Scientist Warns: Don't Let This GRIFTER LIE to You. (Meat Does NOT Make You Acid).

Added: 2026-05-12

[00:00:00]Right, thanks for joining me once again where yet again we're dealing with James Dicol Antonio and his facious ideas about acidbased balance again. Um, so I'll refute you once again. James, you're welcome everybody. Uh, James, let's hear what you've had to say in the video you posted about 24 hours ago it seems cuz he's still not done. Okay, let's hear it James. Okay, so I'm going to be going over why Bart K is wrong about acidbased balance.

[00:00:30]>> Except he's not. Bark K is not wrong about acidbased balance. What you've just done, James, is give us your opinion. Opinions being exactly like anal orify and that almost everybody's got one and it's almost certainly full of excrement and yours definitely is James based on well basic physics, but we'll get to that.

[00:00:45]>> We've been going at it for about 2 years. Yeah, we haven't though, James, because actually I've invited you repeatedly to come and face me like a man face to face and have a discussion with me live on camera about this topic and you have refused every single time.

[00:00:59]I wonder why that is. I don't actually wonder why. I know why it is. It's because you know you cannot prevail. The only way that you can prevail in an argument with myself regarding this topic is by misrepresenting what I said, lying about it, and saying that I said something that I didn't say. Uh which we're going to see some examples of coming up. Well, now let's go.

[00:01:18]>> And so let's kind of go over >> why Barquet has it wrong on acid.

[00:01:22]>> Yeah, I don't have it wrong though.

[00:01:22]Still >> base balance.

[00:01:24]>> Okay, >> so things that Barquet has gotten wrong.

[00:01:26]>> Right. Well, here we go. This will be interesting.

[00:01:27]>> He has stated that ammonia does not form in the kidneys. That >> No, that's not what I said at all.

[00:01:31]That's false. That is a misrepresentation.

[00:01:34]Complete misrepresentation of what I said. What I said was that ammonia does not exist in aquous biological solutions at physiological pH and temperature.

[00:01:47]That is unassalable. That is a fact of physics. Whether James de Nickel Antonio likes that or whether he doesn't. Carry on there, James.

[00:01:55]>> That is definitely wrong.

[00:01:57]>> No, it's not definitely wrong. What you just said, James, is definitely wrong.

[00:02:00]As per first principles of physics, the thing that you'd do well to study. I mean, the thing about James, is that he has hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed publications in various areas. uh his PhD is in um pharmarmacology I believe.

[00:02:18]Um he's got he's he's had a very successful academic career publishing things. Great.

[00:02:23]Um but what he hasn't done in his tender years so far, however many they are. I think he's in his 30s. Um he might be in his 40s, I don't know. But anyway, what he hasn't done is actually get his ego under control at all or learn any basic physics. It seems what he's done is he's been indoctrinated by I guess his professors that taught him to believe a certain series of pseudoacts that are in fact fallacies and defend those hills to the death despite the fact that actually his position is not consistent with first principles of basic physics which I'll explain as we go along a little bit. Go on James >> about 7 to 2.2% 2% exists at a physiologic pH >> measured how James by what methodology exactly this will be interesting >> we know this from human urine electrodes detect >> electrodes you say would you like to explain how the electrodes detect this ammonia should we talk about that we can talk about that in a faceto-face debate if you like James because I understand how that works very well and I guess you don't because what you're saying suggests either that you don't understand the methodology by which that's or that you're deliberately trying to obiscate and impress an audience who are frankly probably pretty low IQ to follow you into believing that what you're saying has some validity in science when in fact it doesn't open to the debate any day of the week twice on Sundays >> acting ammonia breath ammonia >> breath ammonia excellent we'll cover that too >> specific ammonia transporters and >> yes great we'll cover that as well if you like >> collecting duct of the kidneys we've known this since 1979.

[00:04:07]>> We've known a lot of things since well before 1979. Uh I for one was alive in 1979. James, I wonder if you were at all. Don't know. That's not really the point. The point here is this. Ammonia at I I guess what you'd call normal barometric pressure at 25° C, which I know is a little bit lower than body temperature. And it does have an effect.

[00:04:30]Sure. But under those conditions, ammonia is a gas.

[00:04:38]Okay. It's a gas that will dissolve into water. Absolutely.

[00:04:44]Um and when ammonia dissolves into water, the reaction goes like this. NH3 gas plus H2O aqueous plus O minus aqueous plus H3O plus aquous forms an equilibrium reaction with NH4 which forms another equilibrium reaction in a second step with NH4 plus plus O minus plus O plus H3+.

[00:05:18]Okay, so there's no ammonia there. None at all. Um, ammonia has a pKa value of 9.25, which means at physiological throughout the physiological pH range basically of the urine. Uh, to all intents and purposes, there's absolutely no ammonia present in that solution. As you can just see there, NH4 plus plus O minus plus H30O plus.

[00:05:42]This ammonia that James is talking about is an imagined thing. It's a parimonious description of things that actually exist in other speciations. What I said was that it does not exist in aquous biological fluids. And I said that because ostensibly it's correct and an unassalable position statement which James has twisted to make it sound like I said something that I did not say in order to try and bolster his well ego really more than anything else. It's got nothing to do with factuality because at the end of the day, the facts are this, James.

[00:06:18]Human beings can eat a diet consisting purely of the muscle, meat, and associated fat of ruminant animals and nothing else for many many decades without suffering the osteoporotic situation that you are suggesting. They are likely to suggest based on your acid base faciousness. Those are the facts whether you like them or not. You cannot produce any evidence to the contrary because it does not exist.

[00:06:51]You've attempted in the past to bring things forward that might appear to an untrained lay audience including yourself on this topic James clearly to suggest or infer that there might be a problem but there's no evidence that there is a problem and anecdotally there isn't one. So, that's really where we're at at the end of the day. All of this is semantics and arguing about the uh the models, the uh the constructs, the verbiage, and who's more cleverer. It's me, James. Okay. Um so there is a real difference between ammonia not being formed in the kidneys which I did not say and ammonia does not exist in the biological fluids at physiological temp temperature and pH which I did say cuz that was the unassalable statement of fact whether you like that fact or not.

[00:07:43]Um, when the conditions change in such a way as to allow ammonia to evolve from a fluid and pop out of it again as gas, it can do that. Absolutely.

[00:07:58]That doesn't mean it was ammonia in the solution. It's popped out of the solution as gas according to the equilibrium that we had up on the screens before. Okay. Dear oh dear.

[00:08:08]Right. So no, BK is not wrong about ammonia. James Dicol Antonio is demonstrabably absolutely unequivocally and unassalably wrong about ammonia in biological aqueous solutions throughout the entire physiological range of the urine in human beings. Done deal.

[00:08:25]Finish. End of. There is nothing more to say on this topic, James, unless you'd like to come and debate with me the stuff that you're making there in your first point on the screen. I think I've dealt with it pretty well as usual. But anyway, let's move on to your next point.

[00:08:41]>> So, he's definitely wrong about that.

[00:08:42]>> No, no, James, you're definitely wrong still. You, you know, just saying that I'm wrong because it's your opinion doesn't make it so. I've just outlined how it is that you're wrong and I'm not.

[00:08:52]>> Okay. Only I'm not relying on my opinion. I'm relying on first principles of physics, whereas you're not, it seems. Okay.

[00:09:01]What's next?

[00:09:03]>> He also stated that the kidneys don't excrete acid, they excrete ions.

[00:09:07]>> That's interesting, too. Uh, I didn't actually say that either. Really? No.

[00:09:12]But we'll let's see what you have to say and we'll put it right where you get it wrong cuz you will misrepresent me quite completely here. I'm quite sure you will.

[00:09:20]>> He's wrong. We excrete most of the hydrononeium ions as weak acids.

[00:09:25]>> No, we don't.

[00:09:27]>> False. We'll get to that.

[00:09:29]>> H2P4 and ammonium.

[00:09:32]>> These by specifically deproinating and forming the hydrononeium ions. uh is how the urine actually becomes acidic.

[00:09:40]>> Right. Well, there's problem, James.

[00:09:41]You're laboring under a false construct.

[00:09:44]You're laboring under a model that suggests to you that in your understanding well what you basically just said that these weak acids so-called deprotonate, dissociate, and that adds H3+ to the water thus thus acidifying it.

[00:10:03]That is incorrect, James. That is not how pH is moderated in fluid pools. That is an old outmoded idea which is demonstrably facious. It was shown to be demonstrabably facious by the late Peter Stewart in something like about 1982 or 1983 I believe it was from memory. Okay.

[00:10:30]Um, what we're talking about here is just basic physics. A thing that for a person who holds a PhD in pharmarmacology, I would have expected much better, James. I really would have.

[00:10:41]I'm actually stunned by the level of your Dunning Krueger in this regard. It seems that while you might have learned a lot about various drugs and their proposed pharmarmacology, it seems that you clearly skipped those days when basic physics, basic chemistry, the nature of equilibria, those kind of things were discussed.

[00:11:06]Okay. Um, yeah. Basically, all of that said, no, James, wrong.

[00:11:15]That's not how acid forms. That's not how acidity forms. Jeez, correct yourself. Sorry. That's not how acidity, that's not how the concentration, again, correct myself. That's not how the effective activity of the hydrronium ion is determined in solutions, aqueous solutions, James.

[00:11:38]Okay. And Even if you were correct that it was so according to your false statement about the facts which are actually fallacies, what you're talking about then is deprotonated so-called weak acids, i.e. H2P4 minus would dissociate a proton so-called and form H2P42 minus not acid anymore within the physiological pH range. Same deal with NH4 plus which you've listed there as being a weak acid.

[00:12:22]No.

[00:12:24]What happens when you dissolve ammonium in water, James, to the pH? Does it become less acidic or more? Okay, again, basic physics. Sorry about those facts.

[00:12:34]They're just facts, whether you like them or not. All right, so I think we're getting a clear picture here straight away in the first couple of points.

[00:12:42]Basically, James genuinely I believe James genuinely believes himself to be correct in what he's saying here. He genuinely thinks I just don't understand somehow.

[00:12:57]He really thinks he's in the right here.

[00:13:01]All the while while displaying the most stunning Dunning Kruger and the most destitute level of non-comprehension of the basic facts of the physics involved in the chemical reactions he's talking about.

[00:13:17]Um, quite stunning. All right. Anyway, carry on though, James. You're doing a great job, son. So he was trying to make it seem like I don't know what I'm talking about because >> No, James, I'm stating the fact according to the first principles of basic physics, physiochemistry, the nature of equilibria, the energetics of all of it. Basic physics, sunshine.

[00:13:39]I'm stating the fact outright to your face. Well, I would if you'd actually front up for a debate. You do not know what you're talking about in this regard. Not at all.

[00:13:50]I mean, it it's amazing to me that you would make another video like this where you're saying the same thing again to put with all your other videos where you've already said the same things a h 100 times that nobody watched where you were wrong all of those times and I've already corrected you on these things in those videos on videos on my channel and it's like water off a duck's back. It's really incredible. By which I mean lacking in credibility. James, what you need to do to get your credibility back is you need to come and have a discussion with me face to face about all of this. And I think you need to bring a different attitude to the one that you're putting forward hither too with regard to my level of comprehension, knowledge, and competence in this field as that relates to yours.

[00:14:41]Okay, take it or leave it. And I we know what he's going to do. He's going to leave it. He'll probably make another video after this saying, "Okay, it's wrong.

[00:14:50]Okay, it's wrong."

[00:14:53]Or something like that, but he won't actually give you any reasons. Um, he'll just make it look like he's giving reasons that he just expects you not to check on or or sense check in any way.

[00:15:07]Right. Anyway, carry on, James.

[00:15:08]>> Cuz I was saying that there's not acid excretion.

[00:15:11]>> There isn't. We've covered that just now. Still facts, James. Sorry about that. It's not just semantics. This is important stuff. Cuz what you're implying is that eating meat makes you acidic, which it doesn't.

[00:15:26]Fact. That you will need to excrete a bunch of acid, which you don't.

[00:15:33]Fact. And that somehow the excretion of this acid will cause the leeching of calcium from your bones over a lifetime, causing you to, I guess, after several decades of eating nothing but meat and fat, dissolve into a puddle on the floor, James, which does not occur still.

[00:15:54]Okay. No. All right.

[00:15:56]>> And he was trying to say we don't excrete acid.

[00:15:58]>> We still don't. Even though we excrete the hydrononeium ions as weak acids and we actually excrete things like uric acid >> uh even a little bit of citric acid even some keto acids as actual acids and not the annion and >> right so that really is semantics isn't it does any of that have any impact whatsoever on the physiological pH of any of the fluid pools of note no it doesn't do any of the fluid pools get forced out of their normal homeostatically controlled range by the consumption of meat, which is what this is all about for those that don't know.

[00:16:32]No, it doesn't.

[00:16:34]Does it lead over decades and decades to a person becoming so osteoporotic as to become some kind of health problem or indeed that there is even a meaningful loss of calcium from their body? No, it doesn't. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that that is the case. This is a wild speculation from James who has a barrow to push. He has a range of supplements to sell you based around he believes you should take in a bunch of bicarbonate which you don't need to buy his supplements for.

[00:17:06]You can go and buy baking soda if you believe him. We'll get to that too though >> and canion.

[00:17:14]>> Bart has also said that taking bicarbonate is not absorbed.

[00:17:17]>> Again, James, that is a lie. I did not say that at all. False. Carry on though and I'll correct you when you've got it right when you're finished.

[00:17:24]>> The body you just burp it all out is CO2. That is all.

[00:17:27]>> That's also not what I said.

[00:17:28]>> Also wrong. We do absorb bicarbonating orally and we do produce more when the stomach acid gets slightly depleted.

[00:17:36]>> Produce more from where exactly, James.

[00:17:39]>> When we take exogenous bicarbonate, >> which you said produce and take exogenous, which is it that you're talking about?

[00:17:47]You really need to do something about that mouth smacking noise by the way.

[00:17:52]Anyways, uh let's deal with this oral bicarbonate issue. Okay. Right. To say that I suggested that oral bicarbonate is not absorbed is a falsehood. I never said anything remotely similar to that.

[00:18:03]That is a complete misrepresentation of the statements that I have repeatedly made. Okay.

[00:18:09]What I said was biccarbonate concentration in a solution, an aqueous solution is a dependent variable.

[00:18:24]Meaning that it cannot therefore be independently predictably moderated by adding or attempting to add nor by removing or attempting to remove bicarbonate ions from that solution.

[00:18:41]Assuming that solution is exposed at any surface area to the atmosphere which contains carbon dioxide gas.

[00:18:54]This is an unassalable fact of physics.

[00:18:57]Carbon dioxide gas dissolves into water according to a constant which is largely temperature dependent.

[00:19:05]Okay, that forms an equilibrium with the water which forms a thing called carbonic acid which at physiological pH dissociates into bicarbonate plus for accountancy purposes the hydrronium ion. Okay, but the stoometric accountancy that is and nothing to do with reality actually, but we'll get to that another day if that we ever get to the the bait situation that James singly lacks testicular fortitude to front up for.

[00:19:39]Um and then there's a further possible dissociation again to carbonate plus yet more so-called hydrronium ions again for the stochometric accountancy and nothing to do with reality. Okay.

[00:19:58]Basically what I'm suggesting to you is that it is a demonstrated unassalable fact of physics that the concentration of bicarbonate in an aqueous solution is not independently predictably moderatable by adding or by removing that thing or attempting to. Lettier's principle applies. There is an equilibrium with the atmospheric gas which does contain some carbon dioxide which will dissolve in or out according to that uh conservation of energy law that specific application of the local conservation of energy which is the way that law should be described in future by the way not universal because it isn't. Sorry about that.

[00:20:50]Um, yeah. Basically, the problem here is that James is laboring under one of the most serious cases of Dunning Krueger I've ever come across. James is quite credible in terms of his scientific background, in terms of his publication record, in terms of his academic achievements. Well done, James.

[00:21:11]That's great for you. Awesome.

[00:21:15]As regards the basic physics, the basic physiochemistry of this area, acid base control in the human body, James is a boy in short pants with the most severe case of Dunning Krueger I've come across. He cannot conceive of the level of destitution of his comprehension in this field. He thinks he's got this down and that I'm some clown genuinely.

[00:21:47]Well, I say that, but if he really did believe that, he'd have no problem fronting up to me face to face, would he? To have a debate face to face about this topic. I think he knows maybe somewhere down there deep down that he can not prevail. So again, in terms of this point, it's a misrepresentation from James. No, I didn't say it's not absorbed. I said nothing about absorption.

[00:22:10]I spoke about the concentration of the thing in the fluid which is not independently moderatable. Should we move on? Cuz what I said was a fact.

[00:22:21]Still >> parietal cells secrete more hydrronium ions and at the same time >> no they don't. That's not how it works.

[00:22:28]Wrong again.

[00:22:30]Hydrronium ions are evolved from the water James.

[00:22:37]They are in dynamic flux with the water.

[00:22:42]It's an equilibrium.

[00:22:44]H2O plus H2O forms an equilibrium with H3O plus plus O minus.

[00:22:53]Still that's where the H3O plus comes from when it goes up or it goes down in the water.

[00:23:02]Okay. Goodness. They have to make an equimar amount of bicarbonate. It's called the alkaline tide. And >> it's a construct, James. It's a facelious construct demonstrabably.

[00:23:12]Um, it's no less a construct than the Stewart model is a construct. The difference between the Stewart model of which I'm an advocate and the alkaline tide model of which you're an advocate, James, is that the Stewart model is based on grounded in and consistent with all the laws of physics as we understand them and what you're suggesting is not.

[00:23:40]>> Sorry about that. Not sorry.

[00:23:42]>> Anyone can look this up.

[00:23:43]>> They can look it up and they can read somebody's opinion about it. Yes, we've covered opinions though, haven't we? James >> Bart also believes that the strong >> Before you go any further than that, I don't know what he's about to say next, but James has no idea what I believe.

[00:23:58]None at all. He can't even accurately repeat what he believes I've said.

[00:24:08]What he has to do is actually, I think with malice of forethought, misrepresent what I said to try and save face and win points with his frankly low IQ audience.

[00:24:21]But let's hear what you think I believe and we'll see if you got it get it right.

[00:24:24]>> Ion difference is what drives the alkalinity.

[00:24:27]>> Let's just go back a little bit there.

[00:24:30]>> It's called the alkaline tide. Anyone can look this up.

[00:24:33]Bart also believes that the strong ion difference is what drives the alkalinity.

[00:24:38]>> False, James. I've never said anything remotely similar to that. Okay.

[00:24:42]Alkalinity has nothing to do with it.

[00:24:46]You're using the term alkalinity as the conjugate of acidity, which it isn't. James, goodness gracious. What I've said repeatedly is still unassalable. And it was actually not me that believes this.

[00:25:02]Although I do believe it. So that's correct. But it's actually the late Peter Stewart that believed this and proposed the model and it's his model.

[00:25:11]And he's never been shown to be incorrect in any aspect of it unlike the alkaline tide which is not consistent with basic physics whereas the Steuart model is. Okay.

[00:25:25]What the claim is is that the SID plus value which is a modeled variable. It describes the net charge of all the strongly dissociated ions both positive and negative in the solution.

[00:25:42]It generally well not generally it universally in biological fluids carries a positive charge because of the net values of the different things that are kept in biological solutions by pumping things in and out across various membranes. Okay. A change in that value is one of four independent variables that assuming the other three are held constant can directly predictably independently moderate the effective activity of the hydrronium ion i.e. The thing that is parimoniously described as pH, that is a fact. As put forward by Peter Stewart in 1982 or 1983, I forget which it was. It has never been shown incorrect. Why not? Because it is consistent with what is usually referred to as the law of conservation of energy.

[00:26:43]Okay, it's a specific case limited example application of how local conservation of energy works.

[00:26:54]It is underpinned by basic physics.

[00:26:57]It is not up for debate really in terms of its correctness. It is established.

[00:27:05]The thing that you're talking about there, James, is the law of conservation of electrochemical charge.

[00:27:13]It's called the law of for a reason, James.

[00:27:18]Okay, it is correct.

[00:27:21]Goodness. Carry on though. You're doing a great job still.

[00:27:23]>> After someone consumes like sodium bicarbonate that it's the sodium, not the bicarbonate, he's also wrong here as well. Well, sodium does absolutely affect the alkalinity because alkalinity the term used correctly refers to the level of dissolved salts and things in that fluid and sodium is one of those. The sodium ion is one of those things. So, it absolutely does. What I've also asserted is that when there is a change to the pH after the ingestion of something like sodium bicarbonate, it is the sodium remaining behind in the solution once an amount of the bicarbonate has evolved out of that solution as carbon dioxide gas. According to Lettier's principle, according to the conservation of energy, according to all the things I've been talking about, fact, these un negated positive charges of the sodium ion drive the effective activity of the hydrronium ion down, i.e. cause a reduction in the level of acidity. Cause and effect. Again, assuming all the other three control variables are held constant, James, still a fact. Still an unassalable fact, still correct, still never been shown to be incorrect by anybody and certainly not by your childlike opinion on the physics involved here. Still carry on.

[00:29:02]um bicarbonate levels actually increase within 20 to 30 minutes before sodium levels increase. So it's >> so what's your point and levels increase where James measured by whom? Using what methodology in in what population of people under what conditions?

[00:29:22]I know he's going to mention a paper by New Brietel. I've read it. It doesn't say what he says it says by the way.

[00:29:27]That's another shock. That's a typical academic um or poor academic um policy when you're trying to argue something. A misrepresent what your opponent has said, which James is doing here in spades. And then B, cite an article which he claims says something that it does not say.

[00:29:48]Wow. This is why James won't face me face to face, cuz he knows absolutely that everything he says will be torn to shreds without breaking a sweat.

[00:29:58]It's not the sodium and the peak strong ion difference does not match the peak bicarbonate levels.

[00:30:03]>> So are we begging some kind of fallacy question here? If so, what is it, James?

[00:30:10]What are you trying to assert?

[00:30:13]The laws of physics still apply to the situation of the overall difference between this that and the other thing which all add up to the conservation the local conservation of energy in the system. still what part of the local law of conservation of energy do you disagree with James which if we wait for that that'll be an entertaining discussion >> this was shown by Newberry at al >> yeah no it wasn't James you're misrepresenting what Newbury at l said in their paper I read it before I started recording it does not say what you're claiming it says sorry about that not sorry quite happy to deate to debate that paper with you when we have our face tof face debate that you desperately need to show up for which I know you're not going to still >> um in this uh human paper in this human study. Yeah. So yes, it is a study on humans. What what kind of humans was it though, James?

[00:31:15]Under what conditions, what methodology was used to measure things? What were the actual assertions, conclusions, what was actually supported empirically by the evidence collected by those authors in that paper, James? We can talk about that for an hour or more if you like.

[00:31:33]What I can promise viewers is it does not make the assertion that James is claiming it makes.

[00:31:41]What he's relying on is that you don't check. You just believe James. When James says, "Look, I've published hundreds of papers. Here's a paper published by someone that says what I'm telling you it says." Oh, okay then, James. If you say so. No, son. Sorry. It doesn't.

[00:31:56]Not at all.

[00:31:58]>> He's wrong about that as well.

[00:32:00]>> Yeah. No, I'm not still, James. Sorry about that. I know you like to claim I'm wrong about things that I'm not, but it doesn't actually change the facts. Your opinion about the correctness of what I have to say has absolutely zero impact on the actual objective facts and the actual objective reality in which we find ourselves still.

[00:32:21]>> So other things.

[00:32:22]>> Oh, goodness gracious. Can you make that noise a bit more there? That's awesome.

[00:32:25]>> Bar has gotten wrong.

[00:32:26]>> Yeah, some more things I got wrong according to James. Yes, let's hear it.

[00:32:28]>> We have low bicarbon. He says we can just breathe uh more CO2 in. That is wrong as well.

[00:32:34]>> That's not what I said either, James.

[00:32:36]That's you implying that I said something that is not really an implication of the actual objective reality, the facts of what goes on. Okay, once again, the concentration of bicarbonate in an aquous solution is an is not an independent variable. is dependent. When that fluid is exposed to carbon dioxide, that fluid will absorb more or less carbon dioxide at any given time depending on all those other things that affect the melu of things which ostensibly lead to the control of the effective activity of the hydrronium ion i.e. the pH in that solution which is also a dependent variable.

[00:33:28]Okay, bicarbonate is not one of the four independent variables. Ergo, its concentration cannot be independently set or moderated predictably changed by adding or by removing bicarbonate.

[00:33:42]When your body needs more bicarbonate for the bicarbonate buffering system which exists inherently in the fluids, that's what happens.

[00:33:53]It's the law of physics still. It's Lhatier's principle still. the local conservation of energy still. All right.

[00:34:01]So, stop misrepresenting what I said in order to try and win points that you cannot win. Why don't you come and face me to deal with the actual points I'm making? We know why you don't, James.

[00:34:11]Cuz you can't. I'm unassailable. Still, sorry about that.

[00:34:16]>> When we have acidosis, that leads to low bicarbonate. We wouldn't have low >> Goodness gracious.

[00:34:23]Goodness gracious. Again, acidosis is a term that needs an operational definition.

[00:34:34]You haven't given us one.

[00:34:36]Something that needs to be operationally defined would struggle to be a causer and a cause and effect coupling, wouldn't it?

[00:34:48]You're saying acidtosis causes low bicarbonate. No, there are four independent variables that have an effect on the concentration of bicarbonate in any aqueous solution.

[00:35:02]Still acidosis is not one of those four. Okay, sorry about that.

[00:35:11]>> Carbonate. If we could do this once we have acidosis raspber.

[00:35:14]>> What is that, James? Still acidosis. How are you going to define that?

[00:35:19]Should we wait for that in our face tof face discussion that you absolutely won't front up for still automatically increases and that will decrease uh the partial pressure for CO2 as well as like CO2 on a blood draw and the bicarb does not increase. This is hence why people that are on carnivore diets typically have low bicarbonate levels. We >> except they don't James where did you get that from? Who told you that?

[00:35:43]And low according to whom? On the basis of what? measured how exactly that'll be an interesting discussion too. Okay.

[00:35:56]What you're leaving your listener to assume is that there are valid unquestionable methodologies to gain an empirical measurement of the variables that you're talking about but not even defining when there aren't actually because your audience know even less about this than you do. I know that's hard to believe but they do. They think because you're a scientist with many, many publications that you couldn't possibly be leading them up the garden path. Sorry, those of you who do follow James, let me disabuse you of that false notion. as regards acid base homeostasis and the prognostic likelihood of any kind of poor health outcome as it relates to any aspect of the diet and humans whatsoever. James Dicol Antonio is a charlatan.

[00:36:54]He is a fool. He is a little boy in short pants academically in this field who does not have command of even the most basic first tenants and you need to wake up to that. Sorry about that if that's offensive to you.

[00:37:10]But nonetheless, it's easier to fool somebody than it is to convince them they've been fooled.

[00:37:18]And if you've been fooled by James to Nickel Antonio, it's not your fault because we are conditioned as a society to believe that scientists with many publications are credible. Sorry about that. I've got quite a few myself. Am I credible? James says I'm not. There goes that idea.

[00:37:36]One of us is, one of us isn't, perhaps.

[00:37:38]Maybe neither of us are. Maybe we're both idiots.

[00:37:42]I don't think so, personally. But then James doesn't think he's an idiot either. So anyways, I guess it's up to you to decide who you find more credible based on referring concepts back to their most basic first principles underpinning them. Okay?

[00:38:02]What I'm saying is I'm referring everything I'm saying back to known first principles and the way they act like the local conservation of energy like Lehatilia's principle like the law of conservation of electro neutrality like an understanding of equilibria and how they function like a very significant science scientific understanding of the measurement of things, the methodologies, the flaws, the foibless, the assumptions that the lay public are just left to um flounder around in.

[00:38:45]Anyway, I'm here any day, twice on Sundays, James, anytime you want to actually grow a set, come and have this debate out with me face to face instead of making repeated videos where you outright misrepresent at best and I think with malice of forethought lie about what it is you claim that I have said in order to try and win points and save face.

[00:39:14]come and have the discussion face to face. We'll do it live. We'll simoc cast it on both channels.

[00:39:23]Whatever. Okay. Right.

[00:39:24]>> Not just breathe in more CO2 and get bicarbonate back up. That's not how the body works. Now, James, you're in no position whatever to make protestations about how the body works based on your demonstrated destitution of comprehension of even basic physics which underpins all of this.

[00:39:50]All the chemicals that are involved in the in the human metabolic system, all the interactions between all of them, all of this is based on a sound foundation of the basic fundamentals of the physics and you do not understand those erggo in a purple fit.

[00:40:08]you are in no position to talk about how the body works, let alone to correct me on this topic because I really do understand and I'm quite happy, as I've said repeatedly, for you to come and prove me wrong to my face, which still hasn't happened.

[00:40:27]Okay.

[00:40:29]>> Just shows how destitute he is.

[00:40:30]>> Yes. Yes. I'm the one that's destitute.

[00:40:32]I think anyone that actually sits objectively through this video from start to finish We'll see which of us is destitute in this specific field of endeavor.

[00:40:44]Okay.

[00:40:46]You James, sorry.

[00:40:48]>> In his understanding of how basic >> Yes. Yes. My understanding is lacking.

[00:40:51]Of course it is James cuz you say so.

[00:40:54]Goodness gracious boy.

[00:40:55]>> Acid base balance works.

[00:40:57]>> Mhm.

[00:40:58]>> He also believes that water can autoionize or >> I believe that water can autoionize.

[00:41:06]No, James. That's a known physiological fact. It does autoionize.

[00:41:13]There's a dissociation constant for it even an autoionization constant.

[00:41:19]It's called the KW.

[00:41:22]It has a theoretical value which is just that theoretical. Um, and the reason that it's a theoretical constant is because it's actually not a constant.

[00:41:30]It's a variable. So it also has an effective value which depends on funnily enough four variables the same four okay underpinned by physics again. Sorry about that. Goodness gracious. This is hilarious. We're not going to get through James' whole video by the way.

[00:41:48]There's no point. There is no point in me correcting absolutely every single thing this boy says in the video. I'm going to go for another few minutes so that this whole video is shorter than an hour to give everybody a taste enough to know a whether they should listen to James or me. It's me and whether James should front up to me to try and justify himself to the wider public about what he's saying about what he claims I'm saying which isn't what I'm saying for example. Okay, carry on, James.

[00:42:25]>> Dissociate into the hydrononeium ion and the hydroxide ion.

[00:42:29]>> Yes, which is what happens. It's a fact.

[00:42:31]So why would you say I believe that to be a fact? I do believe it to be a fact.

[00:42:35]You got that right, James. I do believe it to be a fact. Do you know why?

[00:42:38]Because it is.

[00:42:42]>> Okay.

[00:42:42]>> And that that is a significant dynamic mechanism that can, you know, rapidly supply or remove hydrronium ions altering pH.

[00:42:49]>> No, no, no, no, no.

[00:42:53]nothing about removing anything at all.

[00:42:55]No, what we are talking about with this particular equilibrium equation here is it describes the effective activity of the hydrronium and the hydroxide ions not their concentration.

[00:43:13]This is not a description of an exchange between one form of mass and two other forms of mass.

[00:43:21]It's touted as being such and those that don't really understand chemistry think of it as such. They believe that conservation of mass is a fundamental principle of science about which they are mistaken. It isn't.

[00:43:35]Ask anyone that was in Hiroshima, Japan on the morning of 6th of August 1945 and see what they tell you if there's anybody still alive that was there.

[00:43:44]Okay.

[00:43:47]This is not about mass. This is a description of an energetic occurrence.

[00:43:53]Each one of those H3O pluses plus O minuses exists and I'm using that because they don't.

[00:44:02]They are thought of as being a physical thing in the solution which again is false. That's parimonious.

[00:44:09]But anyway, the period of time that this exists, they exist, so-called, is less than 1 millionth of 1 second.

[00:44:19]And we say less than because we can't really measure any quicker than that.

[00:44:23]And we know it's less than that. It could be much much less than that. It could be, in fact, to all intents and purposes plank time.

[00:44:34]And that's what would seem to be likely because this is an exchange of energy and not mass.

[00:44:38]Okay.

[00:44:41]Dear dear, >> in maintaining electro neutrality or offsetting charge difference, >> the law of electro neutrality is still a fact, James. It's it's still a specific application of the correct formulation, which is that energy is conserved locally.

[00:45:03]Still a fact of physics. Whether you like that fact or not, it's still a fact that's in play that you clearly haven't got your head around.

[00:45:09]>> Differences caused by strong ion differences or bicarbonate. That is also wrong. And this was >> uh altering pH and maintaining electro neutrality.

[00:45:26]Well, both of those things occur.

[00:45:29]Autoionization does alter the pH. The thing that we measure as pH and it is because electro neutrality is in effect the law of still quite how bicarbonate comes into this sentence makes no sense whatsoever. I don't know why James is even mentioning bicarbonate here. We've covered bicarbonate. It's one of those dependent variables in the system. Uh, and again, he's saying that I'm wrong about something that I clearly haven't said. Then, good work, James. Carry on.

[00:46:05]>> Was proposed by Stuart and he believes the Steuart model of acidosis. But >> that's cuz it's correct, James. That's underpinned by first principles of physics. Anyone that understands those will read what Peter Stewart put together and go, "Yep, he's right."

[00:46:23]at least anyone with enough intelligence to understand what Peter Stewart actually said, which I doubt you have. I really do. That's not a slur on your personality, James. I've got plenty of those if you want to hear some of those, too. Um, that's just a fact. It seems to me that you are destitute of the level of intelligence required to actually comprehend this material.

[00:46:50]Either that or you are a disingenuous liar.

[00:46:55]Oh, there is a reason for you to stop actually cuz you're just making a fool of yourself. You really are. Right, we're nearly done. Let's see if we're done. Done.

[00:47:03]>> I'm going to show you why that's wrong.

[00:47:04]No, you're >> not.

[00:47:05]>> The autoionization constant of water is extremely small.

[00:47:08]>> That's right.

[00:47:10]10us14.

[00:47:13]>> Yep.

[00:47:15]>> 1 * 10us4.

[00:47:18]That sentence up there on James' slide, that is that is a direct copy and paste from an article published in the literature on this topic written by me.

[00:47:42]I know because it's the exact formatting that I published in my paper.

[00:47:47]Good academics always site their sources, James. Okay, carry on.

[00:47:53]>> In blood phys, >> stop with the noise. Seriously, sunshine. That clicky clicky smacky smacky mouth noise. Not good at all.

[00:48:00]Really not good.

[00:48:01]>> Logic pH, the hydrronium ion levels are only 40 nanomar per liter. So the total free hydrononeium ions in the entire blood volume is only 2 microar. What >> I wonder what Jame what point James thinks she's making here.

[00:48:17]Exactly.

[00:48:21]This will be fascinating.

[00:48:23]>> That is an astronomically small number.

[00:48:25]>> Correct.

[00:48:27]>> Yes.

[00:48:30]In effect, take the blood pool as an example of a biologist, a biological aqueous fluid pool.

[00:48:40]The blood pH ranges and is tightly controlled within a homeostatically maintained range which ranges between 7.4ish and 6.8ish depending on whatever's going on.

[00:49:00]The difference between 6.8 and 7.4 for pH in terms of the so-called concentration which it isn't of the hydrronium ion in that fluid pool. The difference is 12 parts per 100 million.

[00:49:28]the range of pH that exists physiologically at all times until that homeostatic mechanism fails immediately prior to a person's death and not four.

[00:49:42]There goes the acidity argument, James.

[00:49:45]The body has homeostatic mechanisms.

[00:49:48]That's the end of this discussion. We don't need all this semantics about the physics and the and the chemistry and stuff that you don't understand.

[00:49:57]Do we We're done.

[00:50:01]I'm done. I'm really done with James until James grows a set and comes to face me like a man face to face so we can discuss what it is I actually have said about acidbased control, homeostasis, and the likelihood that we're all going to dissolve our skeletons and end up as a pool of mush on the floor because we're not eating bicarbonate for some reason.

[00:50:33]Okay, anytime you're like, James, goodness gracious.

[00:50:40]This has been going on vastly too long.

[00:50:43]There's nothing new under the sun here that you're producing. It's the same argument over and over again. As if I haven't already debunked it 10 times. I have.

[00:50:53]Either you're too stupid to understand that I've debunked it or your ego won't allow you to accept that you've been bested as regards this moot point, this aspect of science as it applies to our knowledge of the homeostasis of pH control and the homeostasis of our sceal integrity really over a lifetime according to any aspect of the diet, James, which is what this really is all can't remember.

[00:51:25]That's pathetic. It's desperate. It's destitute.

[00:51:29]You have the worst case of Donnie Krueger I've ever seen. James, your ego is completely out of control.

[00:51:36]Your presentation skills are abhorrent at best.

[00:51:44]Your person, let's get with the personality slurs. Your personality is singly unlikable.

[00:51:52]Okay, I play an unlikable character myself online as a bit of an actor. I don't think you're acting.

[00:51:58]I think that's genuinely, you know, how you are personally. Prove me wrong by coming and having a nice cordial discussion with yours truly face to face about the actual physics, the actual science, the actual chemistry, and the fact, the unassalable fact that what you're suggesting is just a facious bunch of absolute garbage.

[00:52:20]Okay, the rest of you, join me next time when someone else will be wrong on the interwebs because it does not look like slowing down anytime soon, does it? No.

[00:52:29]See you then.