by Mark Sircus

August 28, 2018

from DrSircus Website






We need to cut the crap about CO2 and begin to realize that our life and health depend on enough levels of CO2 in the blood and tissues.


Carbon dioxide is a nutrient as well as a product of respiration and energy production in the cells and its lack or deficiency is of itself a starting point for different disturbances in the body.

Carbon dioxide has many protective functions including increasing Krebs Cycle activity, which is the key to health and the greatest way of avoiding cancer, which happens when Krebs cycle activity slows down in the mitochondria, so fermentation has to make up the difference.


Importantly, CO2 also inhibits toxic damage to proteins.

Carbon dioxide is a harmless, colorless, non-toxic, natural gas that is the key link in the carbon cycle of life. In the presence of a large amount of carbon dioxide, the hemoglobin molecule changes its shape slightly in a way that favors the release of oxygen.

Increasing carbon dioxide inhibits lactic acid formation thus helps control systemic acidification, which decreases oxygen utilization. CO2 has been found to lead to the better coordination of oxidation and phosphorylation and increased the phosphorylation velocity in liver mitochondria.


Any way we put it CO2 is the key to oxygen, to life, to health.

"The end product of respiration is carbon dioxide, and it is an essential component of the life process.


The ability to produce and retain enough carbon dioxide is as important for longevity as the ability to conserve enough heat to allow chemical reactions to occur as needed.


Carbon dioxide protects cells in many ways.


By bonding to amino groups, it can inhibit the glycation of proteins during oxidative stress, and it can limit the formation of free radicals in the blood; inhibition of xanthine oxidase is one mechanism (Shibata, et al., 1998).


It can reduce inflammation caused by endotoxin/LPS, by lowering the formation of tumor necrosis factor, IL-8 and other promoters of inflammation (Shimotakahara, et al., 2008).


It protects mitochondria (Lavani, et al., 2007), maintaining (or even increasing) their ability to respire during stress," writes Dr. Ray Peat.

"The suppression of mitochondrial respiration increases the production of toxic free radicals, and the decreased carbon dioxide makes the proteins more susceptible to attack by free radicals.


The presence of carbon dioxide is an indicator of proper mitochondrial respiratory functioning. In every type of tissue, it is the failure to oxidize glucose that produces oxidative stress and cellular damage," Dr. Peat adds.

Then concludes,

"A focus on correcting the respiratory defect would be relevant for all diseases and conditions (including heart disease, diabetes, dementia) involving inflammation and inappropriate excitation, not just for cancer.


Carbon dioxide has a stabilizing effect on cells, preserving stem cells, limiting stress and preventing loss of function."

Over the oxygen supply of the body carbon
dioxide spreads its protecting wings.
Friedrich Miescher
Swiss physiologist, 1885


The German cancer researcher Dr. Paul Gerhard Seeger [1] demonstrated in 1938 that in most cases cancer starts in the cytoplasm, the jelly-like outer part of the cell, and especially in the energy-producing mitochondria.


Here food fragments are normally oxidized in a series of enzymatic steps called the 'respiratory chain'.


Seeger showed that in cancer cells this respiratory chain was more or less blocked, especially at the site of the important enzyme cytochrome oxidase. Without it the cell can produce energy only anaerobically like a fungal cell.


This is very inefficient, and the resulting overproduction of lactic acid adding even more acidity to usually an already acidic body.


In 1957 Seeger also successfully transformed normal cells into cancer cells within a few days by introducing chemicals that blocked the respiratory chain.

Without enough oxygen, the electron transport chain becomes jammed with electrons.


Consequently, NAD [2] cannot be produced, thereby causing glycolysis to produce lactic acid instead of pyruvate, which is a necessary component of the Krebs cycle.

In general, we tend to assume that cancer cells are generating energy using glycolysis rather than mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, and that the mitochondria were dysfunctional.


Advances in research techniques have shown the mitochondria in cancer cells to be at least partially functional across a range of tumor types.


However, different tumor populations have different bioenergetic alterations in order to meet their high energy requirement meaning the Warburg effect is not consistent across all cancer types. [3]


Cancer does not translate into annihilation of cells mitochondria however it does mean the cell are fermenting because of compromised oxidization.




CO2 has Antioxidant Properties

Normal arterial levels of CO2 have antioxidant properties.


Indeed, a group of Russian microbiologists discovered that,

"CO2 at a tension close to that observed in the blood (37.0 mm Hg) and high tensions (60 or 146 mm Hg) is a potent inhibitor of generation of the active oxygen forms (free radicals) by the cells and mitochondria of the human and tissues".

(Kogan et al, 1997).

Dozens of studies have shown that modern "normal subjects" breathe about 12 L/min at rest, while the medical norm is only 6 L/min.


As result, blood CO2 levels is less than normal.

As we have seen arterial hypocapnia (CO2 deficiency) causes tissue hypoxia that trigger numerous pathological effects. Cell hypoxia is the main cause of free radical generation and oxidative stress and CO2 deficiency in the blood is one of the main causes of hypoxia (low oxygen).

Having a normal level of CO2 in the lungs and arterial blood (40 mm Hg or about 5.3% at sea level) is imperative for normal health.


Do modern people have normal CO2 levels?


When reading the table below note that levels of CO2 in the lungs are inversely proportional to minute ventilation rates, in other words, the more air one breaths the lower the level of alveolar CO2.


Dr. Lynne Eldridge and many others have noted most modern adults breathe much faster (about 15-20 breaths per minute) than what would be considered a healthy respiratory rate.


Respiratory rates in cancer and other severely ill patients are usually higher, generally about 20 breaths/min or more. Meaning the general population is driving down oxygen available to cells opening the door to increased incidences of cancer.


Heavy metal and chemical toxification of the cells further impede oxygen with nutritional deficiencies are the slam dunk that leads to cancer.

Oxygen availability to cells decreases glucose oxidation, whereas oxygen shortage consumes glucose faster in an attempt to produce ATP via the less efficient anaerobic glycolysis to lactate.


This is much of the basis of oxygen therapy in cancer and a full range of other diseases because most chronically ill people, if not all, are having a hard time with both oxygen and its perfectly mated gas, carbon dioxide.


In cancer treatment this comes with the bonus of stimulating the immune system's cancer killer cells.




Perfectly Normal Until its Cancer

We can take some lessons from our muscles when they are worked hard.


When the body has plenty of oxygen, pyruvate is shuttled to an aerobic pathway to be further broken down for more energy. But when oxygen is limited, the body temporarily converts pyruvate into a substance called lactate, which allows glucose breakdown - and thus energy production - to continue.


Even in healthy athletic individuals, when we put the muscles to great challenges oxygen levels fall temporarily showing us what happens in cells when they are oxygen starved.

In cancer the change becomes permanent. Cancer cells will continue with fermentation of glucose and the production of lactate even in the presence of oxygen though some evidence that some cancer cells, especially young cancer cells can be reverted back to normal cells if they can be provided enough oxygen and enough opportunity to detoxify.

Lactic acid in our tissues is a cause of biological problems for many reasons principle among them is the fact that lactic acid displaces carbon dioxide. The main features of stress metabolism include increases of stress hormones, lactate, ammonia, free fatty acids, and fat synthesis, and a decrease in carbon dioxide.


Lactic acid in the blood can be taken as a sign of defective respiration, since the breakdown of glucose to lactic acid increases to make up for deficient oxidative energy production.

Glucose can be metabolized into pyruvic acid, which, in the presence of oxygen, can be metabolized into carbon dioxide. Without oxygen, pyruvic acid can be converted into lactic acid. The decrease of carbon dioxide generally accompanies increased lactic acid production.

The ability of lactic acid to displace carbon dioxide is probably involved in its effects on the blood clotting system.


It contributes to disseminated intravascular coagulation and consumption coagulopathy, and increases the tendency of red cells to aggregate, forming "blood sludge," and makes red cells more rigid, increasing the viscosity of blood and impairing circulation in the small vessels. (Schmid-Schönbein, 1981; Kobayashi, et al., 2001; Martin, et al., 2002; Yamazaki, et al., 2006.)

Lactate and inflammation promote each other in a vicious cycle (Kawauchi, et al., 2008).

Low thyroid leads to low production of
carbon dioxide and wastage of glucose.
Dr. Ray Peat

Carbon dioxide protects cells in many ways.

By bonding to amino groups, it can inhibit the glycation of proteins during oxidative stress, and it can limit the formation of free radicals in the blood; inhibition of xanthine oxidase is one mechanism.

(Shibata, et al., 1998).


It can reduce inflammation caused by endotoxin/LPS, by lowering the formation of tumor necrosis factor, IL-8 and other promoters of inflammation.

(Shimotakahara, et al., 2008)


It protects mitochondria (Lavani, et al., 2007), maintaining (or even increasing) their ability to respire during stress.

Carbon dioxide has a stabilizing effect on cells, preserving stem cells, limiting stress and preventing loss of function.


Carbon dioxide can be used to prevent adhesions during abdominal surgery, and to protect the lungs during mechanical ventilation. Enough carbon dioxide is important in preventing an exaggerated and maladaptive stress response.


A deficiency of carbon dioxide (such as can be produced by hyperventilation, or by the presence of lactic acid in the blood) decreases cellular energy (as ATP and creatine phosphate) and interferes with the synthesis of proteins (including antibodies) and other cellular materials.




Bicarbonate to the Rescue

For hundreds or even thousands of years, the therapeutic value of carbonated mineral springs has been known.


Baking soda is the wonderful medicine it is because it gives us instant access to more CO2 without exercise and without slowing down our breathing.


Either stomach acid or lemon added to bicarbonate turns baking soda instantly into carbon dioxide.


[1] The only book available in English is Seeger, P.G. and S. Wolz: Successful biological control of cancer by combat against the causes. Neuwieder Verlagsgesellschaft, Neuwied, Germany 1990. The most important book is Seeger, P.G: Krebs - Problem ohne Ausweg? ("Cancer - Problem without Solution?") Verl. f. Medizin Fischer, Heidelberg, Germany 1974, 2nd ed 1988

[2] Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, abbreviated NAD+, is acoenzyme found in all living cells. The compound is a dinucleotide, since it consists of two nucleotides joined through their phosphate groups. One nucleotide contains an adenine base and the other nicotinamide

In metabolism, NAD+ is involved in redox reactions, carrying electrons from one reaction to another. The coenzyme is, therefore, found in two forms in cells: NAD+ is an oxidizing agent - it accepts electrons from other molecules and becomes reduced. This reaction forms NADH, which can then be used as a reducing agent to donate electrons.

[3] Biochem Soc Trans. 2016 Oct 15; 44(5): 1499–1505. The Warburg effect: 80 years on.




The Evidence Proves that...

CO² is Not a Greenhouse Gas
by Dr. Tim Ball
September 13, 2018
from Technocracy Website






The CO² error is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators.


In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into a collective trust to be managed by them.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claim of human-caused global warming (AGW) is built on the assumption that an increase in atmospheric CO2 causes an increase in global temperature.


The IPCC claim is what science calls a theory, a hypothesis, or in simple English, a speculation...


Every theory is based on a set of assumptions. The standard scientific method is to challenge the theory by trying to disprove it. Karl Popper wrote about this approach in a 1963 article, Science as Falsification.


Douglas Yates said,

"No scientific theory achieves public acceptance until it has been thoroughly discredited."

Thomas Huxley made a similar observation.

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."

In other words, all scientists must be skeptics, which makes a mockery out of the charge that those who questioned AGW, were global warming 'skeptics'.


Michael Shermer provides a likely explanation for the effectiveness of the charge.

"Scientists are skeptics. It's unfortunate that the word 'skeptic' has taken on other connotations in the culture involving nihilism and cynicism. Really, in its pure and original meaning, it's just thoughtful inquiry."

The scientific method was not used with the AGW theory.


In fact, the exact opposite occurred, they tried to prove the theory. It is a treadmill guaranteed to make you misread, misrepresent, misuse and selectively choose data and evidence. This is precisely what the IPCC did and continued to do.

A theory is used to produce results. The results are not wrong, they are only as right as the assumptions on which they are based.


For example, Einstein used his theory of relativity to produce the most famous formula in the world; e = mc2.


You cannot prove it wrong mathematically because it is the end product of the assumptions he made. To test it and disprove it, you challenge one or all of the assumptions.


One of these is represented by the letter "c" in the formula, which assumes nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Scientists challenging the theory are looking for something moving faster than the speed of light.

The most important assumption behind the AGW theory is that an increase in global atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in the average annual global temperature. The problem is that in every record of temperature and CO2, the temperature changes first.


Think about what I am saying. The basic assumption on which the entire theory that human activity is causing global warming or climate change is wrong.


The questions are, how did the false assumption develop and persist?

The answer is the IPCC needed the assumption as the basis for their claim that humans were causing catastrophic global warming for a political agenda.


They did what all academics do and found a person who gave historical precedence to their theory. In this case, it was the work of Svante Arrhenius. The problem is he didn't say what they claim.


Anthony Watts' 2009 article identified many of the difficulties with relying on Arrhenius.


The Friends of Science added confirmation when they translated a more obscure 1906 Arrhenius work.


They wrote,

Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapor in the atmosphere which was part of the total figure.


Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all.


There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would affect climate.

The issue of Arrhenius mistaking a water vapor effect for a CO2 effect is not new. What is new is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the warming effect of CO2, known as climate sensitivity, is zero.


This means Arrhenius colleagues who "rejected any effect of CO2 at all" are correct. In short, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

The IPCC through the definition of climate change given them by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were able to predetermine their results:

a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.

This allowed them to only examine human-causes, thus eliminating almost all other variables of climate and climate change. You cannot identify the human portion if you don't know or understand natural, that is without human, climate or climate change.


IPCC acknowledged this in 2007 as people started to ask questions about the narrowness of their work. They offered the one that many people thought they were using and should have been using.


Deceptively, it only appeared as a footnote in the 2007 Summary for Policymakers (SPM), so it was aimed at the politicians.


It said,

"Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.


This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods."

Few at the time challenged the IPCC assumption that an increase in CO2 caused an increase in global temperature. The IPCC claimed it was true because when they increased CO2 in their computer models, the result was a temperature increase.


Of course, because the computer was programmed for that to happen.


These computer models are the only place in the world where a CO2 increase precedes and causes a temperature change. This probably explains why their predictions are always wrong.

An example of how the definition allowed the IPCC to focus on CO2 is to consider the major greenhouse gases by name and percentage of the total.


They are water vapour (H20) 95%, carbon dioxide (CO2) 4%, and methane (CH4) 0.036%.


The IPCC was able to overlook water vapor (95%) by admitting humans produce some, but the amount is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume of water vapour.


The human portion of the CO2 in the atmosphere is approximately 3.4% of the total CO2 (Figure 1) To put that in perspective, approximately a 2% variation in water vapour completely overwhelms the human portion of CO2.


This is entirely possible because water vapour is the most variable gas in the atmosphere, from region to region and over time.


Figure 1

In 1999, after two IPCC Reports were produced in 1990 and 1995 assuming a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase, the first significant long term Antarctic ice core record appeared.


Petit, Raynaud, and Lorius were presented as the best representation of levels of temperature, CO2, and deuterium over 420,000-years.


It appeared the temperature and CO2 were rising and falling in concert, so the IPCC and others assumed this proved that CO2 was causing temperature variation. I recall Lorius warning against rushing to judgment and saying there was no indication of such a connection.

Euan Mearns noted in his robust assessment that the authors believed that temperature increase preceded CO2 increase.

In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999) [1] note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation.


They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation.


The significance of these observations are therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.

Lorius reconfirmed his position in a 2007 article:

"our [East Antarctica, Dome C] ice core shows no indication that greenhouse gases have played a key role in such a coupling [with radiative forcing]"

Despite this, those promoting the IPCC claims ignored the empirical evidence.


They managed to ignore the facts and have done so to this day.


Joanne Nova explains part of the reason they were able to fool the majority in her article,

"The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature - graphed." when she wrote confirming the Lorius concern.

"It's impossible to see a lag of centuries on a graph that covers half a million years, so I have regraphed the data from the original sources…"

Nova concluded after expanding and more closely examining the data that,

The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential.


We'd see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn't happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon's role is minor.

Al Gore knew the ice core data showed temperature changing first.


In his propaganda movie, An Inconvenient Truth he separated the graph of temperature and CO2 enough to make a comparison of the two graphs more difficult.


He then distracted with Hollywood histrionics by riding up on a forklift to the distorted 20th century reading.

Thomas Huxley said,

"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a lovely hypothesis by an ugly fact."

The most recent ugly fact was that after 1998 CO2 levels continued to increase but global temperatures stopped increasing.


Other ugly facts included the return of cold, snowy winters creating a PR problem by 2004. Cartoons appeared (Figure 2.)


Figure 2

The people controlling the AGW deception were aware of what was happening. Emails from 2004 leaked from the University of East Anglia revealed the concern.


Nick at the Minns/Tyndall Centre that handled publicity for the climate story said,

"In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media."

Swedish climate expert on the IPCC Bo Kjellen replied,

"I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming."

The disconnect between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures continued after 1998.


The level of deliberate blindness of what became known as the "pause" or the hiatus became ridiculous (Figure 3).


Figure 3

The assumption that an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temperature was incorrectly claimed in the original science by Arrhenius.


He mistakenly attributed the warming caused by water vapor (H2O) to CO2. All the evidence since confirms the error. This means CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. There is a greenhouse effect, and it is due to the water vapor.


The entire claim that CO and especially human CO2 is absolutely wrong, yet these so-called scientists convinced the world to waste trillions on reducing CO2.


If you want to talk about collusion, consider the cartoon in Figure 4.


Figure 4