Was mulling over combining these two methods to increase the odds. Am I right in thinking they have similar mechanisms of action in stopping oxygen binding to haemoglobin? Would they potentiate or undermine each other when used in tandem?
-
Hey Guest,
As you know, censorship around the world has been ramping up at an alarming pace. The UK and OFCOM has singled out this community and have been focusing its censorship efforts here. It takes a good amount of resources to maintain the infrastructure for our community and to resist this censorship. We would appreciate any and all donations.
Bitcoin (BTC): 39deg9i6Zp1GdrwyKkqZU6rAbsEspvLBJtETH: 0xd799aF8E2e5cEd14cdb344e6D6A9f18011B79BE9Monero (XMR): 49tuJbzxwVPUhhDjzz6H222Kh8baKe6rDEsXgE617DVSDD8UKNaXvKNU8dEVRTAFH9Av8gKkn4jDzVGF25snJgNfUfKKNC8
Azure
Little Chemist
- Jun 13, 2018
- 133
SN will change your hemoglobin into methemoglobing, which has such a high affinity with oxygen that it won't let it go into the tissues, while CO poisoning replaces the oxygen in your system by having a higher affinity to hemoglobin. I haven't found any info about the affinity of MetHb to CO, but I'd say that the SN will kinda step over the CO poisoning.Similar threads
