DNA’s instructions could reach the protein-synthesising machinery. The endoplasmic reticulum was proposed. Electron micrographs were then produced that appeared to show it. The cycle closed.
Hillman observed in his 2011 paper Cell Biology at the Beginning of the 21st Century is in Dire Straits that biologists have shown little interest in the effects that their own preparation procedures have on the structure and chemistry of the tissues they study. This has led them, in his words, into the study of many artefacts and distortions of the chemistry of living systems. The medical establishment did not refute Hillman. It ignored him. He published outside the conventional journals, his website went down after his death in 2016, and his work survives in the citations of dissident researchers who have read it.
The terrain reading is calibrated. Bacteria of the kind we call mitochondria are real. Lynn Margulis, building on Ivan Wallin’s 1927 work, demonstrated that what we call mitochondria are bacterial in origin and live symbiotically within most animal cells. The acknowledgement now appears in mainstream cell biology textbooks. Whether the specific architecture of the mitochondrion as drawn — outer membrane, inner membrane folded into cristae, matrix containing enzymes and DNA, electron transport chain in the inner membrane, ATP synthase rotating like a molecular motor — exists in the living cell as it appears in the textbook is a separate question. It has not been answered by direct observation of living tissue. It has been answered by inference from artefacts.
The methylation cycle is taught as occurring inside and around these structures. The certainty of the diagram is not the certainty of the observation.
The enzyme pathway problem
The methylation cycle on the whiteboard is a sequence of arrows. MTHFR converts 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate to 5-methyltetrahydrofolate. Methionine synthase, with B12 as cofactor, transfers the methyl group from 5-methyltetrahydrofolate to homocysteine. The product is methionine. Methionine is activated to S-adenosylmethionine. S-adenosylmethionine donates methyl groups to acceptors. The cycle closes with homocysteine, which is either remethylated or shunted into the transsulphuration pathway.
Each arrow represents a reaction that has been demonstrated to occur in vitro — in a test tube, at controlled pH, with purified substrates and purified enzymes, at concentrations and temperatures the experimenters chose. The leap is from “this reaction occurs in a beaker” to “this reaction occurs in your living cells in this sequence at this rate to produce this clinical outcome.” That leap has not been made. It has been assumed.
Hillman’s framing was that the proper subject of molecular biology should be the chemistry of intact biological systems — the chemistry as it actually occurs inside living tissue, not the chemistry of dissected, fragmented, purified components in a glass vessel. The discipline that calls itself molecular biology, he argued, is mostly the chemistry of dead and broken material. The clinical practice of MTHFR testing collapses this distinction. It measures a polymorphism, infers a reduced enzyme activity from population statistics on purified protein assays, and prescribes a cofactor on the assumption that the in vitro chemistry maps directly to the in vivo events. There is no demonstration that it does. There is the assumption that it does.
The gene-codes-for-protein problem
The Human Genome Project began in 1990 with the expectation that it would catalogue between 100,000 and 140,000 human genes, each coding for a specific protein, the catalogue together describing the molecular machinery of human biology. When the project completed its first draft in 2001, the count was approximately 30,000. Successive refinements through the 2000s brought the count down further. The number is now generally given as around 19,000 to 20,000 protein-coding genes — fewer genes than a grain of rice, fewer genes than a water flea, fewer genes than the project’s original framework had any way to accommodate.
The “one gene, one protein” model that justified the project was contradicted by the project itself. The same stretch of DNA, depending on how it is transcribed, spliced, and post-translationally modified, gives rise to many different proteins. The same protein, depending on where it sits and what it interacts with, performs different functions. The linear chain — gene to messenger RNA to protein to function — described in every introductory biology textbook is a simplification so severe that the people doing the actual research no longer use it as a working model.
The MTHFR framework is built on the simplification. The story requires that a specific stretch of DNA codes for a specific protein (the MTHFR enzyme), that a single-nucleotide variation in that stretch produces a specific change in that protein, and that the changed protein has a predictable, quantifiable, clinically meaningful reduction in activity. None of these steps survives the picture the genome project actually produced.
Bruce Lipton’s experiments demonstrated something the central dogma cannot accommodate. When Lipton placed genetically identical cells in different culture media, the cells expressed different genes, produced different proteins, and behaved differently. As Lipton put it: “If I changed the environmental situation, the fate of the cells would be altered.” The genes were the same. The environment was different. The biology was different. Genes do not control the cell. The environment of the cell controls the expression of the genes.
The MTHFR test is not testing for a defect. It is testing for a polymorphism — a variant — and then declaring the variant a defect.
What the polymorphism is actually doing
In 2009, Steven Bailey and June Ayling at the University of South Alabama reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on a question that had quietly haunted the folate-fortification field for two decades. Folic acid — pteroylmonoglutamic acid, the synthetic oxidised form added to flour, breakfast cereal, pasta, and prenatal vitamins since the 1998 US fortification mandate — is not the active form of the vitamin. It is a precursor. Before folic acid can enter the methylation cycle, it must be converted to tetrahydrofolate by the enzyme dihydrofolate reductase, DHFR. The active forms of folate found in fresh leafy greens and liver are already reduced; they enter the cycle directly. Synthetic folic acid does not. It must be processed first.
Bailey and Ayling measured DHFR activity directly in fresh human liver samples obtained from organ donors and surgical specimens. They reported their finding in language that journal editors at the National Academy of Sciences allowed to stand: the reduction of folic acid by DHFR per gram of human liver was, on average, less than two percent of that in rat liver at physiological pH. Fifty-six times lower. The paper was edited and approved by Bruce Ames, the Berkeley biochemist whose name is on the Ames test for mutagenicity and whose career places him among the most cited researchers in the field. The conclusion, published openly: human DHFR is “quickly saturated by folic acid doses above the US Daily Value, with higher intake providing little further increase of active folate.”
This is not a finding about a sub-population with a defect. It is a finding about the species. Humans, considered as a species, are poorly equipped to process synthetic folic acid. The enzyme that does the processing is, in our liver, two percent as active as the same enzyme in a laboratory rat. The folic acid that exceeds DHFR’s limited capacity does not enter the methylation cycle. It circulates in the bloodstream as unmetabolised folic acid. It accumulates.
The year before, Smith, Kim, and Refsum had asked the question their American Journal of Clinical Nutrition paper put in its title: “Is folic acid good for everyone?” Their review documented that in the elderly, the combination of high folate levels and low B12 was associated with increased risk of cognitive impairment and anaemia. In pregnant women, the same combination was associated with increased risk of insulin resistance and obesity in the resulting children. Folate had a dual effect on cancer — protective against initiation but facilitating progression of pre-existing preneoplastic cells and subclinical cancers, both of which are common in the population. Their conclusion: “a high folic acid intake may be harmful for some people. Nations considering fortification should be cautious.”
Morris and colleagues had documented the empirical pattern the year before that, in 2007. Their paper, also in AJCN, analysed NHANES data on elderly Americans following the 1998 fortification mandate. Participants with high serum folate combined with low B12 showed the worst cognitive performance — worse than those with low folate, worse than those with adequate B12.
Three papers. Two flagship journals. None retracted. None contradicted. None refuted. The empirical picture they together establish is not in dispute. Synthetic folic acid is poorly metabolised in human tissue. Doses at or above the US Daily Value rapidly saturate DHFR. Unmetabolised folic acid circulates and accumulates. The combination of accumulated folic acid and inadequate B12 produces cognitive impairment, masks B12 deficiency, and may accelerate progression of subclinical cancers. The 1998 fortification mandate exposed the entire post-grain-eating population of the United States to this combination. The harm is documented in mainstream journals by mainstream researchers.
The interpretive question is what the MTHFR polymorphism is doing in this picture.
The mainstream answer: a genetic defect, requiring correction with high-dose synthetic methylated folate.
The terrain answer: in a population where roughly half the food supply is fortified with synthetic pteroylmonoglutamic acid, where DHFR is already saturated, where unmetabolised folic acid is already accumulating, a downregulation of MTHFR activity is not a defect. It is the body’s protective response. The body is reducing the rate at which it processes a substrate that is already overloaded and producing harm. Calling this protection a defect requires assuming that the synthetic-folic-acid-saturated environment is the environment the body should be operating in. It is not. It is the environment imposed on the body by mid-twentieth-century food policy.
A body refusing to process a synthetic industrial chemical at full speed is not exhibiting a defect. It is doing its job.
To be clear about what each source supports: Bailey and Ayling established the mechanism — DHFR’s species-level inadequacy for synthetic folic acid. Smith, Kim, and Refsum established the population-level harm — the empirical pattern of damage from high folic acid intake. Morris and colleagues established the post-fortification empirical pattern in the elderly. None of these papers themselves argues that MTHFR polymorphisms are adaptive. They establish the empirical foundation. The reading of the polymorphism as protection rather than defect is the interpretive overlay this essay advances. The empirical foundation, however, is the establishment’s own work, published in its own flagship journals, ignored by its own clinical practice.
Stage Two: What the Supplement Is Actually Doing
This is the stage that earns the curious skeptic. The argument fails immediately if it appears to deny that B-vitamins, methylated folate, ivermectin, or metformin can produce effects. They can. Many people report feeling better. The point is not that nothing happens.
The point is what is actually happening, and at what cost.
Cowan’s framing of this principle, given in his webinar response on MTHFR, is that removing the body’s adaptive response leaves the person more vulnerable. He uses the example of a tumour. A tumour is not a foreign invader. It is a growth of tissue capable of sequestering toxic material. When the liver — the body’s primary detoxification organ — is overwhelmed by a sustained toxic burden, the body responds by growing additional tissue capable of taking up the work. The tumour is the response, not the disease. Calling the tissue cancer and removing it does not address the toxic burden that prompted its formation. It removes the body’s adaptive response to the burden. The patient is now more vulnerable, not less. The “remission” that sometimes follows infection in cancer patients — documented in the medical literature, including in Lester’s What Really Makes You Ill? — is the body completing the elimination process the tumour was attempting to facilitate, through a cascade of fever, sweating, vomiting, and diarrhoea that the tumour itself was a less acute version of.
The principle generalises. Inflammation is not pathology. It is repair. Suppressing inflammation does not address the injury that the inflammation was responding to. Fever is not pathology. It is accelerated metabolic clearing. Suppressing fever extends the duration of the toxic burden the fever was clearing. Vomiting and diarrhoea are not symptoms to be stopped. They are eliminations.
Herbert Shelton’s acute-to-chronic mechanism is the documentation. Suppress the acute response, add the new toxic burden of the suppressing agent, drive the system from acute crisis to chronic disease. The cycle is observable in the medical record of any patient on long-term pharmaceutical management. The acute illness was suppressed. The chronic condition emerged. The chronic condition is suppressed in turn. New conditions emerge. The medication list grows. The patient is now sicker than they were before the first prescription, and the trajectory is presented to them as the natural course of their disease rather than as the cumulative consequence of suppression.
Methylated folate, B12 injections, ivermectin, metformin — each of these acts on the system. None of them addresses the toxic burden, electromagnetic exposure, nutritional deficiency, or psychological strain that produced the condition the intervention is alleged to correct. Each of them adds new substances that the body now has to process. Some of these substances produce subjective improvement. The improvement is real. Whether the underlying terrain is restored, or whether an adaptive response has been suppressed and a new burden added, is a separate question. The first cannot be assumed from the second.
The methylated folate case is particularly worth examining. The patient comes to the practitioner with fatigue, brain fog, anxiety, perhaps a history of miscarriage. The practitioner orders the MTHFR test. The test returns positive for one of the common variants. The practitioner explains the genetic defect, prescribes 5-methyltetrahydrofolate at supraphysiological doses, often combined with methylcobalamin and other methylation cofactors. The patient takes the supplements. Over weeks or months, the patient reports feeling better. The fatigue lifts. The fog clears. The improvement is taken as confirmation of the diagnosis.
There are at least three explanations for the improvement, and the diagnostic story the patient was given is only one of them.
The first: the body’s responses to synthetic methylfolate are sometimes preferable to its responses to synthetic folic acid. Both are outside the system the body evolved to process — there is no methylfolate in the wild food supply at the doses contained in a modern supplement — but methylfolate at least bypasses DHFR’s limited capacity and does not accumulate in the bloodstream as unmetabolised folic acid. The improvement may be the consequence of removing a worse exposure, not the consequence of correcting a defect. The patient who improves on methylated folate after removing fortified breakfast cereals from their diet is improving for both reasons; the supplement is being credited with the work the dietary change is also doing.
The second: the supplement is suppressing an adaptive response. The MTHFR downregulation was the body’s attempt to slow processing of an overloaded substrate. The high-dose methylated folate forces the methylation cycle to run at a higher rate than the body had set it to run at. Methylation, as Yasko notes, is involved in almost every bodily biochemical reaction. Forcing it produces effects. Whether these effects represent restoration of function or pharmacologically driven activity that the body had wisely throttled is not a question the test can answer. The improvement may be the suppression of a protection rather than the correction of a fault.
The third: the placebo effect. Meaning, attention, expectation, and the experience of being cared for produce real biological responses that have nothing to do with the chemistry of the pill. The patient who has been told for years that they are mysteriously tired, who has been given no explanation that fits their experience, who finally receives a story that names a cause and prescribes a solution, will often improve on the story alone. The pill is the ritual object that makes the story real. The improvement is real. The story may not be.
All three explanations are consistent with the framework. None of them establish that a genetic defect was corrected. The clinical practice cannot distinguish between them, and does not try.
The structural problem is also worth naming. A patient told they have a genetic methylation defect requiring lifelong methylated B-vitamin supplementation is not cured. They are managed. They will return to the practitioner’s office every three to six months for the rest of their life, refilling prescriptions, monitoring levels, adjusting doses. The Goldman Sachs analyst’s question — “is curing patients a sustainable business model?” — applies to the alternative-medicine supplement industry as much as it applies to pharmaceuticals. The supplement model and the pharmaceutical model differ in their products. They do not differ in their structural relationship to the patient. Both produce a customer for life. Neither produces a person whose terrain has been restored to the point where they no longer need the practitioner.
The curious skeptic who has begun to doubt mainstream medicine often migrates to alternative medicine and encounters the same structural relationship. A different practitioner. A different vocabulary. The same transactional structure: I have credentialed knowledge of the substances; you have a deficiency or imbalance in those substances; I will prescribe what you need; you will pay me. The MTHFR test fits this structure exactly. It is the alternative-medicine version of the cholesterol test.
Stage Three: Where Life Actually Happens
Stage three is the philosophical move that distinguishes Cowan’s position from the typical alternative-medicine critique. Most alternative medicine accepts the materialist framework and substitutes different molecules. Vitamin D for the antibiotic. Methylated folate for the SSRI. Ivermectin for the drug marketed as an antiviral. The molecules differ. The framework is identical: a chemical input produces a clinical output through a biochemical mechanism.
Cowan’s argument is that this framework is wrong. Not partially wrong. Wrong about where life happens.
When asked why something works, doctors look for a substance or chemical. Cowan acknowledges in his webinars that he does this himself. He identifies two reasons. The first is genuine ignorance about how things actually work. The second, which he names directly, is the credentialed performance of secret knowledge. The chemical explanation justifies the doctor’s role. If healing turns out to be a function of love, attention, meaning, terrain, water, sunlight, sleep, food, and contact with the earth, then the doctor’s eight-year training in biochemistry is not the relevant qualification. If healing is a function of identifying the correct enzyme and prescribing the correct cofactor, then the doctor’s training is exactly the right qualification. The reductionist explanation flatters the explainer. It also charges by the appointment.
The MTHFR test is a particularly sophisticated instance of the credentialed performance of secret knowledge. The patient cannot read their own genome. The patient cannot interpret the polymorphism table. The patient cannot evaluate whether the prescribed methylfolate dose is correct. The patient is dependent on the practitioner who can. The dependency is the product. The supplement is the bill.
The deeper argument, which Cowan makes most clearly when he is not in clinical mode, is that nobody actually lives at the level the test operates on. You do not go for a walk because your knee wants four hundred flexions or your mitochondria need stimulation. You go for a walk because you wanted to go for a walk. The decision to walk, the intention to move, the experience of being a person in a body who chose to leave the house — none of this is reducible to biochemistry. None of it is biochemistry at all. It is mind, deciding, and being translated into physical action through a mechanism that has never been observed.
The Gober, Bailey, and Lanka collaboration An End to Upside Down Medicine builds the philosophical case at length. Physicalism — the assumption that matter exists prior to mind, that consciousness emerges from arrangements of atoms — is not parsimonious. It posits an unverifiable thing (matter outside consciousness) as the basis of a verifiable thing (conscious experience). Bernardo Kastrup, the philosopher whose work the book draws on, puts it directly: we do not, and fundamentally cannot, know matter as confidently as we know mind. The simpler framework, by Occam’s razor, is idealism: consciousness is primary, and what we call the physical world is the modulation of consciousness.
This is not mysticism imported into medicine from elsewhere. It is the position arrived at by the founders of the physical science medicine claims to be derived from. Max Planck, who founded quantum theory, said it directly in a 1931 interview with The Observer: “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness.” Erwin Schrödinger, the second great founder, wrote in Mind and Matter (1958): “Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind.” The physicalism that medicine still operates on is an eighteenth-century framework — useful for engineering bridges and machines, inadequate for living systems — that the physics it claims to be based on has long since superseded.
Cowan in The Contagion Myth extends the case to the brain itself. Most neuroscientists attempt to find the source of mind inside the organ they presume to be creating it. The presumption is taken as obvious. The presumption is also wrong, in the way that locating the source of a radio broadcast inside the radio is wrong. The radio is necessary. Damage the radio and the broadcast cannot be received. The broadcast does not originate in the radio. The brain receives, modulates, and transmits. It does not generate. The brain is the organ of the body with the highest water content — eighty percent water by volume, ten percent higher than other organs — and floats in salty, structured cerebrospinal fluid. Structured water carries electromagnetic information. The brain is a particularly elaborate antenna. It is not the source of what it receives.
If this picture is correct — and the body of evidence on consciousness, near-death experience, and the persistence of awareness during periods of measurable brain inactivity is consistent with it — then the entire framework of “fix the brain chemistry, fix the person” is based on a category error. The brain chemistry is downstream. The person is upstream. The MTHFR test, the SSRI, the methylated B-vitamin, the antipsychotic, the cognitive-behavioural therapy that treats thoughts as if they were generated by neurotransmitters — all of these operate on the receiver while the broadcast they are attempting to influence originates somewhere else.
Cowan’s phrase, given in his webinar response on MTHFR and elsewhere, is that life originates in mind, intention, emotion, and gets translated into physical action through a mechanism nobody understands. The mechanism’s existence is not negotiable. Whether or not we have a model for it, you raise your finger because you decided to raise your finger. The decision precedes the movement. The motor cortex fires because the decision was made, not because the motor cortex generated the decision. Every reader of this essay has the direct, immediate, repeatable evidence of this every time they make any voluntary movement. The materialist framework asks the reader to disbelieve their own moment-by-moment experience of what they are.
Medicine has divorced itself from this framework. It treats the body as if the parts produced the whole — as if the neurons produced the thought, the chemicals produced the mood, the genes produced the person. The MTHFR test is one instance of this divorce. It looks at a polymorphism in a stretch of DNA and proposes to explain the patient’s tiredness, anxiety, foggy thinking, miscarriages, depression. Whatever the patient is experiencing is explained as a downstream consequence of the upstream genetic variant. The patient’s life — their food, their relationships, their toxic exposures, their meaning, their work, their love — is offstage. The DNA is centre stage.
This is the divorce. The terrain framework reverses the arrow. Life originates in mind and meaning and intention, expresses itself through a body that requires clean water, clean food, clean air, a clean electromagnetic environment, and connection to other people. When those conditions are disrupted, the body responds. The response looks like symptoms. The symptoms are the body’s intelligence working to restore the conditions. Looking for the broken enzyme is looking in the wrong place. The enzyme is not broken. The conditions are broken. The enzyme is responding.
What the Test Cannot See
The MTHFR test measures a stretch of DNA that thirty to forty percent of the population carry as a variant. The test does not measure the patient’s water — whether it contains chlorine, fluoride, glyphosate, pharmaceutical residues, or aluminium. The test does not measure the patient’s food — whether it contains synthetic folic acid, seed oils, food dyes, glyphosate, or the nutritional poverty of soil that has been stripped of minerals by industrial agriculture. The test does not measure the patient’s electromagnetic environment — whether they sleep within three metres of a Wi-Fi router, hold a transmitting cellphone against their head for hours each day, live in a building flooded with smart-meter pulses. The test does not measure the patient’s relationships, work, sleep, sunlight exposure, contact with the earth, time spent moving their body in nature, or the meaning they find in their days.
The test measures none of this. The test then proposes to explain the patient’s life as a downstream consequence of the polymorphism it does measure. The patient pays for this. Sometimes the supplement helps. The terrain remains unaddressed. The bill recurs.
The terrain framework points to specific interventions and they are not nothing. Clean water, sourced or filtered. Real food, ideally local, ideally raised in soil that has not been chemically depleted. Removal of synthetic folic acid from the diet — which means reading labels and avoiding fortified flour products, fortified cereals, and most prenatal vitamins. Reduction of electromagnetic burden — wired connections instead of wireless where possible, hard-wired phones, distance from transmitters, particularly during sleep. Restoration of sleep on a natural circadian rhythm. Sunlight on skin without sunscreen, daily, for as much of the year as the latitude allows. Bare feet on earth. Contact with people who love the patient and whom the patient loves. Work that means something. Rest. The interventions are not new. They are not mysterious. They cost almost nothing. They are also not billable on the same model that supports a clinical practice. That is why they are so rarely the first line of recommendation.
Where the Action Is
Life is happening somewhere. It is not happening in the methylation cycle. It is not happening in the enzyme assay. It is not happening in the polymorphism. It is happening upstream of all of those — in the place where the decision to raise the finger is made, the decision that the motor cortex then transmits to the muscle that performs the movement.
Medicine has spent a century building elaborate descriptions of the receiver while the broadcast goes uninvestigated. The MTHFR test is a particularly sophisticated description of the receiver. The test, the supplement, the lifelong management plan, the conferences and certifications and supplement brands built around the methylation framework — all of it is the most refined possible attention to the wires and tubes and relays. The broadcast that those wires and tubes and relays exist to receive, the broadcast that is the patient’s life, is not the subject of the test and not the subject of the practitioner’s training.
The broadcast is the patient’s life. The broadcast is what wants attention. The broadcast is where the action is.
Explain It To A 6 Year Old
Your body is very clever. It always tries to keep you well.
Sometimes grown-ups put things in food that the body has never seen before — pretend vitamins made in factories. Your body looks at the pretend vitamin and says, “This is strange. I should not gobble this up too quickly, because I do not understand it.” So your body slows down a bit. It is being careful.
Then a doctor takes a tiny piece of you and looks at it. The doctor says, “Look! Your body is being a bit slow! There is something wrong with you.” The doctor sells your parents a special pill.
But your body was not being slow because something was wrong. Your body was being slow because something was wrong with the food. Your body was being clever and careful, the way you are careful when you taste something new and decide if you like it.
The pill is not really fixing anything. The food is what needed to change. The water is what needed to change. The way the family lives is what needed to change. The pill costs money every month, forever. Changing the food costs nothing — and it works.
The people who sell pills — even the natural pills from the nice shop — are looking at the wrong thing. They are looking at the tiny piece of you. They are not looking at your whole life.
You are not a tiny piece. You are a whole person, with a whole life. Your body is on your side. Trust it.
References
Bailey, S. W., & Ayling, J. E. (2009). The extremely slow and variable activity of dihydrofolate reductase in human liver and its implications for high folic acid intake. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(36), 15424–15429. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0902072106
Smith, A. D., Kim, Y. I., & Refsum, H. (2008). Is folic acid good for everyone? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 87(3), 517–533.
Morris, M. S., Jacques, P. F., Rosenberg, I. H., & Selhub, J. (2007). Folate and vitamin B-12 status in relation to anemia, macrocytosis, and cognitive impairment in older Americans in the age of folic acid fortification. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 85(1), 193–200.
Cowan, T. S. (2020). The Contagion Myth: Why Viruses (Including “Coronavirus”) Are Not the Cause of Disease. Skyhorse.
Cowan, T. S. (2022). Breaking the Spell: The Scientific Evidence for Ending the Covid Delusion. Skyhorse.
Gober, M., Bailey, S., Bailey, M., & Lanka, S. (2023). An End to Upside Down Medicine: Contagion, Viruses, and Vaccines — and Why Consciousness Is Needed for a New Paradigm of Health. Waterside.
Hillman, H. (2011). Cell biology at the beginning of the 21st century is in dire straits. Unpublished paper, archived at big-lies.org.
Hillman, H. (2013). A serious indictment of modern cell biology and neurobiology. Unpublished paper, archived at big-lies.org.
Lester, D., & Parker, D. (2019). What Really Makes You Ill? Why Everything You Thought You Knew About Disease Is Wrong. Independently published.
Lipton, B. (2012). The wisdom of your cells. brucelipton.com.
Margulis, L. (1998). Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution. Basic Books.
Planck, M., interview in The Observer, 25 January 1931.
Schrödinger, E. (1958). Mind and Matter (collected with What Is Life?, Cambridge University Press, 1992 edition).
Shelton, H. (1968). Natural Hygiene: Man’s Pristine Way of Life. Dr. Shelton’s Health School.
Wallin, I. E. (1927). Symbionticism and the Origin of Species. Williams & Wilkins.
Yasko, A. The Methylation Cycle. dramyyasko.com.
The earlier essay in this series: What Is Dyslexia? — the first developed treatment of MTHFR-as-adaptive-response in the context of childhood reading difficulty.
New Biology Clinic
For those of you looking for practitioners who actually understand terrain medicine and the principles we explore here, I want to share something valuable. Dr. Tom Cowan—whose books and podcasts have shaped much of my own thinking about health—has created the New Biology Clinic, a virtual practice staffed by wellness specialists who operate from the same foundational understanding. This isn’t about symptom suppression or the conventional model. It’s about personalized guidance rooted in how living systems actually work. The clinic offers individual and family memberships that include not just private consults, but group sessions covering movement, nutrition, breathwork, biofield tuning, and more. Everything is virtual, making it accessible wherever you are. If you’ve been searching for practitioners who won’t look at you blankly when you mention structured water or the importance of the extracellular matrix, this is worth exploring. Use discount code “Unbekoming” to get $100 off the member activation fee. You can learn more and sign up at newbiologyclinic.com
So these tests really tell you nothing! I just started reading the Dr. Bieler book yesterday, and this article seems to follow right into his view. What needs to change is not inside us, our bodies are marvellously made and can cope, as long as we eat right and are in a healthy environment. But both are in danger of disappearing (if they not already have). Our food is contaminated with chemicals in and out, from fields fertilized with chemicals, and then the plants sprayed with even worse chemicals. The air is full of contamination (chemtrails all day yesterday, chemical plants, smoke, exhaust from cars). And then the doctor tells you to take more chemicals!
"The brain is a particularly elaborate antenna. It is not the source of what it receives."
Cowan is doing what scientism and religion do here.
Thinking that there's a higher intelligence that makes our brain work via signaling means that we are just "robots of god/etc".
If the brain is controlled by some outside energy, it negates the point of why life developed brains- to survive by perceiving the environment and giving internal logic to figure out things.
If anything, the "receiving of signal" is what McGilchrist explains about the right hemisphere. It's the side that takes in a big picture gestalt view of what is sensed of reality in order to help the organism detect dangers or patterns.