Hey, Mr Bubbles:
Well, possibly there are idiopathic affects at work here. But if a labyrinth breather appears to suffer more pronounced respiratory distress than a Bolivian Ram, one must suspect a.) a fault in the observation, i.e. a misunderstanding of the behaviors exhibited, or b.) some completely coincidental, and therefore misleading, symptom of stress from a cause not actually related to the parameters under consideration.
There is a basic misunderstanding at work in this discourse - Biollante DID, in fact, give a reason for the advice offered. That is that there is as yet, NO understanding of what is wrong, and it is necessary to eliminate possible factors one step at a time. It would be fair to say that no advice was being offered, and until more information is forthcoming, no advice CAN be offered. His procedure would (may, probably?) have led to a grasp of the issue and a solution to the problem, but he is also aware, and took pains to point out, that no investigative measure should be undertaken that would imperil the fish in the meantime.
If the immediate problem, as advertised, is that the fish are suffering respiratory distress, the clear obvious first step is to STOP CO2 delivery. A couple of days will not cause an algal holocaust. "Cutting back" on CO2 delivery, as purported by a user hundreds of miles away, is not definitive because we just can't tell how much CO2 is REALLY being used. That is, we don't have scientifically certain control of that variable as we would if we were assured that there was NO CO2 being delivered. Perhaps Bio should simply have said NO CO2 for two (or how many ever) days, to avoid the possibilty of this misundserstanding. In any case, it should have been clear that he was trying to control what is probably a very material variable in order to obtain data.
Now, we haven't heard from you for a couple of days. If you still have a problem that we can help you with, please come back, and let us begin again.