www.nazigassings.com

 

Blue Women on the Beach –

and the False Toxicity of CO2 in Diesel Exhaust

by Friedrich Paul Berg

The May 2004 issue of The Revisionist contained an essay by Charles D. Provan entitled: “The Blue Color of the Jewish Victims at Belzec Death Camp—and Carbon Monoxide Poisoning.[1]The focus of that essay is my contention that diesel gassings are practically impossible! The reason diesel gassings never happened is that the measures needed to make diesel exhaust toxic are so absurd, and unlikely, that they are too unbelievable–especially in view of the alternatives the Nazis had available to them such as producer gas (Holzgas). The diesel Holocaust claim is that the Nazis murdered approximately two million Jews with diesel exhaust. That is a twice the number allegedly killed with cyanide and, therefore, the diesel gassing claim is enormously important.

Descriptions of “blue” or "bluish" victims are a major flaw as far as the claim that the victims died from carbon monoxide. Provan insists I am wrong because in his view carbon dioxide and reduced oxygen all worked together with CO to kill in half-an-hour. There is no disagreement between Provan and myself as to whether diesel exhaust victims, if there ever are any, might appear bluish—many of them certainly would. I went to some lengths in my essays to explain that Kurt Gerstein's descriptions of “blue” corpses being tossed out from alleged diesel gas chambers is entirely consistent with reduced oxygen in the diesel exhaust of heavily-loaded diesel engines—and, in hindsight, it is even consistent with elevated levels of carbon dioxide. But, it is totally at odds with the claims of all post war exterminationists such as Raul Hilberg that the toxic ingredient was carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide causes a characeristic "cherry-red" or reddish appearance of the corpse. But Provan disagrees on the question of "cherry-red" corpses as well.

Provan's essay contains many other major flaws as well. For example, the titles of subsections 5 and 6 of his essay (in bold letters) claim that the medical literature “mentions” “blue” in connection with carbon monoxide fatalities. They do not! All of the references Provan quotes fail to use the words “blue” or even “bluish” at all. To that rare individual who actually checks references, it should be obvious that Provan's essay is actually a gross and willful distortion of the evidence and literature. Provan's conclusions are blatantly untrue. His essay is a sham. His method is to distort evidence in every possible way at every opportunity. Provan is a creationist which is worth mentioning because the methods are those which creationists have always used. Take a word or there out of context, spin them for all they areworth and, lo and behold, God had just created the entire universe less than ten thousand years ago. No doubt, if Provan were to visit a beach and see some elderly women with varicose veins--he would describe them as "blue women" afterwards.

The primary objective of Provan's travesty was to discredit me on peripheral issues so that he could gain some acceptance on the major issue--without actually addressing the major issue. Did the Nazis kill people with diesel exhaust? Provan's theory is that it “is actually easy, fast, and cheap to mass murder people with diesel exhaust.” Provan had clearly hoped to do this without any “proof” or even argumentation. If he could discredit me on something as minor as the color of the corpses, why bother with anything else--at least for now. Provan's version of “proof” may appear in a future essay but he cannot provide it yet. He insisted that I was “absolutely in error, and provably so” when I claim that it is quite difficult to commit mass murder with diesel exhaust. Provan's counter-claims go back many years—but there is still nothing except a bizarre news story written by John Roddy according to which Provan ran a diesel engine with altered injection timing to produce toxic diesel exhaust. That story contained no meaningful data at all as to the exhaust content or anything else in the experiment. And yet, David Irving actually includes that article by Roddy on his website. Shame on David Irving.

Provan's essay does give important hints as to where he thinks his “proof” may ultimately be found. The great secret for Provan seems to be a single German essay from 1929 by Dr. Walter Deckert—see Provan's footnotes no. 13 and no. 14. Deckert's theory was exposed as bogus by the Germans themselves before World War 2. Contrary to what Provan asserts, neither Deckert's theory nor anything like it was “current” in Germany during the war or before the war. Deckert had even introduced a bogus mathematical formula to relate toxicity to three different chemical components in diesel exhaust: carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide and oxygen.

Provan even insisted that Kurt Gerstein, the author of the most important "eyewitness" account, was somehow acquainted with a controversy among a few medical specialists about the toxicity of carbon monoxide aided and abetted by carbon dioxide. According to Provan, Gerstein “did blame carbon monoxide (along with increased carbon dioxide).” Here, Provan is simply lying. Neither Gerstein nor Pfannenstiel (another "eyewitness") even mentioned carbon monoxide, ever—either with or without the help of carbon dioxide as a factor in diesel gassings.

The problem for Provan is that he is consistently wrong about almost everything. He wants to also believe, that “cyanosis” is just a fancy medical word for “blue.” According to Provan, when doctors see “blue” on a corpse they prefer for mysterious reasons to refer to it as “cyanosis” rather than simply say “blue.” The simple fact is that the blue appearance of “cyanosis” does not correspond at all to the general “blue” appearance of the “blue corpses” that Gerstein or Pfannenstiel allegedly saw anymore than blue eye coloring, or blue varicose veins, or blue bruises from trauma or beating. There are different kinds of coloring in corpses and that is why doctors make distinctions.

Corpses can often be multi-colored. Some parts of a corpse may appear “blue”—while other parts, even most of a corpse, may appear cherry-red. When the “blue” of cyanosis occurs, it can appear in spite of high carboxyhemoglobin levels in the rest of the body rather than because of any carbon monoxide. When “cyanosis” occurs in connection with carbon monoxide poisoning it is regarded as simply something which is “associated” with the carbon monoxide poisoning rather than as a product of any reaction between carbon monoxide and the blood of the victim. When carbon monoxide reacts with human blood, it forms carboxyhemoglobin which above concentrations of 30% is a bright red, becoming brighter and more intense as the concentration increases. Reactions of carbon monoxide with blood are never, ever “blue.”

The “blue” in cyanosis is a product of a totally different process from the one above which may sometimes occur, apparently less than 9 % of the time according to the study of Dr. Pierre Finck cited by Provan himself. That other process ur —whereas if death is protracted, the differences—red versus cyanotic—are more likely and more noticeable. Provan should have read his own references far more carefully.

Characteristic Reddish Coloring of a non-fatal case

due to CO poisoning

Figure is from the following internet link.

 

This patient is still alive, obviously, and he displays a marked reddish coloring to his face. That ain't just a sunburn. The red coloring begins before death--and NOT immediately after death, or any time later.

Figure with caption are from: Forensic Pathology--A Color Atlas on CD-ROM by Jay Dix, CRC Press (Boca Raton, Fl., USA), page 8

Figure with caption are from: Forensic Pathology--A Color Atlas on CD-ROM by Jay Dix, CRC Press (Boca Raton, Fl., USA), page 23.

Figure with caption are from: Forensic Pathology--A Color Atlas on CD-ROM by Jay Dix, CRC Press (Boca Raton, Fl., USA), page 111.

Figure with caption are from: Forensic Medicine: Colour Guide (Edinburgh; New York: Churchill Livingstone, 2003) page 12.

Charles Provan totally misused the following essay:


What Is Cherry Red, And Who Cares?


Carbon monoxide (CO) poisonings in patients with no specific history of exposure are difficult to diagnose secondary to non-specific signs and symptoms. One clinical sign often cited in medical texts is the finding of cherry red discolored blood or tissue (113). This may be erroneous teaching for a number of reasons: (1) It is not a reliable finding, being seen in only 1 out of 100 consecutive patients in a prospective study (14); (2) it is most likely to be observed in the morgue, where it is of little consequence; (3) there is no standard example of cherry red (15); and, (4) there is no consensus among physicians when attempting to identify the color cherry red.
We surveyed 60 physicians, of various levels of training, working in an adult or pediatric Emergency Department (ED), to determine if they could accurately identify the color cherry red. We used a computer color program from the Internet for our example of cherry red (16). Subjects were asked to identify the color cherry red from among six samples of red or red-like colors. Despite over 75% of subjects stating that they thought they knew what cherry red was, only 31 out of 120 (25.8%) responses were correct at identifying the color cherry red. Of those who reported having made the diagnosis of CO poisoning in the past, no one (0 out of 30) stated that cherry red discoloration of blood or tissue aided in the diagnosis.
We feel that looking for cherry red discolored blood or tissue will fail to aid in the diagnosis of CO poisoning and potentially wastes clinical time in managing sick patients. This confusing issue should not be perpetuated in future medical literature.

Daniel E. Brooks, MD
Department of Medical Toxicology
Good Samaritan Regional Medical Center
Phoenix, Arizona
Esson Lin, MD
Department of Emergency Medicine
St. Clair Hospital
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Jawaid Ahktar, MD
Toxicology Treatment Program
Department of Emergency Medicine
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

So, let's dissect the text and see what is really there. Already the second sentence reads: “One clinical sign often cited in medical texts is the finding of cherry red discolored blood or tissue (113).” The words “often cited in medical texts” suggests there are lots of medical texts out there for the cherry red assertion. It is NOT merely some revisionist anti-Semite making up evidence here. The word "clinical” also means that Brooks is talking about living patients and NOT corpses. Brooks is an emergency room c-l-i-n-i-c-i-a-n trying to keep people alive. He is NOT Jesus Christ trying to bring the dead back to life. When the cherry red coloring is “observed in the morgue” it “is of little consequence” --- for him, and rightly so. When they are dead, they are not his problem.

Brooks speaks of 60 physicians who were also working as Emergency Department (ED) physicians. “Subjects were asked to identify the color cherry red from a-m-o-n-g six samples of red or red-like colors.”

Why do you suppose they left blue, or purple out of the samples? It seems so unfair and biased. Someone should tap Brooks on the shoulder and ask him to do the test again with far more colors. There was never any dispute or question in Brooks' mind about the fact that CO-poisoning tends to cause some kind of reddish coloring in the vast majority of cases of living patients.

Is there anything in the Brooks study that says CO poisoning will never cause red-like or red discolorations in living patients, or that the reddish coloring is “rare”? Of course, not! The only thing that is arguably “rare” is the cherry red shade of red. Is there anything there that would exclude “pink“ discolorations, or “bright red” discolorations, or even “cherry red” discolorations in living CO-poisoning patients? Of course, not!

Brooks may have made an important contribution by undercutting the overuse of the term “cherry red.” The term does, however, suggest an intense red coloring and for that, the term has probably been useful.
.

 

Cyanosis and Blue Corpses

As we all know, doctors are a thoroughly unscrupulous lot who stoop at nothing to attain and enjoy astronomical incomes, endless Caribbean vacations and thoroughly scandalous life styles. One of their tricks is to communicate amongst themselves in a language which, although it resembles English, is really quite different. Mr. Charles D. Provan has, however, penetrated the magic of medical jargon and assures us—see page 160 of The Revisionist, —that “cyanosis … is the medical term for blue coloring occurring in a patient or corpse.” Ordinary people and engineers, such as myself or Kurt Gerstein, may describe something as “blue” whereas, according to Provan, a medical person will prefer “cyanotic” instead. To deceive any prying mistresses or wives about his true whereabouts, a doctor's message to a colleague from some tropical paradise might well include a line or two about the beautiful “cyanotic” sky or crystalline “cyanotic” water. Doctors do that sort of thing—and who can really blame them for covering their tracks? No doubt, that is why they also invented Latin and Greek. However, none of this explains why the same medical doctors also use ordinary, even somewhat pornographic words like “pink,” “flushed,” “bright red,” or “cherry-red” in their descriptions of nearly all CO poisoning deaths. Surely, the doctors could have found far more challenging words if their intent had merely been to confuse ordinary folks. Perhaps Provan believes doctors will use “cyanotic” only to describe a CO patient or corpse—but, if they see the same shade of blue in another context, will revert to an ordinary word? Could that be what Provan has in mind? If a doctor describes a patient or corpse as having “cyanotic” eyes, is he referring to the color of the iris, or is he referring to the appearance of the small blood vessels on the surface of the eyeball or of the mucous membranes surrounding the eye socket? In describing a departed mistress to a colleague, would a doctor ever say she had beautiful “cyanotic” eyes? Of course, not!

Provan is wrong because the word “cyanosis” is not simply the medical term for blue coloring in a patient or corpse—it only applies to some kinds of “blue coloring” but not all. Varicose veins or bruising would not be described by any competent medical person as cyanosis. Similarly, the appearance of cyanosis would not be a telling indicator of carbon monoxide poisoning at all.????>—unless there were other indicators present such as bright red blood.. In Appendix 1 to his essay there are at least six definitions listed for “cyanosis.” Included with those definitions are likely causes of the condition; in none of those definitions is there even one indication that the cause was carbon monoxide poisoning. Just one example in one of Provan's own quotations is the following from page 162: “Dr. Greene, an anesthesiologist, testified that based on the observation of cyanosis by Dr O'Donoghue, hypoxia was the precipitating factor of Deborah's cardiac arrest.” In other words, the good doctor saw cyanosis in a corpse and concluded, rather quickly it seems, that the cause of death was hypoxia. . Carbon monoxide was not even mentioned–my, oh my! Mr. Provan should write Dr. O'Donoghue and lecture him!

Despite the obvious reluctance of doctors to speak as clearly as he would like, Provan assures us nonetheless that the medical literature does indeed speak of “blue coloring.” One of his subsections is entitled, with bold-faced letters: “ 6. Some examples of Medical Literature which Mention Blue Coloring in Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. ” That title is followed by direct quotes from five medical references about non-fatal cases of CO poisoning--but the words “blue” or “blue coloring” appear nowhere. Similarly, the next subsection on page 161 about fatal cases is entitled with bold-faced letters: “ 7. Some Examples of Medical Literature Which Mention Blue Coloring in Carbon Monoxide Fatalities. ” That title is followed by lengthy quotations from four, highly credible medical references. But, lo and behold--there is no mention of “blue” or “blue coloring” anywhere in the four quotations which follow either. The words “cyanosis,” “cyanosed,” and “cyanotic” do appear (all underlined for emphasis by Mr. Provan) but, contrary to his assuring titles, the words “blue” or “blue coloring” do not appear anywhere; they are not mentioned at all! Let us not become angry and accuse Provan of willful lying, or inadvertent lying, or even bold-faced lying--but the words “unscholarly” and “inexcusably stupid” do describe him quite well. Zero out of nine tries at reading simple text is not very good.

 

AthePfannenstiel were even once actually maentioning carbon monoxide both thinking of the His concluding sentence is

“For, as medical literature proves, both sickness and death from carbon monoxide poisoning can result in the victims becoming ‘cyanotic' or turning blue.”

Well, not quite! At most, only a small portion of the corpse is ever likely to turn blue under such circumstances—and the appearance of a generally “blue” corpse is extremely rare if it ever occurs at all, The nuances involved here undermine Provan's entire argument.

In general, Provan created another pseudo-scholarly farce, with many footnotes and quotes which, no doubt, impressed most readers. His essay was scholarly in form--but a sham in substance. Provan reads a great deal—but very badly. More than ten years ago I chastised him with the following words: “When you claim someone ‘stated' something or that someone said ‘just that,' you must be accurate and not simply give the words that you think they really meant or that you wish they had said.” My words of wisdom were totally ignored. In his current essay, Provan has repeatedly confused words that are mentioned for what he believes the author meant—and this has been a reoccurring phenomenon in his writings. In addition, he mixed the proverbial apples with oranges. He mixed non-fatal cases of CO poisoning with fatal cases--and then went on to mix fatal cases that are caused “immediately” or quickly from CO exposure with cases of “delayed death.” As to whether “cyanosis,” which is indeed sometimes associated with carbon monoxide poisoning, corresponds to the appearance of “blue corpses” described by Gerstein after a diesel gassing, that question is a matter of semantics and judgement. The simple fact is that none of the medical authorities that Provan refers to speak of “ blue coloring” in this connection.

Provan's main purpose appears to be to provide some basis, without any proof, for his insane theory that it “is actually easy, fast, and cheap to mass-murder people with diesel exhaust.” For the “proof” of Provan's theory readers will have to wait for further literary installment. For the present, Provan hopes to merely discredit me by showing ”some of the errors” in my essays about the absurdity of using diesels to commit mass murder. Apparently, according to Provan it is far easier to commit mass-murder with diesel exhaust than it is to explain it.

Provan's essay does contain enough clues as to where his madness is actually going. The secret is (see Provan's footnote #14) carbon dioxide and an essay from 1929 by a German professor Dr. Walter Deckert. His essay also includes a bizarre theory that carbon dioxide played a major role in Gerstein's thinking at the time of his interrogation in a French prison in 1945 and is somehow also important in diesel exhaust toxicity. His main purpose is to discredit me and thereby provide His claims about the influence of carbon dioxide on CO toxicity based on one essay in German by Walter Deckert are ridiculous, and were already rejected by German medical experts by the early 1940's--and eventually, by practically everyone else in the medical profession including the American von Oettingen who Provan misrepresents on this issue.

Nonetheless, Provan has actually been useful at times—but in order to not waste endless time and space exposing the most basic kinds of blunders and misreadings of the very same materials from which he quotes, let me caution readers to be extremely skeptical about any conclusions Provan offers about anything. His conclusions have, I believe, far more to do with some kind of mental disorder than with the evidence. Provan reads well enough to transfer quoted material accurately into his text—but that is about as far as he gets without making outrageous blunders. To readers familiar with the methods of “creationists,” Provan's “scholarship” on this subject is essentially the same. He is also a “creationist” which means he is a cookoo. Scientists and doctors do make mistakes as part of their struggle to understand the world around them--but their method, mistakes notwithstanding, is the only real way to go forward. The creationist or faith-inspired methods are quite different and generally useless. When “creationists” pretend to be “scientific” or “scholarly,”--watch out! They almost inevitably take a few words out of context, spin the meanings of some other words, and ignore everything which recognized experts agree upon but which does not fit the creationist's theory of the moment, or simply lie[2]—and then the other side (in this case me) has the tedious task of trying to walk readers through the wreckage and confusion.

Provan's creationist methods are also rather typical of what one finds on the so-called “holocaust” generally, even among non-creationists, and for that reason this lengthy rebuttal may help unravel the holocaust hoax even more than it already has been. Much of what I am saying is evident if one simply reads Provan's text and quotations carefully. If one goes a step further and actually checks his references, which few readers will ever do, it becomes quite clear that Provan's errors are far more serious. He grossly misrepresents what is actually there. While engaging in some silly mind reading about Gerstein, Provan also leads us down a kind of yellow brick road to the Land of Oz where carbon dioxide lurks around every turn with carbon monoxide and diesel exhaust to threaten us all. How did we ever make it through the twentieth century?

The Effects of Carbon dioxide on CO Toxicity

Provan accuses me of failing to investigate thoroughly when I claimed that Gerstein never mentioned carbon monoxide (CO) in his famous statement as the lethal ingredient in diesel exhaust.[3]Provan writes in his conclusion:

“But upon further investigation of the Roques book on Gerstein, a book to which Berg refers, it is plain that Gerstein did blame carbon monoxide (along with increased carbon dioxide).” [emphasis added by F.P.Berg)

In other words, according to Provan, Gerstein not only did blame carbon monoxide but he even offered a theory as to how it was made more toxic with “increased carbon dioxide.” My goodness, how could I have failed to see all that? However, when one actually looks at the six versions of the infamous Gerstein statement as well as the interrogation transcript from June 26, 1945 which I had indeed neglected to read—the words “carbon monoxide,” or “Kohlenoxid” or “oxyde de carbone” simply do not appear anywhere. Instead of admitting the obvious, Provan devoted an entire page of his four-page essay to concocting an elaborate theory as to how things might have worked and as to what Gerstein must have been thinking of when he used the word “oxide.” Although I may not have the psychic powers that I should have, I was nonetheless quite correct when I wrote, on more than one occasion, that Gerstein never mentioned carbon monoxide in his “statement”—and, although I had not done it, I could just as well have included the interrogation report.

There is certainly no mention anywhere by Gerstein of anything resembling “increased” carbon dioxide (CO2) either. Provan's mind reading performance was based upon three words in parentheses [4] in the French interrogation report—“(oxide et gaz carbonique)” and on the bizarre notion that Gerstein was somehow acquainted with German technical studies on the combined effects of carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. Those studies are very few and far removed from the problems faced by mining engineers generally and do not appear in any of the literature normally read by mining engineers. The only German study that Provan cites in support of his CO + CO2 theory is by Dr. Walter Deckert from a highly specialized, medical journal for hygiene and bacteriology from 1929—and far from anything a mining engineer would have been likely to read. [5] When we look at von Oettingen's lengthy, classic, 257-page American study and review of the entire subject of CO toxicity from 1944 which does discuss Deckert's essay, we find that von Oettingen actually discredits Deckert's theory in no uncertain terms. [6]Provan, once again, grossly misrepresented his own sources.[7]

There are two German studies that von Oettingen discusses at some length in this regard (pages 52 thru 54) as refutations to Deckert. Von Oettingen gives the following conclusion of his own on page 54:

“..Luce [8] (1936) doubted the validity of this formula [Deckert's from 1929] and Klimmer [9] (1943) checked it experimentally and pointed out that Deckert's (1929) assumption that the toxicity is directly proportional to the C02 and CO content of the air and inversely proportional to the O2 content is not strictly correct. Aside from the fact that this formula does not consider certain physiological factors such as physical exercise and the duration of the exposure, he showed that with higher concentrations of CO under certain conditions an increase of the CO2 content may alleviate the effects of CO. He also showed that there was little relation between the toxicity coefficient of Deckert (1929) and the course of the poisoning, the depth of the central depression, the time required for recovery from the exposure, and the CO hemoglobin values. It appears, therefore, that Deckert's (1929) formula may hold true, at best, only for concentrations of 0.01 volume percent CO in air .”

Von Oettingen

Von Oettingen says in the above that at higher concentrations of CO, “an increase of the CO2 content may alleviate the effects of CO.” Please note also that 0.01 percent CO is far below the levels needed to kill in half-an-hour according to Haldane and medical experts generally. This all flies in the face of Deckert's theory and formula from which one would have concluded that the exhaust from a diesel engine under only moderate load would have been toxic enough to kill in seconds.[10] Von Oettingen and all other authorities after 1944 gave Deckert's theory no credence. Provan's suggestion in his footnote 14 that von Oettingen or anyone else ever endorsed Deckert's formula or theory is simply a carefully hidden lie by Provan. Further confirmation of von Oettingen's disdain for Deckert's CO + CO2 theory is given on pages 166 through 171 where it is repeatedly shown that carbon dioxide (as much as 10%) actually helps remove CO from hemoglobin in the blood. The following is given on page 168:

“It would appear, therefore, from these in vitro experiments that the presence of increased concentrations of CO2 in the inhaled air would favor the liberation of CO as well as O2.”

Athough CO and oxygen certainly do react chemically with blood to form a host of compounds, some of which have tragic consequences—carbon dioxide does not form any known compounds at all. Nonetheless, its presence can obstruct the oxygenation of blood which is essential to survival and, in this way, its presence can interfere with life sustaining functions. But it is important to recognize that carbon dioxide is never toxic in the same way that CO or any number of other toxins are. The chemistry is simply not there.

For mathematically inclined readers, Deckert's formula is actually ridiculous as soon as one looks at it structurally. The formula appears on page 53 of von Oettingen as follows:

G = (%CO2 x %CO x 500) / %O2

G is the toxicity coefficient. What it means is that combinations of the three gases that yield the same value for G, are equally toxic. What the formula actually says also, in effect, is that CO2 is just as toxic as CO. For example, for the same oxygen levels, a gas mixture with 0.1%CO and 5%CO2 would have precisely the same toxicity as a gas mixture with a 5%CO and only 0.1%CO2. In reality, the second mixture would be far more deadly than the first—and anyone with the slightest grasp of the subject knows that. The second mixture will kill in minutes whereas the first will kill only in hours. Using the formula in a somewhat different situation—if one doubles the carbon dioxide concentration, the toxic effect will be the same as if one doubled the CO concentration. If Deckert were correct, then we could just as easily speak of CO's contribution to CO2 toxicity as the other way around—but no one does, do they? Small wonder that no one in the entire world takes Deckert's formula seriously today–except for Provan.

Klimmer disagreed completely with the validity of the Deckert formula based on his own extensive series of tests on guinea pigs. He used 14 different combinations of the three gases in 76 experiments on 185 animals. Klimmer gave the following conclusion regarding the Deckert formula:

Zusammenfassend läßt sich sagen, daß die nach Deckert errechneteten Giftigkeitskoeffizienten kein zutreffendes Bild von der Gefährlichkeit von Gemischen aus Kohlenoxyd, Kohlendioxyd bei wechselndem Sauerstoffgehalt geben. ( transl : In conclusion one can say that the toxicity coefficients calculated according to Deckert do not give any kind of accurate picture of the dangers of mixtures of CO and carbon dioxide with varying oxygen levels).[11]

The actual test results bore no relationship to the Deckert formula.

If Provan persists with his foolish claims about carbon dioxide, he should find at least one supporting study “after 1929.” In essence, Deckert made a fool of himself and probably ended his career with his 1929 blunder. The Deckert essay may well be the “only” German essay in support of his formula anywhere since it is also the only German essay that von Oettingen cites in support of Deckert's formula. I have not found any essay in German or English anywhere that confirms or endorses Deckert's theory or his formula–or even mentions it. It was the Germans themselves who were probably the first to quickly reject it. Nonetheless, Provan had the audacity to write on page 160 of The Revisionist :

“But they [meaning the Germans] had done much work on the dangers of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in diesel exhaust. This again indicates that the poisonous ‘oxide' referred to by Gerstein was carbon monoxide.”

Provan slipped in the words “diesel exhaust” without citing even one German source in which Deckert's CO + CO2 theory or any other theories about CO and CO2 are even remotely touched upon in any connection to diesel exhaust. In his footnote 14, Provan concludes:

“Further German studies confirmed the danger of increased carbon dioxide in the presence of carbon monoxide, though there was disagreement on the correct formula of its effect.”

Can one be any more full of oneself and dishonest than that? What “further German studies” is Provan talking about if he knows of any at all—other than Luce and Klimmer? I dare say he knows of none. What other formula were the Germans or anyone else considering? Provan is bluffing at this point; he is putting on a vain pretense of a broad knowledge about the German literature which is totally beyond him. I dare say there simply is no formula that ?????????anyone, except for Deckert, has ever found or even offered, even to this day, between CO toxicity and carbon dioxide. Although CO2 may contribute to CO toxicity in some rare situations—over the vast range of possible situations where it is present, it is either benign or else it actually helps the patient. No doubt, that is why CO2 is employed world-wide together with oxygen as a routine, standard treatment for a host of emergencies--including CO poisoning.

Von Oettingen actually included a section in his text entitled “Treatment of CO Poisoning” pages 165- 178 in which the administration of CO2 with oxygen is discussed at great length to treat patients suffering from CO poisoning. In “Adventures in Respiration” a classic by Yandell Henderson from , the author actually discussed tests on himself and his colleague Yandell Henderson in which they both endured CO, and then recovered using various applications of gases, one of which was CO2 with ordinary air, and another was CO2 with oxygen

In “Exposure to Carbon Monoxide: a Review of the Literature and 567 Autopsies” by Pierre A, Finck from 1966 which Provan quotes at some length, there is another review of the medical literature relating to CO poisoning, albeit much shorter than that of von Oettingen. In Finck's six-page review of the literature, Deckert or carbon dioxide are not mentioned either in the review, or anywhere else.

The reason I have bored the reader with this diversion into some depths regarding CO toxicity is that the combined CO + CO2 theory of Provan should be his last straw as far as diesel gassings are concerned. It is a straw without merit. Nonetheless, that theory with its simplistic and invalid formula will, no doubt, continue to be an important feature in Provan's never-ending claims that diesel exhaust can be used not merely to commit mass murder—but to do so quickly, easily and even cheaply. Some prominent revisionists have been taken in including Germar Rudolf who was reckless enough to actually publish Provan's nonsense. They should all kick themselves real hard.

Aside from the truth or falsehood about carbon dioxide, what might Gerstein have been thinking to explain his mention of carbon dioxide under interrogation? Does Provan present even one shred of evidence that Gerstein ever read the Deckert essay or anything like it? Of course, not! Does Provan present even one shred of evidence that Gerstein ever had an interest in carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide professionally, or in his studies, or even casually? Of course, not! And yet Provan had the boldness to write:

“Hence we may conclude that Kurt Gerstein, trained as a mining engineer, viewed the diesel exhaust deaths of Belzec as due to poisoning by carbon monoxide, more speedily absorbed due to faster breathing caused by increased carbon dioxide.”

What a mouthful! And, what rubbish! If Gerstein had actually had any grasp of the German medical literature on the combined effects of CO and CO2, he would have rejected Deckert and his formula. Deckert was simply wrong and so is Provan.

What could possibly have happened during Gerstein's weeks of French captivity to make him suddenly express subtle (but wrong) medical theories on June 26, 1945 that years of his earlier freedom as a German SS lieutenant did not? Had the French prison guards given Gerstein access to a medical library to help him refine his earlier stories? My own guess is that the French interrogators were trying to make sense out of Gerstein's claims and prodded him based upon their own muddled understanding of how diesel exhaust might have worked. The French interrogators may have known diesel exhaust has hardly any CO? Who really knows? The simple facts are that Gerstein never blamed carbon monoxide with, or without, ‘increased' carbon dioxide–not even under interrogation–and, what is also interesting, neither did Pfannenstiel. If either of them ever had any idea that CO with, or without, CO2 was involved–why didn't they just say so? They never did! What is “plain” (contrary to Provan) is that both of them, Pfannenstiel and Gerstein, never implicated carbon monoxide.

Gerstein's and Pfannenstiel's reference to “asphyxiation” (here we do have some consistency between the two “eyewitnesses”) without any mention of CO poisoning suggests to me that what they saw in Belzec was quite different from what we have been told. One of the standard procedures for treating asphyxiation is to give the patient (or victim) oxygen mixed with about 7% carbon dioxide to speed respiration. Could it be that the mysterious word “oxide” should really have been “oxygene” (French for oxygen.)? Although I am doing some mind reading of my own at this point—it makes far more sense than anything Provan or any other exterminationists have ever concocted. When Jewish passengers disembarked from an overcrowded train from a long journey, no doubt some would have needed medical attention. Asphyxiation would have been likely and a medical team might have been present with gas bottles of oxygen mixed with carbon dioxide. As improbable as such an idea must seem to most readers, it is entirely consistent with many of the descriptions of what were supposedly measures to only lull intended victims into a false sense of security. Victims of asphyxiation (living or dead) would probably have appeared “cyanotic”–and in some cases may have even appeared somewhat bluish (although not blue) generally.

An enormously important inhalation study with diesel exhaust on living animals conducted in the nineteen fifties in Britain was actually discovered and brought to my attention years ago by Provan.[12] In that study, autopsies were performed on a number of test animals to determine the exact causes of death or damage to tissues from diesel exhaust exposures up to five hours in duration. Although carbon dioxide was measured for each of the four test conditions (without the percentages actually being reported in the text)—nowhere else is CO2 even mentioned. Neither in the concluding results, nor post-mortem findings, nor anywhere else in the text is there any mention of carbon dioxide, increased or decreased, at all—and not as any kind of contributor to the deaths either. CO and irritants were blamed for the deaths under test condition D and the blood was described as “scarlet.” Interestingly, in the Table 1 summary it is nitrogen dioxide which is “postulated” as the “main cause of death” for three of the four test conditions (A, B & C). And yet, Provan totally dismissed the notion of this particular “oxide” as the possible mystery “oxide” and insisted instead that Gerstein must have been thinking of “carbon monoxide.” Well, maybe he was thinking of nitrogen oxide- but who knows and who really cares! In any event, for Provan to blame me for not having known that Gerstein was thinking of carbon monoxide on the basis of the French interrogation report, or anything else, is completely asinine. For Provan to write in his concluding remarks that Gerstein had definietely meant carbon monoxide is inexcusably stupid. Of more importance as far as diesel toxicity is concerned is the fact that Deckert's theory and formula for carbon dioxide's contribution to CO toxicity is totally wrong.

 

Reduced oxygen as a factor in CO toxicity

According to the Deckert formula, the toxic coefficient G will be effected inversely by the oxygen level. In other words, if the oxygen concentration in % volume is reduced by half, the toxic coefficient G will double. What that means is that a reduction in oxygen by half will have the same effect as a doubling of the CO level. This simplistic, mathematical relationship is also unconfirmed by any of the later researchers as far as I can tell. The German researcher ----- simply said the CO toxicity increased with reduced oxygen—but did not confirm or deny the accuracy of Deckert's ratio as far as the reduced oxygen effect. See Appendix 1.

 

Cyanosis and Blue Corpses

Mr. Provan has certainly enriched our discussions with many stimulating quotes from generally credible medical references—and deserves our warmest congratulations for having brought some excitement back into an otherwise peaceful medical subject. As we all know, medical doctors are a thoroughly unscrupulous lot who stoop at nothing to attain and enjoy astronomical incomes, endless Caribbean vacations and thoroughly scandalous life styles. One of their tricks is to communicate amongst themselves in a language which, although it resembles English, is really quite different. Mr. Charles D. Provan has, however, penetrated the magic of medical jargon and assures us—see page 160 of The Revisionist, —that “cyanosis … is the medical term for blue coloring occurring in a patient or corpse.” Ordinary people and engineers, such as myself or Kurt Gerstein, may describe something as “blue” whereas a medical person will prefer “cyanotic” instead. To deceive any prying mistresses or wives about his true whereabouts, a doctor's message to a colleague from some tropical paradise might well include a line or two about the beautiful “cyanotic” sky or crystalline “cyanotic” water. Doctors do that sort of thing—and who can really blame them for covering their tracks? No doubt, that is why they also invented Latin and Greek. However, none of this explains why the same medical doctors also use ordinary, even somewhat pornographic words like “pink,” “flushed,” “bright red,” or “cherry-red” in their descriptions of nearly all CO poisoning deaths. Surely, the doctors could have found far more challenging words if their intent had merely been to confuse ordinary folks. Perhaps Provan believes doctors will use “cyanotic” only to describe a CO patient or corpse—but, if they see the same shade of blue in another context, will revert to an ordinary word? Could that be what Provan has in mind? If a doctor describes a patient or corpse as having “cyanotic” eyes, is he referring to the color of the iris, or is he referring to the appearance of the small blood vessels on the surface of the eyeball or of the mucous membranes surrounding the eye socket? In describing a departed mistress to a colleague, would a doctor ever say she had beautiful “cyanotic” eyes? Of course, not!

Despite the obvious reluctance of doctors to speak clearly, Provan assures us that the medical literature does indeed speak of “blue coloring.” One of his subsections is entitled, with bold-faced letters: “ 6. Some examples of Medical Literature which Mention Blue Coloring in Carbon Monoxide Poisoning. ” That title is followed by direct quotes from five medical references about non-fatal cases of CO poisoning--but the words “blue” or “blue coloring” appear nowhere. Similarly, the next subsection on page 161 about fatal cases is entitled, also with bold-faced letters: “ 7. Some Examples of Medical Literature Which Mention Blue Coloring in Carbon Monoxide Fatalities. ” But, lo and behold--there is no mention of “blue” or “blue coloring” anywhere in the four quotations which follow either. The words “cyanosis,” “cyanosed,” and “cyanotic” do appear (all underlined for emphasis by Mr. Provan) but, contrary to his assuring titles, the words “blue” or “blue coloring” do not appear; they are not mentioned at all! Let us not become angry and accuse Provan of willful lying, or inadvertent lying, or even bold-faced lying--but the words “unscholarly” and “inexcusably stupid” do fit quite well. .

No doubt, Provan has read, at least superficially, far more medical references than I have and deserves our warmest congratulations for his relentless efforts to find something. He is a tenacious researcher in spite of his obvious dyslexia. I am confident that if there is so much as one medical reference in the entire world which uses the word “blue” in this context, Provan will eventually find it. But he obviously has found nothing of the sort yet. For some mysterious reasons, the medical experts seem to be extremely uncomfortable about using the words “blue” or “blue coloring” to describe CO victims—even when the carboxyhemoglobin in the blood is below 30%.

Surely, Provan's experience as a creationist bible researcher has helped him enormously with such problems and, therefore, a short diversion into the creationist mind may help us. When the Bible insists that God created the universe in seven days, it is not really a lie. One must simply discern what God meant by “a day”—and then, with that minor piece of mind-reading accomplished, everything fits together perfectly. The prophets of old, just like doctors of today, conveyed their wisdom with their own strange language. They could not possibly have made serious mistakes—and a near saint like Gerstein could not possibly be a brazen liar. Since the prophets never made the appropriate substitutions themselves, the creationists must make the correct substitutions for them--and save the congregation from the eternal flames of doubt. Similarly, when holocaust scholars fail to find any documentary or forensic evidence of gassings, it cannot possibly be because a hoax is involved. Only people who are evil and depraved could even suggest anything so shocking. One must simply discern the hidden meanings of special German words and make substitutions accordingly. For Raul Hilberg, Sonderbehandlung in German documents must be a euphemism for mass murder—and with that minor, algebraic replacement, the “evidence” of mass murder literally pops out from everywhere. Although Provan is certainly a fool—Hilberg and his ilk are no better. If the consequences of their pseudo-scholarship were not so horrific, we could simply laugh at them all.

One should recognize a few simple facts based on the medical references which follow as well as countless other references, not just two as Provan falsely suggests I relied upon. A critical threshold level in carbon monoxide poisoning is 30% carboxyhemoglobin in the blood. Below that level, a living body or corpse may indeed show cyanosis without any sign of redness--but above 30% carboxyhemoglobin, a living body or corpse will, with only very rare exceptions, show some variety of red over most of the body. At high COHb levels in a corpse with intense redness, there may also be cyanosis in a small percentage of cases also. Another all-important fact is that for most persons, death is not likely to occur until the carboxyhemoglobin level exceeds another threshold level at about 60%,—and well within the range of levels when a corpse will definitely be some variation of red. The blood itself is an intense, bright red when it contains that much carboxyhemoglobin. For light skinned people, the translucency of the skin lets the underlying blood show through--but for dark-skinned people, it tends to be hidden. There will always be some variations and some exceptions (less than 6% as Provan's own sources clearly show). I may have been too dismissive of those exceptions, although I doubt it—but there are practical limits to how far one can reasonably delve into one issue. The medical literature does, however, speak clearly enough on this subject and it sees “red.” Nonetheless, if some people die from shock or heart failure induced by trauma, stress or overcrowding while exposed to CO--their corpses probably will exhibit cyanosis (bluish lips and mucous passages) in addition to an intense cherry-red coloring over most of the corpse including internal organs. Similarly, people in their 70's or older will die from far lower CO levels than younger people. If 700-800 people were ever stuffed into only 25 square meters of floor space, many, if not most, would have certainly died of asphyxiation and appeared cyanotic long before they could have possibly died from CO. When the reddish coloring occurs, regardless of whether it is pink or any of the other variations of red, it tends to be extremely intense and dramatic whereas cyanosis is an extremely subtle coloring in which most of the skin is merely pale.[13] Such cyanotic coloring, when it does occur, requires expertise to be recognized whereas the reddish coloring, when it occurs, is dramatic and requires absolutely no expertise at all.

Skin: Classic cherry red skin is rare (ie, "When you're cherry red, you're dead"); pallor is present more often.

http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic817.htm

One medical reference which Provan uses has the following text under the general heading “Carbon Monoxide:”[14]

Post-mortem Appearances . The hypostatic stains over the body may present a bright cherry-red color, but this may be slight if the saturation is below 30 per cent; it is also often obscured by associated cyanosis —and may be difficult to see in coloured subjects and in those not discovered for some days and decomposing. Limb muscle and blood colours will remain diagnostic for longer than the face and trunk. (underlining added by F.P. Berg for emphasis—Provan had only underlined the word ‘cyanosis' and not ‘associated')

The use of the wording--“associated cyanosis”—makes it obvious that the cyanosis does not exclude a red color over the rest of the body. One can in fact have both simultaneously in the same corpse—but, not in the same locations. Note also that “blue” or “blue coloring” is not mentioned at all.

Hypostatic reddish staining occurs wherever the blood settles due to the force of gravity on the liquid blood in the corpse. For example, an erect corpse would probably show hypostatic, red staining in the feet and legs whereas a prone corpse would probably show such staining in the buttocks. The remaining parts of the corpse from which the blood has generally drained will appear pale by comparison, or even bluish by comparison. Forensic pathologists care a lot about such details to ascertain whether a corpse was moved after death, and from where.

The following paragraph (not included by Provan) which follows the one above in the reference helps to explain how skin color changes with carboxyhemoglobin levels.

“There is great variation in the perception of reds by many persons, but the colour is only likely to cause doubt far below the 30 to 40 per cent level at which serious loss of control muscular weakness, incoordination, diplopia, giddiness and the possibility of collapse and death ensues in the healthy subject. Haldane's original experiment upon himself noted the blood as being “distinctly a little pink” at a saturation of 17 per cent HbCO, but in our experience this indicates an unusually good colour sense.” (emphasis added by F. P. Berg)

The paragraph above from Taylor's Principles does not describe “post-mortem appearances” although it follows that subheading. The first sentence in that paragraph says there is “only likely to” be any doubt about the “red” color of a CO victim at levels below which an otherwise healthy subject might die. In other words, above 30 to 40 per cent HbCO there will be no doubt about the “reds.”

There is good reason to believe that a cyanotic description in our context does not really mean blue at all—but merely blue by contrast or in comparison to other parts of the same or other bodies. Even blood that is nearly devoid of oxygen is not really blue, ever—but only dark red or bluish-red. There is simply nothing in the blood or anywhere else in a corpse that turns true blue from CO or death. The kind of blue coloring that a Druid princess might have applied to her body to make herself more appealing to a Roman soldier-boyfriend from downtown Londinium is totally impossible in a corpse unless it has actually been painted on by someone. When prisoners are executed with cyanide in the USA , they are not generally blue after death either. If they were blue, some eyewitness reporter would have certainly said so and made it general knowledge. Nonetheless, medical examiners will describe such corpses as
”cyanotic” because of post-mortem appearances of very small parts of the corpse. Such deaths are probably the true basis of the word. “cyanosis” to begin with--and the usage has simply been carried over to describe deaths where no cyanide is actually involved. An excellent analysis[15] of the exact nature of the perceived “blueness” or cyanosis in fatal cases of CO poisoning concluded with the following sentences:

“The ‘blue' blood of reduced haemoglobin is still optically red when seen on its own, and differs more through its dark appearance (low brightness) than an actual colour difference. This paradox is the subject of a further study.”

In subsection 3 of his essay, Provan gives the infamous portion of the Gerstein statement which mentions “blue bodies” followed by a portion of another statement supposedly given by Pfannenstiel on June 6, 1950 to the court in Darmstadt , West Germany . According to that statement from Pfannenstiel:

“I noticed nothing special about the corpses. Some were tinged bluish in the face.”

After this passage, Provan immediately jumps in with the following:

“Note that both witnesses described the color of the victims of the diesel gassing at Belzec as blue.”

Once again, Provan is asking readers to make a leap of faith. The simple, obvious fact is that Pfannenstiel did not really describe the victims as “blue” at all--but merely that “ Some were tinged bluish in the face .” They were not even tinged “blue”--but only “bluish!” And most, showed nothing special at all. As to “carbon monoxide” or carbon dioxide, Pfannenstiel makes no mention of them either, anywhere, ever!

Although, one should expect the vast majority of dead victims to show some variation of the usual, classical, intense reddish coloring, based on countless medical references, including Provan's--Pfannenstiel actually denied having seen any reddish coloring anywhere (“I noticed nothing special about the corpses”); not even a reddish tinge is mentioned! Out of what Gerstein insisted were 700 to 800 corpses from one gassing, none showed any variation of the classical, red coloring! That is simply incredible and demonstrates, I believe, the kind of pressure Pfannenstiel must have been under to say something, no matter how absurd, consistent with the Gerstein statement. Obviously, Pfannenstiel threw the prosecutors a bone, even if only a small one—to get them off his back. He lied--and who can really blame him? Even Galileo bowed his head and threw the pope some bones to avoid the same horrific end as Giordano Bruno. Provan has lied many times just in this latest essay of his, with or without having the brains to realize it—but without any reasonable excuse. Unfortunately, people such as ourselves believe we have to get the facts straight later on. We cannot point a telescope to Belzec to observe the past—but, there are supposedly many corpses still buried at Belzec. Due to Jewish religious objections about disrespecting Jewish dead, however, the Polish authorities have blocked any forensic exhumations.

According to Forensic Pathology by Bernard Knight MD, p. 507 which Provan quotes as follows on page 161 of The Revisionist :

“At autopsy the most striking appearance of the body is the color of the skin, especially in areas of post-mortem hypostasis. The classical ‘cherry-pink' color of carboxyhemoglobin is usually evident if the saturation of the blood exceeds about 30%.”

The key words here are “classical' and “usually” and “exceeds about 30%”--and they occur in one of Provan's own sources. Did he read this? “Classical” according to Webster's dictionary means “standard and traditionally authoritative” to which I suggest adding “well-known as a generally established fact.” The unambiguous meanings went right past Provan. The words “blue,” or even “cyanotic,” appear nowhere in this passage. Perhaps Bernard Knight has simply failed “to investigate thoroughly” as Provan had claimed I had failed.

The text continues:

“Below this, familiarity and good lighting are needed and below 20%, no coloration is visible. As these low concentrations are rarely fatal, however, little is lost.”

In other words, “familiarity and good lighting” are needed at COHb levels below 30% which confirms my claim that any cyanotic coloring is quite subtle rather than dramatic. Sweat and urine, which is yellow, could surely obscure everything. Some other keywords here are “rarely fatal.” Sure, the patients or “victims” below 30% COHb may well show cyanosis--but these “victims” are generally still alive and may even have full, lengthy lives ahead of them.

When I wrote of “victims” in my previous essays, I might have specified “dead victims” to distinguish from “living” CO victims whose carboxyhemoglobin levels were only high enough to cause headaches and delusions. When one speaks of victims in the context of Belzec and Treblinka, one is surely talking--at least generally--about dead people and not walk-in patients with severe headaches or memory loss. Dead CO victims are usually “red” or “cherry-red” or “pink” On the other hand, “living CO victims” may be partially “cyanotic” as well. Cyanotic really means only a slight, bluish discoloration in areas where the skin is translucent enough to show the dark, oxygen-poor blood underneath—such as the lips or nasal openings. A general “cyanotic” appearance of the entire corpse is rare, if it ever really occurs at all. One could even argue that whatever victims Gerstein and Pfannenstiel had seen were not really dead at all; their COHb levels were high enough to cause cyanosis but probably not death.

Many, if not most, of the examples Provan cites of cyanosis from CO poisoning are of people who were being examined and/or treated for their condition. He mixed them in nonetheless; shame on Provan. For example, he quotes from The Journal of Emergency Medicine , Vol. 1, 1984, p.236 as follows;

“The classic ‘cherry-red' skin coloration is actually rare, and patients are more likely to appear pale or cyanotic .”

If they are “patients,” they are probably not dead yet--right? The author of the text chose his words badly but they are still consistent with advice for emergency medical personnel for whom therapy rather than an autopsy are the highest priority.

But one of Provan's references looks as if it might ultimately help his case in favor of “blue corpses” rather than “blue patients.” In Military Medicine , December 1966, page 1517--see page 161 of The Revisionist , we have the following text—most of which actually refutes Provan:

“When someone dies immediately from exposure to CO, the proof is often easy to establish by analyzing the blood. For example, a common way to commit suicide is to inhale CO from exhaust gases of an automobile brought into the car by a hose connected with the exhaust pipe. Another way is to perforate the floor of the car and the exhaust pipe. The COHb saturation of the blood is often 70 per cent or more. In such cases, the cadaver displays a cherry-red color of the mucous membranes, skin, viscera, and blood. Such discoloration is also seen in cyanide poisoning and in exposure to cold, but it is most prominent in cases of CO exposure. Bernard, in his book of 1857, noted that blood exposed to CO or cyanhydric acid becomes cherry-red. He observed that the cherry-red color due to exposure to CO persists more than 3 weeks in the blood. Other than the cherry-red color of the organs, there are no changes suggesting acute CO poisoning. In some cases of fatal CO poisoning, there is no cherry-red coloring of the skin. ” (emphasis, last line: C.D.P)” (emphasis first line by F. P. Berg)

The last two sentences are especially important; not just the last sentence. The text is quite unambiguous about the cherry-red colour for victims who die immediately from CO exposure. I did not make this up as Provan would have people believe. The magic words “blue” or even “cyanotic” appear nowhere. The corpses, according to this reference up to this point, are all either “cherry-red” or colorless—and not blue or cyanotic. Did Provan simply hope to impress us with the sheer volume of his research and quotes? No doubt, many were taken in including Germar Rudolf who actually published Provan's essay in The Revisionist . Provan underlined the last sentence without seeming to realize that it does not support his “blue theory” either. If a corpse has no cherry-red coloring, that does not mean it is blue or cyanotic. How can anyone be so dumb as to present this quote as support for a “blue” theory? The underlined sentence only means that some CO poisoning corpses were not “red.”

But Provan's quote from Military Medicine goes on as follows on page 1524:

“Incidence of Gross Pathological Observations by Manner of Death in 533 Cases of CO Poisoning:

Cyanosis : Accidental—18 (5%), Suicidal – 7 (4%)”

In other words, only 9% of the 533 cases showed cyanosis. For the rest, Provan gives no specific information, but the author Finck actually does give a great deal of information about the other autopsy reports he selected.

“Acceptance of the 567 cases for the study was based on the circumstances surrounding death, the clinical and laboratory data, and the distinctive cherry-red color of organs at autopsy.”[16]

The organs are not the same as the skin—but except for cases with pigmented skin, the underlying color will certainly show through to some extent. Finck goes on with some more information on pages 1525-1528 of the same essay which explains away nearly 1/3 of the few cases of cyanosis given above.

“Clinical History and Gross and Microscopic Findings at Autopsy of 37 Persons who Survived Carbon Monoxide Poisoning from 15 Minutes to 9 ½ Months, Listed according to the Interval between CO Exposure and Death.” (Results: Cyanosis listed in 8 out of 37 Autopsy Cases)

Let us look carefully here—no leaps of faith, please. The 37 cases are of people who “survived” their CO exposures but died only much later. They are cases of “delayed death.” These cases bear absolutely no resemblance to what supposedly occurred at Belzec. The Belzec and Treblinka diesel victims did not supposedly walk out of the gas chamber and die only later, even months later; they were all supposedly dead as soon as the gas chamber doors opened. So what is Provan driving at? Clearly, he has no idea what he is doing. All that mattered for him was that he could put “cyanosis” together with CO poisoning and claim 8 deaths out of 37. Wow! That the circumstances were entirely different from anything claimed by Gerstein or Pfannenstiel was overlooked. Provan scraped the proverbial barrel for evidence and came up with rubbish.

One of many, detailed descriptions in medical references (not from Provan) are the following:[17]

“Pathologic Lesions . At necropsy, acute cases of carbon monoxide poisoning dying soon after exposure show a marked cherry red color of the blood, tissues and viscera, and a pink or rose red color of the postmortem suggillations. This color is evident if there is 30 per cent or more of carboxyhemoglobin in the blood, and is easily distinguishable from the reddish purple lividity of oxyhemoglobin or the dusky violet hue of reduced hemoglobin (Figs 4-4 and 4-6). The cherry red color of carboxyhemoglobin is not discernible under the pigmented epidermis of dark colored races and is often not typical in hue when it occurs in a slightly dark skinned individual. However, at autopsy the viscera, especially the voluntary muscles, brain, heart and lungs, are characteristically colored a bright cherry red in typical cases of carbon monoxide poisoning, regardless of the appearance of the suggillations in the skin. The cherry red color of carboxyhemoglobin persists in the dead body until advanced putrefaction occurs, and the presence of pigment may be demonstrated by appropriate chemical tests even in cases with decomposition. In embalmed bodies, the lividity of carboxyhemoglobin remains characteristic and the compound may be demonstrated toxicologically.” (underlining added by F. P. Berg)

What part of the above does anyone not understand? The words “dying soon after exposure” were obviously included to help distinguish cases of “immediate” death from those of “delayed” death. For our purposes, delayed death cases are irrelevant.

There is no real merit to Provan's arguments or assertions.[18] I would have completely ignored Provan's essay if it had not appeared, much to my amazement and surprise, in a journal for which I still have some hope. By publishing Provan's travesty, Germar Rudolf, the editor of The Revisionist gave Provan credibility that he does not deserve. No doubt some revisionists, including David Irving as well as Germar Rudolf have been taken in by Provan. One can only hope they will help to undue the damage caused by their publication of Provan's trash. To their credit, none of the usual Jewish outlets on the internet or elsewhere had ever published any of Provan's essays as far as I can tell. It is only holocaust revisionists who have, as far as I can tell, given him any kind of forum. Rudolf's blunder should be forgiven in view of the enormous quantity of great revisionist work that he has generated in the past and will no doubt, continue to generate in the future. We should also remember that as bad as Provan's scholarship truly is, it is no worse than that of Raul Hilberg, Martin Gilbert, Christopher Browning, Elie Wiesel or any of the other anointed scholars of “the Holocaust.” They have blood on their hands.

 

Appendix 1

Conclusions of Otto R. Klimmer [19]

  1. Bei normalem Sauerstoff- und Kohlendioxydgehalt der Luft kommt es bei 0,1% Kohlenoxyd in 30 Minuten zu rund 39.5% Kohlenoxydhämoglobin, bei rund 0,2% CO zu etwa 42.5% COHb und bei 0,4% Kohlenoxyd zu 52.4% Kohlenoxydhämoglobin im Blute der Meerschweinchen.
  2. Ein Zusatz von Kohlenoxyd (2, 4, 8%) ohne stärkere Erniedrigung des Sauerstoffgehalts der Luft fuhrt bei gleicher Kohlenoxydkonzentration zu einer Zunahme der Atemtätigkeit und zur Erhöhung der COHb-Werte, dagegen zu einer deutlichen Abschwächung der narkotischen Erscheinungen.
  3. Die Verminderung des Sauerstoffgehalts der Luft auf etwa 10% (Hälfte des Normalen) bei gleicher Kohlenoxydkonzentration verstärkt die Vergiftungserscheinungen und erhöht die Kohlenoxydhämoglobinwerte beträchtlich.
  4. Bei gleichem Kohlenoxydgehalt, aber verminderten Sauerstoffgehalt der Luft (10%) fuhren Beimischungen von 4 und 8% Kohlendioxyd ebenfalls zu einer Abschwächung der narkotischen Erscheinungen trotz Anstiegs der Kohlenoxydhämoglobinwerte.
  5. In Kohlenoxydluftgemischen mit rund 2,4 Vol.% Kohlenoxyd beschleunigt eine Herabsetzung des Sauerstoffgehalts auf etwa 10% den Eintritt des Todes wesentlich mehr als die Beimischungen von 4 bzw. 8--9% Kohlendioxyd bei normalem Sauerstoffgehalt der Luft.
  6. Die Ergebnisse der Versuche widerlegen die Richtigkeit der Formel nach Deckert über die Giftigkeit von Kombinierten Gasgemischen.
  7. In Gemischen von Kohlenoxyd und Kohlendioxyd in Luft spielt bei praktisch normalen Sauerstoffgehalt für die Gefährlichkeit das Kohlenoxyd weitaus die Hauptrolle, während 2—8% Kohlendioxyd von geringer Bedeutung sind.
  8. Bei der Einwirkung von Verbrennungsgasen ist neben dem Kohlenoxyd eine erhebliche Verringerung des Sauerstoffgehalts weitaus gefährlicher als die u. U. gleichzeitig entstehenden Kohlendioxydmengen.

 

Translation by F. P. Berg

•  With normal levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide in air, a 0.1% concentration of CO will raise the carboxyhemoglobin to 39.5%, a 0.2% concentration of CO will raise the carboxyhemoglobin to 42.4%, and a 0.4% concentration of CO will raise the carboxyhemoglobin to 52.4% in the blood of guinea pigs.

•  An addition of carbon dioxide (2, 4, 8%) without a sharp reduction in oxygen concentration of the air causes with the same concentration of CO to increased respiration and to higher COHb levels—while also causing a distinct weakening of narcotic symptoms.

•  The reduction of the oxygen in air to about 10% (half the normal level) with the same carbon dioxide levels increase the toxic symptoms and the carboxyhemoglobin levels substantially.

•  With constant CO levels but reduced oxygen levels (10%), the addition of carbon dioxide of 4% and 8% causes a reduction of narcotic symptoms despite the increase in carboxyhemoglobin levels.

•  In an air mixture containing 2.4% CO, the reduction of the oxygen content to 10% has significantly more effect as a cause of death than the addition of 4% to 8%, and even 9%, carbon dioxide to air containing the normal oxygen level.

•  The results of the tests refute the validity of the formula from Deckert as to the toxicity of gas mixtures.

•  In mixtures of CO and carbon dioxide in air with practically normal oxygen levels, the danger presented by CO is by far the most important whereas 2—8% carbon dioxide is far less important.

•  As far as the toxic effects of combustion gases, aside from the CO itself it is the reduction of oxygen which is far more important than the associated increase in carbon dioxide.

 

Footnotes:

[1] The Revisionist, vol. 2, no. 2, May 2004; pp. 159-64.

[2] More than ten years ago Provan challenged me in writing to a debate which I reluctantly accepted with some modest conditions. The conditions were that he simply agree “that the word ‘incredible' is different from the word ‘impossible.'” and “that the word ‘absurd' was different from the word ‘unsuitable.'” All I asked was that he agree that the keywords were “different”—no substitutions allowed, please! If he had made those two simple concessions, we certainly could have had a debate without any further objections from me. Provan claimed afterwards that I refused to debate him. He had earlier argued that the words meant the same things and, therefore, there were some serious errors in my work. No doubt, Provan's admirers would have found a “debate” about the differing meanings of the above words extremely educational--but sane people would have regarded such a debate as a sheer waste of time, and rightly so.

[3] The Gerstein Statement is a cornerstone of the holocaust hoax and is the piece of “eyewitness” testimony used most often in the holocaust literature. It is the best “eyewitness” testimony that there is in support of the hoax and is well known to all serious students of this subject. Although we know today that there are six different versions of that “Statement” based upon the excellent work of Henri Roques (The ‘Confessions' of Kurt Gerstein, Institute for Historical Review, 1989), the version most often referred to is Nuremberg Document PS-1553 which Roques designated as version TII.

[4] The fact that the critical three words appear in parentheses in a sentence beginning with ellipses marks are additional reasons to wonder as to how spontaneous this testimony really was. How does one pronounce parentheses and ellipses marks? In any event, if Gerstein had actually been thinking of carbon monoxide as Provan insists he was—why did Gerstein not simply say so, at least somewhere?

[5] Deckert, Walter “Zur Beurteilung der Giftigkeit kohlenoxydhaltiger Luft (Determining the toxicity of air containing carbon monoxide),” Archiv für Hygiene, Vol. 102, (1929); pp. 254-62.

[6] Von Oettingen, W. F., “Carbon Monoxide: It's Hazards and the Mechanism of its Action,” Public Health Bulletin No. 290, United States Public Health Service, Washington, DC (1944).

[7] Von Oettingen was actually cited by Provan on page 159 of The Revisionist after the following by Provan:

“…due to poisoning by carbon monoxide, more speedily absorbed due to faster breathing caused by increased carbon monoxide. This theory was known and current in Europe (especially in Germany ) and the United States at the time.”

By “current” does Provan mean to say the theory was generally accepted as valid? The facts are that only a few people would have even known of Deckert's theory and, more importantly, only one person, namely Walter Deckert, that we know of actually gave it any credence at all.

[8] Luce, Ferdinand, “Experimentelle Untersuchungen über acute, kombinierte Lösungsmittelvergiftungen (Experimental studies on acute, combined solvent poisoning), Archiv für Gewerbepathologie und Gewerbehygiene, vol. 7, (1936); pp. 437-51.

[9] Klimmer, Otto. R, “Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Vergiftungen durch Verbrennungsgase (Poisonings by gases of combustion),” Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Archiv für experimentelle Pathologie und Pharmakologie, vol. 201, (1943); pp. 69-98. Note that the works of Luce and Klimmer are not in mining journals either.

[10] 

[11] Klimmer, p. 96

[12] Pattle, Stretch, Burgess, Sinclair and Edginton, “The toxicity of fumes from a diesel engine under four different running conditions,” British Journal of industrial Medicine, vol. 14 , (1957): pp. 47-55. The entire essay also appears on the internet. Of the four running conditions A through D, only condition D led to any deaths from carbon monoxide. On page 50 we have the following text which also appears at : http://www.vho.org/GB/c/FPB/toxicity4.png

“The blood of the animals which had died under conditions D was scarlet. The carboxyhaemoglobin content in the mice was (by Lovibond's method) about 60%, and in the animals about 50%.”

For all the other deaths–conditions A, B and C–the blood was normal in color. No cyanosis or blue coloring was mentioned anywhere.

It has taken me several years to more fully appreciate the importance of this superb and unique inhalation study on living animals. Today it convinces me that the possibilities of any kinds of diesel gassings, even with heavy external engine loads, are far less than I had imagined when I wrote my first version of Diesel Gas Chambers more than twenty years ago. My essay should be rewritten again with a number of corrections; the diesel gassing claims are even more absurd than I had previously believed. In any event, the simple scenario described in the holocaust literature without any external load on the diesel engine would have been impossible. Please see the latest version of my essay in Dissecting the Holocaust or on the internet at: http://www .codo h.com/found/16.pdf

[13] Gonzales, Vance, Helpern, Umberger, Legal Medicine: Pathology and Toxicology, second edition, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York: (1954): pp. 496-506.

[14] Taylor's Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence, twelfth edition, J & A Churchill, London , vol. II (1965): p 368

[15] G. H. Findlay, “Carbon monoxide poisoning: Optics and histology of skin and blood,” British Journal of Dermatology, vol. 119 (1988); pp.45-51.

[16] p. 1519.

[17] Legal Medicine……………..

[18] An extremely important reference that Provan actually unearthed many years ago but did not use in his current essay is: “The toxicity of fumes from a diesel engine under four different running conditions” by Pattle, Stretch, Burgess, Sinclair and Edginton in British Journal of industrial Medicine , 1957, 14 , 47-55. The entire essay appears on the internet. Of the four running conditions A through D, only condition D led to any deaths due to carbon monoxide poisoning. On page 50 we have the following text which also appears at : http://www.vho.org/GB/c/FPB/toxicity4.png

“The blood of the animals which had died under conditions D was scarlet. The carboxyhaemoglobin content in the mice was (by Lovibond's method) about 60%, and in the animals about 50%.”

For all the other deaths–conditions A, B and C–the blood was normal in color. No cyanosis or blue coloring was mentioned anywhere.

It has taken me several years to more fully appreciate the importance of this superb and unique inhalation study on living animals. Today it convinces me that the possibilities of any kinds of diesel gassings, even with heavy external engine loads, are far less than I had imagined when I wrote my first version of Diesel Gas Chambers more than twenty years ago. My essay should be rewritten again with a number of corrections; the diesel gassing claims are even more absurd than I had previously believed. In any event, the simple scenario described in the holocaust literature without any external load on the diesel engine would have been impossible. Please see the recent version of my essay in Dissecting the Holocaust, or for the very latest see this website

[19] Klimmer

 

 

 

click to return to Index Page
www.nazigassings.com
NAZI Gassings Never Happened! Niemand wurde Vergast!