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).
User avatar
Huntinger
Posts: 7825
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:56 am
Location: Gasthaus Waldesruh. Swabia
Contact:

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

Post by Huntinger »

If someone is exposed to a fatal level of CO, it does not matter if it is accidental or deliberate, the symptoms are the same.
I see little point in this discussion; while 3% of the victims are pink that observation over a large number of people would make this a notable point and yet it was not mentioned except once; virtually every other hue was mentioned except this one.


𝕴𝖈𝖍 𝖇𝖊𝖗𝖊𝖚𝖊 𝖓𝖎𝖈𝖍𝖙𝖘...𝕾𝖔𝖟𝖎𝖆𝖑 𝖌𝖊𝖍𝖙 𝖓𝖚𝖗 𝕹𝖆𝖙𝖎𝖔𝖓𝖆𝖑

Amt IV

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!


Werd
Posts: 10249
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

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

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:13 pm

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp201-c3.pdf

Chapter 3.2.1.
I fail to see the qualitative difference between this and the textbooks that A.S. cited since this reads like a textbook with cited cases. :lol:
Why do severe living miners show red but severe dead Jews don't when fresh out of the chambers?
I do not know for sure. I have theorised that chronic exposure may have an effect. Another reason is maybe the miners knew more about CO than those who worked at the camps and they knew what to look out for.
The sonderkommando Jews missed red skin because they didn't know to look for it. Wow. :roll:
Then you do exactly that, by comparing miners who had a lower level of exposure to CO over a longer period of time that that experienced in the gas chambers.
Nessie uses vague language because he knows specifics destroy his case. SEVERE MINERS AND SEVERE JEWS ARE SEVERE. SOME MINERS DIED. THEY WERE SEVERE ENOUGH! So Nessie's attempt to separate miners from Jews IS A LIE AND AN ABJECT FAILURE!
The NHS, CDC and BMJ beat text books that are vague and do not show their sources.
That's a lie if I ever saw one. :D
you cannot provide a credible, primary sourced study that shows cherry red is common and obvious before lividity forms.
Yep. A.S.'s sources. You just cherry pick and ignore them and fallaciously pretend that CDC link above is on a plane higher than those textbooks. The idea that you claim those textbooks, means conceivably that any medical textbook written by certified professionals would be without footnotes. AND THAT'S JUST ASININE!

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29464
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:40 am
Nessie wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 5:13 pm

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp201-c3.pdf

Chapter 3.2.1.
I fail to see the qualitative difference between this and the textbooks that A.S. cited since this reads like a textbook with cited cases. :lol:
The NHS, CDC, and BMJ sources I recently cited all deal specifically with the symptoms for severe, will kill if not rescued and treated symptoms of CO. We know where they got their information from.

The sources AS uses are either post mortem or vague about the severity of poisoning and often have no source.
Why do severe living miners show red but severe dead Jews don't when fresh out of the chambers?
I do not know for sure. I have theorised that chronic exposure may have an effect. Another reason is maybe the miners knew more about CO than those who worked at the camps and they knew what to look out for.
The sonderkommando Jews missed red skin because they didn't know to look for it. Wow. :roll:
Because although the symptom is often called bright cherry red, it is hues and not all are that clear. Look at the images and the lancet article.
Then you do exactly that, by comparing miners who had a lower level of exposure to CO over a longer period of time that that experienced in the gas chambers.
Nessie uses vague language because he knows specifics destroy his case. SEVERE MINERS AND SEVERE JEWS ARE SEVERE. SOME MINERS DIED. THEY WERE SEVERE ENOUGH! So Nessie's attempt to separate miners from Jews IS A LIE AND AN ABJECT FAILURE!
You are comparing chronic and a lower level of exposure with acute and a higher level of exposure. You have been vague about how many miners lived or died and how obvious their skin discolouration was. Can you even say how many showed skin discolouration.
The NHS, CDC and BMJ beat text books that are vague and do not show their sources.
That's a lie if I ever saw one. :D
you cannot provide a credible, primary sourced study that shows cherry red is common and obvious before lividity forms.
Yep. A.S.'s sources. You just cherry pick and ignore them and fallaciously pretend that CDC link above is on a plane higher than those textbooks. The idea that you claim those textbooks, means conceivably that any medical textbook written by certified professionals would be without footnotes. AND THAT'S JUST ASININE!
You have cherry picked the miner's case and two text books that mention 50%, but not the source, one of which contradicts itself on the same page. That is it. That is all you have.

When most medical sources do not even list cherry red a symptom and others are specific that it is rare, then that is sufficient evidence to explain why no witness mentions seeing lots of bright cherry red bodies.
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.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29464
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Nessie »

(Edit- this is a response to a post that disappeared).

It is at an impasse. The problem is down to deniers not understanding the evidence and thinking it means something it does not. That started with berg years ago, when he misunderstood an article about coroners in Vienna "immediately" identifying the victims of CO poisoning by the skin discolouration.

Berg thought that coroners were seeing bodies immediately after the people died. But they see the bodies often hours after death. He failed to understand the coroner's role of pronouncing death and establishing the cause of death. Coroners get called to the scene of a dead body.

He posted a photo, like the one Werd posted before, showing a dead body with obvious cherry red skin. But those bodies had been dead for hours and the cherry red is due to lividity. Both bodies had been rolled onto their side to see the pooled blood, the skin itself is white.

I then started to search for symptoms of fatal CO poisoning and found source after source that did not list skin discolouration as a symptom, or they said it was rare. I also found numerous post mortem, forensic references to lividity. They all said lividity (livor mortis) from CO was cherry red, but it takes hours to form and that is delayed further of the body is moved.

The medical and forensic evidence tells us that means on dying, few people have any signs of obvious skin discolouration and it is hours after death that it starts to appear. So, on opening the gas chambers, few are red and then they are buried by the time lividity can form.

Werd, Turnagain and Berg back in the day presented me with any old reference to cherry red, no matter how vague, as if that proves it is a common feature on death. In this thread, based on a diagram from Werd that does not list skin discolouration and an article from Turnagain that lists cherry red as a rare symptom, I am supposed to believe it is common and obvious on death. Clearly they do not understand the issues and evidence if they are so stupid as to present evidence that contradicts their claims.
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.

Werd
Posts: 10249
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

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

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:14 am
The sources AS uses are either post mortem or vague
Correction: anti-mortem.
about the severity of poisoning and often have no source.
Allegedly.

The sonderkommando Jews missed red skin because they didn't know to look for it. Wow. :roll:
Because although the symptom is often called bright cherry red, it is hues and not all are that clear.
Red looks like yellow (Wiernik) and gray (Rosenberg). Okay now it all makes sense. :roll:

Nessie uses vague language because he knows specifics destroy his case. SEVERE MINERS AND SEVERE JEWS ARE SEVERE. SOME MINERS DIED. THEY WERE SEVERE ENOUGH! So Nessie's attempt to separate miners from Jews IS A LIE AND AN ABJECT FAILURE!
You are comparing chronic and a lower level of exposure with acute and a higher level of exposure.
See what I mean? he refuses to admit both Jews and miners were severely poisoned and died. He does exactly what I accuse him of.
You have cherry picked the miner's case and two text books that mention 50%,
But I don't use them to therefore say your sources are wrong. What I say is that some sources miss the point and aren't specific enough about SEVERE poisoning levels. Hell, you posted one source that I debunked and exposed whose footnote #2 was talking about mild and medium poisoned patients in a study of 100 that all survived SO OF COURSE that couldn't be compared to severely poisoned people. Of course you dropped that source like a hot potato.
but not the source, one of which contradicts itself on the same page.
Here we go again with his tortured logic. If it's not in the chart, but in the text, then it's not real. But again, I could turn that around on Nessie and say, "if it's not in the text, but in the chart, then it's not real," Nessie just makes arbitrary shit up and when it's thrown back on him, he gets mad.
viewtopic.php?p=175047#p175047
Beat that dead horse, Nessie. :lol:
Werd wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 3:28 pm
[...]
"For decades, physicians have been taught to look for “cherry red”coloration of the skin and mucous membranes in patients with carbonmonoxide (CO) poisoning, but this is rarely seen [1,2].... Even when reflectance spectrometry is used to measure skin color afterdeath in individuals who have died of CO poisoning, less than one-half demonstrate “cherry red” skin"
What was the poisoning levels of these people? How severe? We never get an answer from our resident troll.
However, a lethal level of COHb is required for a human’s skin and mucous membranes to appear “cherry red”.
Um, clearly not in some cases. :lol: Let's check his footnotes to see why red skin is rare in LIVING PATIENTS!
#2

Gorman DF, Clayton D, Gilligan JE, Webb RK (1992) A longitudinal
study of 100 consecutive admissions for carbon monoxide poisoning to
the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Anaesth Intensive Care 20: 311-316.
So 100 admission of people who were not severe enough that they were rescued and didn't even show red skin like that one lady. CLEARLY THEY WEREN'T SEVERELY POISONED. The answer is always there but Nessie always plugs his ears, closing his eyes and sings lalalala really loudly. I bet these people's COHb levels weren't even that high. :D Nessie always does this. He always takes data about mild or medium poisoning and throws it in the mix of near death and freshly dead people with high COHb.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29464
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 12:12 pm
Nessie wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 9:14 am
The sources AS uses are either post mortem or vague
Correction: anti-mortem.
about the severity of poisoning and often have no source.
Allegedly.
How about you show which one of his sources is a primary study of fatal gassings.

The sonderkommando Jews missed red skin because they didn't know to look for it. Wow. :roll:
Because although the symptom is often called bright cherry red, it is hues and not all are that clear.
Red looks like yellow (Wiernik) and gray (Rosenberg). Okay now it all makes sense. :roll:

Nessie uses vague language because he knows specifics destroy his case. SEVERE MINERS AND SEVERE JEWS ARE SEVERE. SOME MINERS DIED. THEY WERE SEVERE ENOUGH! So Nessie's attempt to separate miners from Jews IS A LIE AND AN ABJECT FAILURE!
You are comparing chronic and a lower level of exposure with acute and a higher level of exposure.
See what I mean? he refuses to admit both Jews and miners were severely poisoned and died. He does exactly what I accuse him of.
You refuse to admit that some miners survived and their exposure was chronic not acute. You then refuse to go into any detail about the miner incident, leaving lost of questions unanswered.
You have cherry picked the miner's case and two text books that mention 50%,
But I don't use them to therefore say your sources are wrong. What I say is that some sources miss the point and aren't specific enough about SEVERE poisoning levels. Hell, you posted one source that I debunked and exposed whose footnote #2 was talking about mild and medium poisoned patients in a study of 100 that all survived SO OF COURSE that couldn't be compared to severely poisoned people. Of course you dropped that source like a hot potato.
Yes, I did stop using that source. The sources I use, the NHS, CDC and BMJ all deal with SEVERE poisoning that will kill. None mention cherry red skin.

You drag out what happened to the miners, who were not exposed to as severe a level as those in the gas chambers and you fail to acknowledge that what happened to them is very rare. So rare, that most sources listing severe symptoms do not include cherry red skin.

You have no rational explanation for that.
but not the source, one of which contradicts itself on the same page.
Here we go again with his tortured logic. If it's not in the chart, but in the text, then it's not real. But again, I could turn that around on Nessie and say, "if it's not in the text, but in the chart, then it's not real," Nessie just makes arbitrary shit up and when it's thrown back on him, he gets mad.
viewtopic.php?p=175047#p175047
Beat that dead horse, Nessie. :lol:
That source contradicts itself AND is contradicted by numerous other sources, including the diagram you posted! You ignore that :lol:
Werd wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 3:28 pm
[...]
"For decades, physicians have been taught to look for “cherry red”coloration of the skin and mucous membranes in patients with carbonmonoxide (CO) poisoning, but this is rarely seen [1,2].... Even when reflectance spectrometry is used to measure skin color afterdeath in individuals who have died of CO poisoning, less than one-half demonstrate “cherry red” skin"
What was the poisoning levels of these people? How severe? We never get an answer from our resident troll.
The source does not say. That is one of a number of problems with that source.

It claims cherry red is rare, then it states it can happen in 50% of cases, that is contradictory. As you note, it does not say how severe the poisonings are. It does not say anything about the source of the "less than one half" claim.

That is why I do not use that source, since it has issues.
However, a lethal level of COHb is required for a human’s skin and mucous membranes to appear “cherry red”.
Um, clearly not in some cases. :lol: Let's check his footnotes to see why red skin is rare in LIVING PATIENTS!
#2

Gorman DF, Clayton D, Gilligan JE, Webb RK (1992) A longitudinal
study of 100 consecutive admissions for carbon monoxide poisoning to
the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Anaesth Intensive Care 20: 311-316.
So 100 admission of people who were not severe enough that they were rescued and didn't even show red skin like that one lady. CLEARLY THEY WEREN'T SEVERELY POISONED. The answer is always there but Nessie always plugs his ears, closing his eyes and sings lalalala really loudly. I bet these people's COHb levels weren't even that high. :D Nessie always does this. He always takes data about mild or medium poisoning and throws it in the mix of near death and freshly dead people with high COHb.
As I said, there are issues, primarily that deals with all admissions, no matter what the levels are.

Now, you never did produce a primary source medical study that fatal poisonings from severe levels that will kill everyone (not just some) in minutes commonly produces obvious cherry red skin. Since my sources do not list cherry red skin and others do say it is rare, I do not believe your claim.
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.

Werd
Posts: 10249
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

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

Post by Werd »

Nessie wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:59 pm
How about you show which one of his sources is a primary study of fatal gassings.
Still labouring under the delusion that CDC and NHS are primary sources, eh? :lol:
Nessie uses vague language because he knows specifics destroy his case. SEVERE MINERS AND SEVERE JEWS ARE SEVERE. SOME MINERS DIED. THEY WERE SEVERE ENOUGH! So Nessie's attempt to separate miners from Jews IS A LIE AND AN ABJECT FAILURE!
[...]
See what I mean? he refuses to admit both Jews and miners were severely poisoned and died. He does exactly what I accuse him of.
You refuse to admit that some miners survived and their exposure was chronic not acute.
See what I mean? He refuses to admit both Jews and miners were severely poisoned and died. He does exactly what I accuse him of. He hides behind pointless words to obscure the main point. That way he doesn't have to answer why the body "cares" about how long it takes to get to the severe levels before it wants to show red skin.
the miners, who were not exposed to as severe a level as those in the gas chambers
Miners died. Jews died. They're the same. Clearly the other miners who didn't die who didn't, WEREN'T IN THE RIGHT PLACES TO ABSORB THE POISON WHEREAS OTHERS WERE. DUH!!! NON-DEAD MINERS ARE IRRELEVANT CLEARLY! :roll:
Since my sources do not list cherry red skin and others do say it is rare, I do not believe your claim.
You don't have to keep telling us you like to pick cherries in your spare time. We already know this.

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 claims to not have used any numbers from the CDC. Here is his quote from page 22:
The CDC state that around 430 die each year from CO poisoning in the USA. Another 50,000 are hospitalised...
Nessie also states that while cherry red skin can occur ante mortem it only appears as livor mortis. Nessie can't keep his stories straight. Then we have:
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/630080.html
and:
https://www.thoughtco.com/carbon-monoxide-373551
or, if you can stand to read it (I can't) you can go here:
https://sanctionedsuicide.com/threads/c ... read.2053/
There's supposedly even charts and graphs from people who take a first hand interest in death by CO poisoning.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29464
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:55 am
Nessie wrote:
Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:59 pm
How about you show which one of his sources is a primary study of fatal gassings.
Still labouring under the delusion that CDC and NHS are primary sources, eh? :lol:
Where is your evidence they are wrong? Show me your primary study of severe, fatal CO gassings where the majority went obviously cherry red.
Nessie uses vague language because he knows specifics destroy his case. SEVERE MINERS AND SEVERE JEWS ARE SEVERE. SOME MINERS DIED. THEY WERE SEVERE ENOUGH! So Nessie's attempt to separate miners from Jews IS A LIE AND AN ABJECT FAILURE!
[...]
See what I mean? he refuses to admit both Jews and miners were severely poisoned and died. He does exactly what I accuse him of.
You refuse to admit that some miners survived and their exposure was chronic not acute.
See what I mean? He refuses to admit both Jews and miners were severely poisoned and died. He does exactly what I accuse him of. He hides behind pointless words to obscure the main point. That way he doesn't have to answer why the body "cares" about how long it takes to get to the severe levels before it wants to show red skin.
the miners, who were not exposed to as severe a level as those in the gas chambers
Miners died. Jews died. They're the same. Clearly the other miners who didn't die who didn't, WEREN'T IN THE RIGHT PLACES TO ABSORB THE POISON WHEREAS OTHERS WERE. DUH!!! NON-DEAD MINERS ARE IRRELEVANT CLEARLY! :roll:
Since my sources do not list cherry red skin and others do say it is rare, I do not believe your claim.
You don't have to keep telling us you like to pick cherries in your spare time. We already know this.
How many miners died? How many lived? How many hours/days were they exposed to CO? Did those who died, all die of CO? How obvious was any cherry red? How many of the miners went cherry red?
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.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 29464
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Nessie »

Turnagain wrote:
Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:31 am
Nessie claims to not have used any numbers from the CDC. Here is his quote from page 22:
The CDC state that around 430 die each year from CO poisoning in the USA. Another 50,000 are hospitalised...
I was getting totals for the USA and UK, to show that every year 500 die from CO and if cherry red skin was common and obvious, from 500 deaths that would be noted and recorded as a symptom by US and UK health care providers.
Nessie also states that while cherry red skin can occur ante mortem it only appears as livor mortis. Nessie can't keep his stories straight.
I did not state that, you are unable to think straight and remember and understand what you have been told.
Which does not list cherry red as a symptom in fatal gassings.
Which does not list cherry red as a symptom in fatal gassings.
or, if you can stand to read it (I can't) you can go here:
https://sanctionedsuicide.com/threads/c ... read.2053/
There's supposedly even charts and graphs from people who take a first hand interest in death by CO poisoning.
Which does not list cherry red as a symptom in fatal gassings.

Where is your evidence that in fatal gassings, the skin commonly and obviously goes cherry red before the appearance of lividity?
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] and 14 guests