Would I be wrong to say things I think might be wrong with the debreather? I don't want to make people upset at me again.
I think it's helpful to differentiate between the ReBreather product by R2D and the concept of a debreather which was (ostensibly) proven to work in a past study in Canada, and which
@TrailerTrash has been developing, as well as other members who have posted in the past that they were working on.
There are definitely issues with the ReBreather product, and questioning it is the point of the thread, as evidenced by the title and the OP. At the time, EI, PPH and PN were still calling it the debreather and not by the product name, which has caused ongoing need in this thread for clarification and re-clarification.
The issues with the ReBreather have been pointed out by EI in the most recent release of the PPeH, by another member who reported in this thread that it failed (but with little detail), and by me, for whom it also failed (and I provided a lot of detail).
I and others in this thread have also pointed out that Richard, the owner of R2D and inventor of the product, does not seem to speak honestly. There have also been concerns of plants who have become SS members to pump up interest in and faith in the product. But back to Richard, that message you got from him where I responded by quitting the Internet for the day is one of many examples of his manipulative communication -- the product "definitely works," yet at the same time, it doesn't work for some, and he seems to place the blame on the users because
they, not the product, were unsuccessful and experienced discomfort; however, this simply cannot happen if it "definitely works"! The cognitive dissonance is too much. The bullshit smells stronger than the soda lime (which smelled like an indoor public pool, btw, not unpleasant like the bullshit that seems to me to continuously surround this product).
So in response to your comment, hell yes there are problems with the ReBreather. I cannot say the same for all debreathers, though. Just cautioning you to differentiate so that unnecessary disagreements don't happen, as seemed to have potentially happened when you first commented.
Maybe this would be a good time to bring up that I also experienced some cognitive dissonance from your first post alongside your subsequent posts, and perhaps you'd like to clear that up if you feel it would help to get things back on track, and so that you don't feel hesitant to speak.
In your first post, you seemed quite against the product, or perhaps the method, it wasn't clear. You used words like yuck and gross, and seemed to outright reject either the product or the method. And you seemed quite knowledgeable about it when you made those statements. Yet in subsequent posts, you said you are interested in the method, want it to work, have hope in it, and are therefore researching it, such as being in contact with Richard. So it's hard to know where you're coming from and what your true motives are, which causes a natural reaction, I think, of putting up quick boundaries against you in the thread because things didn't jive. What I'm trying to do here is give you the opportunity to set things straight so that you and all of us can feel comfortable to have this important conversation in ways that feel and are indeed safe, mutually considerate, and supportive for all of us participating on the thread, including you. Therefore this is not an attack, but a constructive criticism and an invitation to clear things up and hopefully experience mutually beneficial inclusion.
