Acute and chronic exposure, what do they mean?

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
Turnagain
Posts: 8501
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Acute and chronic exposure, what do they mean?

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
Where is it written in plain English, by the NIH and Health site, that cherry red skin is common and obvious in fatal gassings? Stop weasel dodging and quote where those sites state it is common and obvious.
LOL! Nessie has lost the debate so now wants a do over. His listing of sites that make no mention of a cadavers appearance is a bust. Nessie stamps his feet and shrieks, "Show me, show me". Been there and done that. The cherry red skin discoloration commonly presents at extremely high levels of COHb.

No alleged witnesses at Treblinka mentioned that the cadavers were red or pink. Instead we have the cockamamie yellow, black, etc. from liars who either weren't Treblinka inmates or, if they were inmates, never saw any bodies deliberately killed with CO.

From the hermetically sealed gas/vacuum chambers, the idiotic claims of the alleged eyewitnesses, the impossible mass graves and exhumations to the bizarre magic Jew barbeque Nessie offers nothing but his long, improbable tales of "what if" and "coulda woulda". Indeed, what if the little boy rode his tricycle to the moon? So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.

SUPPORT RODOH!
Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH? Please kindly contact Scott Smith ([email protected]). Any and all contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29463
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Acute and chronic exposure, what do they mean?

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 4:01 am
Nessie wrote:
Where is it written in plain English, by the NIH and Health site, that cherry red skin is common and obvious in fatal gassings? Stop weasel dodging and quote where those sites state it is common and obvious.
LOL! Nessie has lost the debate so now wants a do over. His listing of sites that make no mention of a cadavers appearance is a bust.
You are confused. The medical sites are about symptoms when still alive. Some, like the site you rely on also mentions post mortem, but generally the medical sites do not.

The medical sites either do not list cherry red as a symptom in gassings that would be fatal if the person is not rescued and treated. Or, they say cherry red is rare and some also mention it is seen in post-mortems.
Nessie stamps his feet and shrieks, "Show me, show me". Been there and done that. The cherry red skin discoloration commonly presents at extremely high levels of COHb.
This site;

https://www.verywellhealth.com/carbon-m ... ms-4161052

lists "Frequent symptoms" of various levels of CO poisoning and it does not mention cherry red skin. It goes on to list "Rare Symptoms", where it mentions cherry red and explains why it is a rare symptom often only seen at post-mortems.

This site;

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4922045/

also lists common symptoms including those for fatal gassings in "Table 1". It does not list cherry red. It goes on to say that in all cases, cherry red only appears in 2-3%. It does not say how many fatal cases show cherry red. But, since it is not listed in Table 1, it is rare.

That conclusion is backed up by numerous other medical sources that list symptoms for fatal gassings that either do not include cherry red skin or they also say it is rare and mostly seen at post-mortems.

You have no evidence to show it is common and obvious at death, such that minutes later, cherry red would be common and obvious to those emptying the gas chambers.
No alleged witnesses at Treblinka mentioned that the cadavers were red or pink.
Since you have not read all of the witnesses, you do not know that for sure. That none we know of mentions cherry red skin is because most bodies did not show any.
Instead we have the cockamamie yellow, black, etc. from liars who either weren't Treblinka inmates or, if they were inmates, never saw any bodies deliberately killed with CO.

From the hermetically sealed gas/vacuum chambers, the idiotic claims of the alleged eyewitnesses, the impossible mass graves and exhumations to the bizarre magic Jew barbeque Nessie offers nothing but his long, improbable tales of "what if" and "coulda woulda". Indeed, what if the little boy rode his tricycle to the moon? So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.
Your arguments from incredulity are fallacies. You demand we believe they left the camp in their hundreds of thousands, to be accommodated elsewhere, without leaving any evidence at all of that happening. So it goes in denier la la land.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Turnagain
Posts: 8501
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Acute and chronic exposure, what do they mean?

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie continues with his, "They didn't mean what they said". Too bad, cherry red skin discoloration readily presents at high levels of COHb. Nessie can stamp his feet and shriek, "They didn't mean that" from now til forever but he can't change what has been written.

Neither can he produce any so-called eyewitnesses who claim that a significant portion of the cadavers were cherry red. How many had co-morbidities or otherwise had a lowered susceptibility to CO is unknown but given a LC100 of CO at Treblinka, there would have been a good percentage of cherry red bodies. The fact remains that while no known witnesses claimed that the cadavers were cherry red, there are witnesses who claim that the cadavers were yellow, black, blue and so on. Those witnesses are obviously lying.

From the hermetically sealed gas/vacuum chambers to the impossible graves and exhumations to the magic Jew barbeque, Nessie comes up with a myriad of "what ifs" and "coulda woulda" excuses for the ridiculous lies claimed for Treblinka. Neither does he have any proof of the mass graves or the cremains of ~850,000 victims and no real explanation for the two entire trainloads of deportees who were sent from Treblinka to other destinations.

No doubt though, Nessie will press on with his, "If it happened, it was possible". So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29463
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Acute and chronic exposure, what do they mean?

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 3:05 pm
Nessie continues with his, "They didn't mean what they said". Too bad, cherry red skin discoloration readily presents at high levels of COHb. Nessie can stamp his feet and shriek, "They didn't mean that" from now til forever but he can't change what has been written....
They did mean what they said.

The verywellhealth source did mean that cherry red was a "rare symptom" when it listed it as a "Rare Symptom" instead of a "Frequent Symptom".

The NIH source did mean in all cases cherry red is rare, as it said it appears in only 2-3% of all cases and it did not list it at all as a symptom in Table 1 for severe cases, >60%.

Only a denier in la la land thinks that can be interpreted to mean in severe cases, it is common and obvious. If it was, it would have been listed as a frequent symptom and included in the table of symptoms.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Turnagain
Posts: 8501
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Acute and chronic exposure, what do they mean?

Post by Turnagain »

LOL! Nessie goes for his original weasel dodge. He tries to claim that the articles aren't referring to the incidence of death in cases of symptomatic CO poisoning. Oh well, ya' gotta' go with what ya' got and Nessie is clutching at straws. Nessie fails to mention that the death rate at Treblinka was allegedly LC100 not the small percentages that are claimed in a real life scenario.

You're going to have to up your game. Your weasel dodge is a fizzle.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29463
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Acute and chronic exposure, what do they mean?

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:33 pm
LOL! Nessie goes for his original weasel dodge. He tries to claim that the articles aren't referring to the incidence of death in cases of symptomatic CO poisoning. Oh well, ya' gotta' go with what ya' got and Nessie is clutching at straws. Nessie fails to mention that the death rate at Treblinka was allegedly LC100 not the small percentages that are claimed in a real life scenario.

You're going to have to up your game. Your weasel dodge is a fizzle.
Where the articles deal with cases that would be LC100, they say cherry red is rare or do not list it at all as a symptom. That is also the case with numerous other medical sources both Werd and I have posted.

You have no evidence that >60% when it is LC100, that cherry red is common and obvious. I have shown you numerous medical sources that in their lists of symptoms, they include the symptoms for >60% where it would be LC100. Ignore the parts of the medical articles and diagrams that deal with <60% where people would likely survive. Concentrate only on the highest levels of exposure that will kill.

You will find no medical source that lists cherry red as a symptom in those highest of levels that will kill. That means it is a rare symptom.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Turnagain
Posts: 8501
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Acute and chronic exposure, what do they mean?

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie wrote:
You will find no medical source that lists cherry red as a symptom in those highest of levels that will kill.
Give it a rest, Nessie. I just did. You lose...neener neener. Of course even at LC100 not everyone who dies will have the necessary level of COHb to develop the cherry red skin discoloration. That little strawman is a bust. Stamp your feet and shriek to your heart's content but the fact is, YOU LOSE. Get used to it.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29463
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Acute and chronic exposure, what do they mean?

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:26 am
Nessie wrote:
You will find no medical source that lists cherry red as a symptom in those highest of levels that will kill.
Give it a rest, Nessie. I just did. You lose...neener neener.
I have just explained to you how your two sources do not prove cherry red is common and obvious. One lists the symptom as rare, not frequent and the other has a list of symptoms for the most severe cases and it does not include cherry red.
Of course even at LC100 not everyone who dies will have the necessary level of COHb to develop the cherry red skin discoloration. That little strawman is a bust.
OK, as a percentage, how many would show cherry red? Show your evidence to back that up.

Then deal with the issue you weasel dodge, how obvious would the cherry red be to someone not used to seeing dead bodies and who has no medical training? I have shown you evidence that even medics can miss it.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Turnagain
Posts: 8501
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Acute and chronic exposure, what do they mean?

Post by Turnagain »

Nessie is still trying to convince everyone that my sources didn't actually mean what they said. That lie doesn't fly, Nessie. YOU LOSE. Get over it.

As far as the number of individuals in a given population who would turn cherry red is an unknown. That would depend on the percentage of co-morbitities such as asthma, COPD, etc and the number of people more susceptible to CO than others. However, a large enough percentage would present cherry red discoloration for the alleged eyewitnesses to remark on it. They didn't. They lied. Same as they lied about the hermetically sealed gas/vacuum chambers. You can make up cockamamie "what ifs" and "coulda woulda" for all of the lies about Treblinka but the fact remains that nobody was gassed, buried, exhumed and cremated on the magic Jew barbeque.

However, you are welcome to continue on with your tales from holyhoax la-la land.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29463
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Acute and chronic exposure, what do they mean?

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 10:01 am
Nessie is still trying to convince everyone that my sources didn't actually mean what they said. That lie doesn't fly, Nessie. YOU LOSE. Get over it.
Wrong way round.

You need to explain why a source that lists both frequent and rare symptoms, lists cherry red as rare, but you claim it really means it is frequent.

You need to explain why a source that has a table of symptoms, does not list cherry red for the most severe exposures, in particular >60%, but that means it is common and obvious.
As far as the number of individuals in a given population who would turn cherry red is an unknown. That would depend on the percentage of co-morbitities such as asthma, COPD, etc and the number of people more susceptible to CO than others. However, a large enough percentage would present cherry red discoloration for the alleged eyewitnesses to remark on it. ...
How large a percentage? Show your evidence.

Stop weasel dodging explaining how people with no medical training would necessarily identify skin discolouration associated with CO poisoning. I have shown you evidence even medics can miss it.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 36 guests