Why such diametrically opposed opinions on CO2?

[Undulgences]

I have been reading Ray's two articles on the topic of CO2 and also seeing numerous quotes from him online and in Generative Energy about it. Problem is, it's difficult for me to substantiate some of these claims to other people. For example the claim that fetuses are exposed to much higher CO2, and this is a key protective aspect of gestation. Or in Peat's words, "Respiratory acidosis, meaning the retention of carbon dioxide, is very protective, and is an outstanding feature of life in the uterus... Many of the mysteries of embryology and developmental biology have been explained by the presence of a high level of carbon dioxide during gestation." Ray does not provide a citation here, although I trust his clinical experience.

I would like to be able to cite this to a friend though, because we are talking analogies between embryonic development and later life, but trying to verify the claim using Google is impossible. For example one study keeps coming up, which states "During pregnancy, and especially during labor, the maternal carbon dioxide level declines considerably. Maternal carbon dioxide levels show a close relation with fetal carbon dioxide levels." Everything else I see, is about how hypercapnia means the fetus is asphyxiating or something close to it. Even aside from the fetal topic, nearly all health sites on the web are crawling with implications that hypercapnia in general means there is some kind of asphyxiation. The best I found was a study saying "There is no consensus on the optimal pCO2 levels in the newborn, and There is no consensus on the effectiveness of permissive hypercapnia in neonates."

How and why are the benefits of CO2 so suppressed in medical literature, even much more so than the harmfulness of serotonin? I want to believe that I am just researching this wrong, or not getting it, and that it's not some kind of incredibly widespread ignorance or climate conspiracy. Anyone have the missing link here?

 

[yerrag]

To begin answering that, understand we live in a matrix and you have to search for the red pill. Work on a rabbit hole one at a time, and do not be fazed by there being so many rabbit holes. Your life itself being a rat race itself is a rabbit hole in itself.

Secondly, do not be incredulous, thinking so many people, even a tremendous majority, can't be so wrong. We don't deserve any claim of superiority over lemmings.

Thirdly, do not project your noble character on other personages and say nobody would stoop down to such levels of depravity.

Fourthly, do not be afraid of being labeled cynical, for the world you are born into isn't paradise but more like hell. It's just splattered with eye candy and many moral aphorisms made by Talmudists. If this were paradise, you can trust like a beagle.

That all said, Ray is right. Google is wrong. Nor should you trust credentials. Even the Nobel Prizes can't be trusted as they serve only to legitimize many false claims that are not scientifically based but merely narrative-based. By sugarcoating and by repetition, lies end up appearing as truth.

Ray Peat had spent his lifetime mining the gold from a mine littered with fool's gold of research. I believe a study that around 3/4 of all research on health matters in recent decades dating as far back as the Talmudist victory in WW2 is false. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I would first go into Ray's writings in order to not be confused by all the noise that doing your own research from scratch would do. And CO2 is right up Peat's alley.

If you can are willing to do that, I can pass on to you a collection of his writings I have managed to collect, and I will show you how to search on CO2 easily, and you will be the one to decide if Ray's reasoning makes sense.

The answer requires an explanation that cannot simply be encapsulated in a nutshell. And if you were to attempt to do that with your friend, it would be hard as well to do.

People are programmed to accede to high priests and it's convenient to do that. Not much thinking required. Plus they rather be distracted by social media and sports and bingeing on TV serial shows. Plus they believe if someone explains to them in a way they cannot understand, that guy is legit. Perhaps if you burnish your credibility by faking having a PhD on medicine, and use terms your friend doesn't understand, he will follow your drumbeat and believe whatever you tell him. Then you would spare him the drudgery of having to set aside a big slice of time to research and to evaluate these matters.

 

[sunny]

To begin answering that, understand we live in a matrix and you have to search for the red pill. Work on a rabbit hole one at a time, and do not be fazed by there being so many rabbit holes. Your life itself being a rat race itself is a rabbit hole in itself.

Secondly, do not be incredulous, thinking so many people, even a tremendous majority, can't be so wrong. We don't deserve any claim of superiority over lemmings.

Thirdly, do not project your noble character on other personages and say nobody would stoop down to such levels of depravity.

Fourthly, do not be afraid of being labeled cynical, for the world you are born into isn't paradise but more like hell. It's just splattered with eye candy and many moral aphorisms made by Talmudists. If this were paradise, you can trust like a beagle.

That all said, Ray is right. Google is wrong. Nor should you trust credentials. Even the Nobel Prizes can't be trusted as they serve only to legitimize many false claims that are not scientifically based but merely narrative-based. By sugarcoating and by repetition, lies end up appearing as truth.

Ray Peat had spent his lifetime mining the gold from a mine littered with fool's gold of research. I believe a study that around 3/4 of all research on health matters in recent decades dating as far back as the Talmudist victory in WW2 is false. Instead of reinventing the wheel, I would first go into Ray's writings in order to not be confused by all the noise that doing your own research from scratch would do. And CO2 is right up Peat's alley.

If you can are willing to do that, I can pass on to you a collection of his writings I have managed to collect, and I will show you how to search on CO2 easily, and you will be the one to decide if Ray's reasoning makes sense.

The answer requires an explanation that cannot simply be encapsulated in a nutshell. And if you were to attempt to do that with your friend, it would be hard as well to do.

People are programmed to accede to high priests and it's convenient to do that. Not much thinking required. Plus they rather be distracted by social media and sports and bingeing on TV serial shows. Plus they believe if someone explains to them in a way they cannot understand, that guy is legit. Perhaps if you burnish your credibility by faking having a PhD on medicine, and use terms your friend doesn't understand, he will follow your drumbeat and believe whatever you tell him. Then you would spare him the drudgery of having to set aside a big slice of time to research and to evaluate these matters.

I'm very interested in Peat's writings on co2.

 

[Glace]

Biologists generally doesn't recognize the order of the cell; to them, it is an amorphous sac of organelles and a cytosol which is a perfectly distributed solution. Peat says that CO2 associates with portions of proteins that are usually vulnerable to oxidation and protects it. Regardless of how true that is, clearly the mainstream "primordial soup" view of the cell doesn't allow for CO2 to ever be protective.

Furthermore, medicine often fails to differentiate between chronic and acute issues. Just look at how salt transiently raises blood pressure, or carbohydrates raise insulin, or the conflation between a heart rate elevated by adrenaline versus by adequate thyroid function. Does high blood CO2 mean a fast turnover of glucose, or that the red blood cells, lungs, and heart are failing to get rid of it? This doesn't even consider the difference between CO2 in cells and CO2 in the blood.

Finally, note that just because medicine can give something a name and state how it's going to kill you, it doesn't necessarily know anything useful about it.

 

[AL Maverick]

I am new to this forum and to the reality that PUFA is poison for humans. I am interested in whatever you're willing to share regarding what Ray Peat has written. Need to get my learn on. Thank you for your well written and so true response to Undulgences. It resonates with me.

 

[yerrag]

I'm very interested in Peat's writings on co2.

1. Compile all Ray's writings, as long as they are text files - PDF, Word, RTF, etc. - and put them in one folder.
2. Use a search tool and index that folder. Reindex when a new file is added.
3. Using that tool do a keyword search, say on CO2.
4. A list of files should show up,
5. With an advanced search tool, it would do the above as well as give you a preview of what's inside each of the files found.
6. You open the files that are most relevant to your search objectives. The preview lessens the burden on you on having to open files that are irrelevant.
7. I use DocSearch on Android. It has a free trial period of 7 days, but I subscribe to it as the price is reasonable.

The files I have consist of his published books, newsletters I subscribed to since 2016/2017, and the motherlode MegaNewsletter shared in this forum. I will have to keep adding to it as there are writings that are in the web that aren't in my folder.

Two screenshots of Docsearch attached.

 

[sunny]

1. Compile all Ray's writings, as long as they are text files - PDF, Word, RTF, etc. - and put them in one folder.
2. Use a search tool and index that folder. Reindex when a new file is added.
3. Using that tool do a keyword search, say on CO2.
4. A list of files should show up,
5. With an advanced search tool, it would do the above as well as give you a preview of what's inside each of the files found.
6. You open the files that are most relevant to your search objectives. The preview lessens the burden on you on having to open files that are irrelevant.
7. I use DocSearch on Android. It has a free trial period of 7 days, but I subscribe to it as the price is reasonable.

The files I have consist of his published books, newsletters I subscribed to since 2016/2017, and the motherlode MegaNewsletter shared in this forum. I will have to keep adding to it as there are writings that are in the web that aren't in my folder.

Two screenshots of Docsearch attached.

Thank you, that is so helpful.

 

[yerrag]

I am new to this forum and to the reality that PUFA is poison for humans. I am interested in whatever you're willing to share regarding what Ray Peat has written. Need to get my learn on. Thank you for your well written and so true response to Undulgences. It resonates with me.

You're welcome!

 

[Undulgences]

Your response resonated with me as well yerrag. Your cut-and-dry articulation of the state of health science and the respect for Ray that shines through in your first comment brought a tear to me eye.
Thank you for such effective encouragement to think for myself. I do want to put in the work and figure out this complicated topic of metabolism. Reading Generative Energy has been helping, and I found the Mega Newsletter you mentioned, as well as this website "Chadnet" which seems to have articles not available on raypeat.com.
Looking forward to interacting with you more on this forum.