[solveit]

The unrepresentativeness is irrelevant. It's quite conceivable that young fit men can take 20% more CO2 than the typical person before showing symptoms. 1000% is not, because it would have been noticed before and publicised as incredible. People have been on submarines for decades. You're telling me that, not only is there a hitherto unknown biological mechanism that renders young fit men practically immune to a toxic gas that debilitates the typical person at 0.1 times the dose and 0.01 times the exposure period, which is in itself a fantastic claim, but you're also telling me that this has not been noticed by any submariner in any country in decades! That nobody brought a fat politician aboard and noticed them keel over! That no old rich guy (perhaps... a famed movie director?) wanted to see the depths of the ocean! If you have priors on anything, it should be that this study is almost certainly wrong at a fundamental level. Quibbling about sample representativeness is a rounding error, which is why many people in this thread are well aware but completely uninterested in it.