Undulgences
New Member
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?
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?