http://www.physorg.com/news88192255.html

Intersting theory, however, somewhat inconclusive at the very best.

All right now, and be this your case for cancer of the upper GI, how do you (still) explain the more-than-significant concentration of arsenic in his hair? This, simply, cannot be ignored or swept under the throw rug.

Neither arsenic (Paul Ehrlich"s Salvarsan, or "606") nor mercury compounds were administered to luetic patients, or anyone else for that matter, and to the best of my historical knowledge, until some decades well after Napoleon"s death in 1821.

How do you explain away this anomaly; perhaps both hereditary cancer AND poisoning by the British government over that six-year period of his confinement on St. Helena?

Moreover, have you, or anyone else, examined what remains of his dried blood tissue, as well as his hair? I have read not even a cursory mention of this. Strange.

This I would like to see before wholeheartedly, and blindly, accepting your "gastric cancer conclusion".

Dr. Genta, although you may possibly be correct——notwithstanding your empirical evidence——I am not convinced that you are, indeed, altogether correct.


Very truly yours,

William N. Gaillard
Redondo Beach, California
USA

artistsnwriters@netscape.net

The traces of Arsenic have a more prosaic source.
Wallpaper colouring in his residence on Elba had a green Arsenic base, and in combination with damp mouldy conditions would cause the formation of Arsine (AsH3) gas which accumulated in his tissues. The amounts were small and far from fatal.

Chromodynamix,

With abject and profuse apologies to Oliver Goldsmith, I must stoop to concur.

Slowly dying by Arsenic-contaminated wallpaper in the middle of the Tyrrhenian Sea is not exactly the stuff of Agatha Christie, Ellery Queen, or Rex Stout and his "Nero Wolfe"—let alone, when it took some seven-odd years after les Cent Jours (Napoleon's return from Elba) to kill him, as well. Maybe the concentrations of this gaseous compound were infinitesimal; however, there could have been a substitute vectoring of additional Arsenic after his final capture. It is the plausiblity of this claim and the seeming dearth of ignored (or, hidden), yet possibly corroborative, evidence being brought to light here, and suggesting an alternative explanation in forensics.

However, the nature of the dispute still goes to the question: how much Arsenic was actually reported in his desiccated bloodstream and where, precisely, is there any mention of his complaints about stomach cancer? This is a rather new and interesting twist in Napoleon's reported pathologies. These gastric cancer patients in particular endure an almost unbearable level of excruciating pain and, moreover, everyone else most certainly hears about it. Why have we not heard about this one before, as there also would have been some medical records kept somewhere?

Again, show me Napoleon's blood work-ups and chemistry and I will become a believer.

Bill Gaillard
Redondo Beach, CA

P.S. Please excuse the font size. My Hobson's Choice here in Times font was "too big or too small".

[FONT=Courier]

Chromodynamix,

Just one more thing...

Napoleon's personal physician-in-attendance, Francesco Antommarchi, concluded, also, that the Emperor had died of stomach cancer, however, undoubtedly ignorant of any family history here; doctors not being too terribly knowledgable, let alone, thorough in those days. This is yet another reason why Dr. Genta may be correct in light of the autopsy HE performed on Napoleon's corpse.

Conversely, or, more to the point, concurrently, there is the probability that Bonaparte suffered the throes of one disease at the behest of another disorder: the debilitating effects of ingesting Arsenic-laced food and drink on a fairly regular basis giving rise to the creation of a friendly environment for both cellular mutation and the ultimate malignant degeneration of otherwise perfectly healthy tissue.

I am still convinced that Napoleon's death, one way or another, was deliberately hastened by his captors.

Bill G.

Strange that no mention is made of Napoleon escaping from St. Helena and finally apprehended and sentenced to spend the remainder of his days on Elba. Not that it would shed any light on his death by poison but at least the butler would be in the clear. [FONT=Geneva][SIZE=7][COLOR=blue][I]

Santa Clara Conga,

THIS is a bit wide of the mark.

Even the most jaded of we historians know that Napoleon did not successfully escape St. Helena, and simply to be remanded back to Elba? No, it did not happen.

If my history serves me correctly, I believe that the order of busines was from Elba to St. Helena to his ultimate demise in May 1821. He was initially buried on St. Helena until some twenty-odd years later when his remains were translated back to France for final interment by the French people.

Help me out here.

Thanks,

Bill G. in RB