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:
That non-medical source, it is a boat club, says "might also include red skin".
That's just a source that I found while poking around on the internet. That brings to five (5) the number of sources I've listed that mention cherry red skin discoloration as function of CO poisoning.

The NIH states that cherry red skin discoloration is the result of high (>60%) COHb which represents a small (rare) proportion of all symptomatic cases of CO poisoning. Only you maintain that the small percentage of victims who reach such high levels of COHb also display an equally small percentage of cherry red skin discoloration. That is clearly not the case as even the NIH states that cherry red skin discoloration is associated with high levels of COHb. Your weasel dodge is a FAIL, Nessie.

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!


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:
That chart does not list cherry red skin for severe cases that will end in death, so that chart does not associate cherry red skin with severe cases that will kill, the LC100 that is so important.
What the hell are you on about? The NIH plainly lists, "> 60-70..........................................Coma, respiratory failure, death". LC100 refers to a concentration of a toxic substance that results in death 100% of the time. It's plainly stated that, "Cherry-red skin colour [is] associated with severe carbon monoxide poisoning...".
No, since I just said "No source lists cherry red for mild to moderate CO poisoning." Cherry red skin is only ever listed, if it listed at all, for severe cases.
OK, then you agree with the NIH that cherry red skin discoloration is associated with extremely high levels of COHb. At Treblinka with it's LC100 of CO, extremely high levels of COHb would be not only common but necessary to kill everyone every time victims were gassed.
Now, again, you list symptoms that do not include cherry red for severe, fatal cases. That same source states cherry red skin is rare in severe cases, such that in all cases it amounts to 2-3%. Your other source lists cherry red for severe cases in "Rare Symptoms".
No, it is not claimed that cherry red skin discoloration is "rare" in the 2-3% of cases of severe CO poisoning with COHb levels >60%. The "rare" 2-3% of victims who reach COHb levels >60% is what is rare. That is not, repeat NOT the percentage of victims who present cherry red skin discoloration. (Nessie's innumeracy is shining brightly)

If only 2-3% of CO victims reach COHb levels of >60% how many of those victims present cherry red skin discoloration? The NIH states that the cherry red discoloration is associated with high levels of COHb. At Treblinka only those with co-morbidity factors who would succumb before reaching the levels of COHb necessary to produce the cherry red skin discoloration would fail to present that discoloration. You are conflating the percentage of people who reach COHb levels of >60% as the percentage of those people who would present cherry red skin discoloration. That claim doesn't fly.

Edit.
I think that one of been-there's quotes for the day is appropriate at this time.
You can correct millions of honest people with one empirically proven fact but you can't correct even one self-deluded, dishonest, stubborn person not even with many millions of empirically proven facts.

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:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 10:42 am
Nessie wrote:
That non-medical source, it is a boat club, says "might also include red skin".
That's just a source that I found while poking around on the internet. That brings to five (5) the number of sources I've listed that mention cherry red skin discoloration as function of CO poisoning.
Mentioning is not much use. What is needed are primary medical studies of the symptoms of fatal CO poisonings. I have looked for such and they either say it is rare, or they do not mention it as a symptom at all.
The NIH states that cherry red skin discoloration is the result of high (>60%) COHb which represents a small (rare) proportion of all symptomatic cases of CO poisoning. Only you maintain that the small percentage of victims who reach such high levels of COHb also display an equally small percentage of cherry red skin discoloration. That is clearly not the case as even the NIH states that cherry red skin discoloration is associated with high levels of COHb. Your weasel dodge is a FAIL, Nessie.
The NIH specifically states it is rare in severe cases. So did your other source from verywellhealth. Then you listed symptoms that did not include cherry red at all for fatal gassings.

You keep on claiming weasel dodge, but it is not clear what I am dodging. You are dodging that all you can find are medical sources that say the cherry red symptom is rare, or they do not list it at all, or non medical sources that merely reference the symptom as a possible.
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:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:30 am
Nessie wrote:
That chart does not list cherry red skin for severe cases that will end in death, so that chart does not associate cherry red skin with severe cases that will kill, the LC100 that is so important.
What the hell are you on about? The NIH plainly lists, "> 60-70..........................................Coma, respiratory failure, death". LC100 refers to a concentration of a toxic substance that results in death 100% of the time. It's plainly stated that, "Cherry-red skin colour [is] associated with severe carbon monoxide poisoning...".
The text suggests it is rare, the chart does not list it at all.

But you are trying to claim it is common :lol:
No, since I just said "No source lists cherry red for mild to moderate CO poisoning." Cherry red skin is only ever listed, if it listed at all, for severe cases.
OK, then you agree with the NIH that cherry red skin discoloration is associated with extremely high levels of COHb. At Treblinka with it's LC100 of CO, extremely high levels of COHb would be not only common but necessary to kill everyone every time victims were gassed.
Correct. The question is, how often does cherry red skin appear, when the exposure to CO is so it would result in a LC100?

The answer, from the medical sources, is that it is rare.
Now, again, you list symptoms that do not include cherry red for severe, fatal cases. That same source states cherry red skin is rare in severe cases, such that in all cases it amounts to 2-3%. Your other source lists cherry red for severe cases in "Rare Symptoms".
No, it is not claimed that cherry red skin discoloration is "rare" in the 2-3% of cases of severe CO poisoning with COHb levels >60%. The "rare" 2-3% of victims who reach COHb levels >60% is what is rare. That is not, repeat NOT the percentage of victims who present cherry red skin discoloration. (Nessie's innumeracy is shining brightly)
OK, so look to other sources to find out how often it is seen in the 2-3% of severe cases.
If only 2-3% of CO victims reach COHb levels of >60% how many of those victims present cherry red skin discoloration?
As numerous medical sources state, it is rare. The source you used from verywellhealth, calls it a rare symptom. It is also backed up by the NHS, CDC and BMJ who do not list it at all as a symptom in fatal gassings. It is that rare, they do not bother to list it.
The NIH states that the cherry red discoloration is associated with high levels of COHb. At Treblinka only those with co-morbidity factors who would succumb before reaching the levels of COHb necessary to produce the cherry red skin discoloration would fail to present that discoloration. You are conflating the percentage of people who reach COHb levels of >60% as the percentage of those people who would present cherry red skin discoloration. That claim doesn't fly.

Edit.
I think that one of been-there's quotes for the day is appropriate at this time.
You can correct millions of honest people with one empirically proven fact but you can't correct even one self-deluded, dishonest, stubborn person not even with many millions of empirically proven facts.
You are trying to argue that a source which states it is rare in severe cases, means it is common. You ignore your other sources that either do not list it as a symptom or they state it is rare, or they are non medical sources that just reference it as a possible.

The deluded one is you, trying to argue it is a common symptom whilst the sources you use contradict you.

Stop weasel dodging and show me a primary medical source that states when CO reaches fatal, cherry red skin is a common and obvious symptom and show how common and obvious it is.
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 are trying to argue that a source which states it is rare in severe cases, means it is common.
Whether Nessie is just lying or is really that stupid is irrelevant. Given Nessie's innumeracy it's hard to tell. The fact remains that of all cases of CO poisoning, 2-3% reach >60% COHb levels. That is the "rarity". That is from the NIH. That 2-3% does not, repeat NOT define the percentage of victims who have reached >60% COHb display the characteristic cherry red of CO poisoning. The NIH states that cherry red discoloration is associated with those levels of COHb.

From: https://www.verywellhealth.com/carbon-m ... ms-4161052
A deep red, flushed skin color (often called cherry red) is the one telltale indicator of carbon monoxide poisoning. It comes from high levels of carboxyhemoglobin in the blood.
[snip]
To be treated successfully, carbon monoxide poisoning must be recognized long before the patient turns bright red.
What don't you understand about that, Nessie? It is NOT claimed that the cherry red discoloration is "rare" for victims reaching >60% COHb. What IS rare is the number of victims who reach >60% levels of COHb. For victims of CO poisoning that do reach >60% COHb, "flushed skin color (often called cherry red) is the one telltale indicator of carbon monoxide poisoning".

As far as, "Then you listed symptoms that did not include cherry red at all for fatal gassings.". I listed those sites to define levels of COHb, not to claim that they listed cherry red skin discoloration as a symptom of CO poisoning.

The NIH and Very Well Health both declare that cherry red skin discoloration is "associated with" or a "telltale indicator" of extremely high levels of COHb. Nessie declares that to be beyond his comprehension. That or he simply could be lying. Anything is possible in holyhoax la-la land.

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:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:30 pm
Nessie wrote:
You are trying to argue that a source which states it is rare in severe cases, means it is common.
Whether Nessie is just lying or is really that stupid is irrelevant. Given Nessie's innumeracy it's hard to tell. The fact remains that of all cases of CO poisoning, 2-3% reach >60% COHb levels. That is the "rarity". That is from the NIH. That 2-3% does not, repeat NOT define the percentage of victims who have reached >60% COHb display the characteristic cherry red of CO poisoning.
I know! Can we now move on to how often the 2-3% who reach >60% show obvious cherry red skin.
The NIH states that cherry red discoloration is associated with those levels of COHb.
We need to know how often is happens, not that it is merely associated. On the same page is a list of symptoms (Table1). It does not include skin discolouration. That tells us the association is rare.
From: https://www.verywellhealth.com/carbon-m ... ms-4161052
A deep red, flushed skin color (often called cherry red) is the one telltale indicator of carbon monoxide poisoning. It comes from high levels of carboxyhemoglobin in the blood.
[snip]
To be treated successfully, carbon monoxide poisoning must be recognized long before the patient turns bright red.
What don't you understand about that, Nessie? It is NOT claimed that the cherry red discoloration is "rare" for victims reaching >60% COHb. What IS rare is the number of victims who reach >60% levels of COHb. For victims of CO poisoning that do reach >60% COHb, "flushed skin color (often called cherry red) is the one telltale indicator of carbon monoxide poisoning".
That source merely calls it a telltale, meaning if it is seen, it indicates CO poisoning. That it list this telltale indicator as a "Rare Symptom", tells us it is a rare symptom. If it was a common symptom, it would list it in the section on "Frequent Symptoms".

Even in the rare cases of fatal CO, where COHb is >60%, it is a rare symptom.
As far as, "Then you listed symptoms that did not include cherry red at all for fatal gassings.". I listed those sites to define levels of COHb, not to claim that they listed cherry red skin discoloration as a symptom of CO poisoning.

The NIH and Very Well Health both declare that cherry red skin discoloration is "associated with" or a "telltale indicator" of extremely high levels of COHb. Nessie declares that to be beyond his comprehension. That or he simply could be lying. Anything is possible in holyhoax la-la land.
The issue is, how often is that associated or telltale symptom of cherry red skin, common and obvious in fatal gassings?

Show me your evidence it is common and obvious. You need a primary medical source of severe and acute gassings that clearly states it is common and obvious.

I have shown you evidence from primary medicals sources that it is usually not even listed as symptom it is so rare.
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 »

A study of 40 fatal cases of CO poisoning. Of the 40, 39 "died with a source of CO nearby and the person was inside a room or some closed space without ventilation" which makes that a very close equivalent to the gas chambers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5848400/

It lists the common symptoms for fatal gassings "In extreme cases, exposure leads to unconsciousness, coma, convulsions, and even death." There is no mention of cherry red or any skin discolouration. Not one person out the 39 who died in an enclosed space had the cherry red symptom.

Here are another 4 studies of fatal gassings, none of which list skin discolouration;

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

"Typically, fatal exposures to carbon monoxide produce coma, convulsions, and cardiorespiratory arrest (Raub et al. 2000; Wolf et al. 2008).

Symptoms preceding death can include headache, dizziness, weakness, nausea, vomiting, mental confusion, visual disturbances, and loss of consciousness (Choi 2001; Raub et al. 2000).

Clinical signs of life-threatening toxicity can include cardiac arrhythmia and myocardial ischemia, hypotension, pulmonary edema, and seizures (Kao and Nañagas 2006)."

When the primary medical studies of fatal gassings do not even list cherry red as symptom, then the correct conclusion is that it is rare, not common.
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
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 9415
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

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

Post by been-there »

Turnagain wrote:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:30 pm
Whether Nessie is just lying or is really that stupid is irrelevant. Given Nessie's innumeracy it's hard to tell.

...The NIH and Very Well Health both declare that cherry red skin discoloration is "associated with" or a "telltale indicator" of extremely high levels of COHb.
Nessie declares that to be beyond his comprehension.
That or he simply could be lying.
The question of A). just lying or B). really stupid may well be“irrelevant”, but only as long as we realise that it is either one or the other. And nothing else!!

Because then it becomes apparent that it IS NOT POSSIBLE to conduct a meaningful, worthwhile discussion with anyone who is either and possibly both.
And certainly a waste of time to conduct one about the exact same points, for over three years. ;)
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

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 now frantically weasel dodging. Having been forced to admit that the 2-3% wasn't a reference to the number of people who display cherry red skin discoloration he is now trying to redefine the word "association". Well, skiing is associated with snow, skating is associated with ice and money is associated with wealth. In that context, cherry red skin discoloration is associated with very high levels of COHb. Nessie's claim that "associated" means rarely is bullshit.

Nessie then cites sources that make no mention of cadaver appearance whatsoever and then triumphantly declares that nobody said anything about a cherry red color. He even quotes a source that states, " Furthermore, steady-state requires exposure durations of approximately 16–24 hours". What does that have to do with a LC100 of CO that kills within 5-40 minutes? Absolutely nothing. Just more word salad and horse frocky.

Nessie wrote:
That source merely calls it a telltale, meaning if it is seen, it indicates CO poisoning. That it list this telltale indicator as a "Rare Symptom", tells us it is a rare symptom. If it was a common symptom, it would list it in the section on "Frequent Symptoms".

Even in the rare cases of fatal CO, where COHb is >60%, it is a rare symptom.
Nessie had to give up on the 2-3% meaning that only 2-3% of the cases with COHb levels >60% presented cherry red skin discoloration but is hanging on to his magic word "rare" like snot on a fingernail. The ONE telltale of CO poisoning, cherry red skin discoloration, is rare because COHb levels >60% are rare. You cited the CDC as saying that only 430 deaths occurred out of 50,000 hospitalizations for CO poisoning. That makes death from CO poisoning a rare event let alone with COHb levels >60%. Nessie's claim that cherry red skin discoloration is "rare" for COHb levels of >60% is no different than his claim that 2-3% is the number of victims displaying cherry red discoloration.

If the PPM of CO in the Treblinka gas chambers was high enough to cause 100% fatality for all victims withing 5-40 minutes, there would be a significant number of people with a COHb level >60%. That is the fact that Nessie is desperately trying to avoid since a significant number of cadavers displaying cherry red skin color would have been commented on at least by a few of the eyewitnesses. Instead we have the lying clowns who claimed the cadavers were yellow, black, etc. but nobody saying that the cadavers were red or even pink. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.

Edit.
When the primary medical studies of fatal gassings do not even list cherry red as symptom, then the correct conclusion is that it is rare, not common.
When medical studies make no mention of the cadavers appearance whatsoever your claims for the color of the corpses is specious bullshit.

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:
Fri Jul 31, 2020 5:44 pm
Nessie is now frantically weasel dodging. Having been forced to admit that the 2-3% wasn't a reference to the number of people who display cherry red skin discoloration he is now trying to redefine the word "association". Well, skiing is associated with snow, skating is associated with ice and money is associated with wealth. In that context, cherry red skin discoloration is associated with very high levels of COHb. Nessie's claim that "associated" means rarely is bullshit.
An association just means there is some sort of connection. To use your analogy, skis are commonly associated with snow and rarely associated with sand. I have seen videos of people skiing on sand dunes, so it does happen, but it is rare.

The same source lists symptoms on Table 1. There is no mention of cherry red. That tells us the association is rare. You keep on weasel dodging why Table 1 lists of symptoms for fatal gassings and there is no mention of cherry red. Why is that?
Nessie then cites sources that make no mention of cadaver appearance whatsoever and then triumphantly declares that nobody said anything about a cherry red color. He even quotes a source that states, " Furthermore, steady-state requires exposure durations of approximately 16–24 hours". What does that have to do with a LC100 of CO that kills within 5-40 minutes? Absolutely nothing. Just more word salad and horse frocky.
Which source are you quoting from? The sources I have used may mention chronic and mild symptoms, but I only reference the acute and fatal.
Nessie wrote:
That source merely calls it a telltale, meaning if it is seen, it indicates CO poisoning. That it list this telltale indicator as a "Rare Symptom", tells us it is a rare symptom. If it was a common symptom, it would list it in the section on "Frequent Symptoms".

Even in the rare cases of fatal CO, where COHb is >60%, it is a rare symptom.
Nessie had to give up on the 2-3% meaning that only 2-3% of the cases with COHb levels >60% presented cherry red skin discoloration but is hanging on to his magic word "rare" like snot on a fingernail. The ONE telltale of CO poisoning, cherry red skin discoloration, is rare because COHb levels >60% are rare. You cited the CDC as saying that only 430 deaths occurred out of 50,000 hospitalizations for CO poisoning. That makes death from CO poisoning a rare event let alone with COHb levels >60%. Nessie's claim that cherry red skin discoloration is "rare" for COHb levels of >60% is no different than his claim that 2-3% is the number of victims displaying cherry red discoloration.
You are the one hung up on the rarity of CO fatalities. The issue is of those fatalities, is cherry red skin common or rare?

I present primary sourced medical evidence it is rare and you just waffle on about an issue that has already been dealt with.
If the PPM of CO in the Treblinka gas chambers was high enough to cause 100% fatality for all victims withing 5-40 minutes, there would be a significant number of people with a COHb level >60%.
Everyone would have been exposed to >60%.
That is the fact that Nessie is desperately trying to avoid...
No, I am happy to discuss fatal cases, you are the one avoiding that issue. You want to keep on bringing the discussion back to how rare fatal cases are.
... since a significant number of cadavers displaying cherry red skin color would have been commented on at least by a few of the eyewitnesses. Instead we have the lying clowns who claimed the cadavers were yellow, black, etc. but nobody saying that the cadavers were red or even pink. So it goes in holyhoax la-la land.
Where is your primary medical evidence that a "significant number of cadavers" would be cherry red?

Stop weasel dodging and show me a primary medical source that clearly states when CO is >60%, most people go obviously 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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests