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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

Die Verminderung des Sauerstoffgehalts der Luft auf etwa 10% (Hälfte
des Normalen) bei gleicher Kohlenoxydkonzentration verstärkt die
Vergiftungserscheinungen und erhöht die Kohlenoxydhämoglobinwerte
beträchtlich.

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.

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.

Die Ergebnisse der Versuche widerlegen die Richtigkeit der Formel
nach Deckert über die Giftigkeit von Kombinierten Gasgemischen.

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.

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!