As Ding's superior, didn't you have to exercise official supervision over him and don't you, for that reason, have to bear the co-responsibility for these experiments?
A No, an official supervision of Ding and, thereby, a power to issue orders I only had in connection with the production of vaccines in Block 50 and also as regards to other questions of hygiene. With reference to these questions I was Ding's superior. He received orders from me and assignments for which I fully assume responsibility. This, however, does not include the activity in Block 46 for which it had been established by order of Himmler and by the confirmation of Grawitz that this task was not assigned to me. Dr. Grawitz frequently protested at my interferences and I therefore had nothing to do with Block 46 and could not be held responsible since I did not exercise any supervision.
Q I refer to Document Mrugowsky #26 which is to be found on Page 167 of the document volume 1A. Mrugowsky 26, Page 167, which I am submitting as Exhibit 6. 26 on Page 167. On age 169 I shall read paragraphs 4 and 5:
"That Mrugowsky ever had anything to do width Ding's experiments on human beings, I do not know. Mrugowsky did not tell me of a conference with Grawitz in January 1942 at which he (Mrugowsky) indignantly rejected a demand that he should undertake experiments on human beings. I do not believe however, that Mrugowsky ever ordered the Ding series of experiments carried out on prisoners in Buchenwald, particularly since such an order, in my opinion, could only be given by Grawitz or Lolling.
"So far as I remember the typhus affair took the following course: The lack of typhus vaccines caused it to be decided, as long ago as the year 1941, to produce this preparation at the Institute of Hygiene and a specially equipped laboratory in Buchenwald. Mrugowsky appointed Ding as head of the latter. The only reason why the establishment of this laboratory did not actually take place until the beginning of January 1943 was simply that Ding, in 1942, fell ill of typhus and after his recovery was ordered to Paris, where he remained until the end of November 1942. In the year 1942 Grawitz obtained an order from Himmler for the establishment of an experimental station in the concentration camp at Buchenwald for the investigation of typhus and appointed Ding as head of the station.
I know nothing of the commencement of activities at this station, since this was a purely medical matter and concerned with a concentration camp. The laboratory was equipped in first rate style by the central medical service depot (Zentralsanitaotslager) and the production of typhus vaccines was greatly supported from my end. I had no connection with the experimental station except in relation to demands which came to me through the ordinary way of business."
And paragraph 11 at the bottom of Page 171:
"Grawitz never spoke to me of experiments on human beings in the concentration camps. Nor can I give any information as to whether it was only Grawitz, or whether it was also Himmler, who gave such orders to certain concentration camps."
Q Dr. Hoven, in his affidavit, Document N0-429, Prosecution Exhibit 281, stated that Ding received all orders and directives from you and that his reports went to you. Would you define your position to that?
A I have repeatedly pointed out that such a general statement cannot be correct. It is correct insofar as it refers to Block 50 but it is erroneous insofar as it refers to Block 46. Obviously Ding misinformed Dr. Hoven.
Q Dr. Hoven states as channel of command: Ding, Mrugowsky, Genzken and Grawitz. Is that correct?
A This statement is correct as it refers to the normal channel, as it refers to the correspondence of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS. This only has to do with the vaccine production in Block $0 or other hygienic matters but does not refer to Block 46. This channel of command is wrong as far as Block 46 is concerned.
Q Ding, according to Dr. Haven's statement, allegedly took part in a conference with you three days out of every two weeks. Is that correct?
A Hoven, in his testimony, repeatedly pointed out that Ding was frequently on trips. In his work report about the year 1943, however, he mentioned only one single official trip to Berlin. That presumably is correct.
As becomes evident from a number of my documents he was actually only very rarely in Berlin and not as frequently as Dr. Hoven stated. This statement in the work report seems very probable to me for the reason that at that time, Ding, according to Dr. Hoven's testimony, endeavored to cover himself in many ways and he therefore would have tried to state in his report anything which would indicate a large scale activity. But he naturally could not put down more duty trips to Berlin than he actually carried out for I certainly would have noticed it.
Q. Did the typhus experiments in Buchenwald have any practical success?
A. The first series of vaccine experiments already had shown that the vaccines were not equal as to their effectiveness. It becomes evident from Dr. Ding's report how these variances expressed themselves. One vaccine had an excellent effectiveness, whereas two vaccines were rather weak in comparison. The production of these weak and comparatively ineffective vaccines, probably by instigation of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, Professor Gildemeister, was prevented. Gildemeister was in a position to do that because he was the typhus expert of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, as can be seen from two of my documents. If these ineffective vaccines had continued to be used, they would not have shown their value in practice and as a result all confidence which was put into them would have failed and more persons would have died of typhus than if they had been properly vaccinated. The fact that already in the beginning of 1942 these ineffective vaccines had been excluded is, in my opinion, only to be attributed to the result of Ding's work. That undoubtedly is a very important and valuable result of the experiments which I am sure saved the lives of thousands of persons.
Q. Before continuing I should like to discuss with you the testimony of the witness Kogon. In the transcript of 7 January 1947, in the morning session, page 1184 of the English transcript and page 1214 of the German transcript, Kogon said that a man by the name of Koehler had been found dead in his cell in the bunker and acute poisoning was assumed; that Koehler was autopsied in the presence of a scientist coming from Jena and certain drugs the alcalayt series were found in his stomach. In that connection I submit the document Mrugowsky 29. This can be found on page 177 of the document book, Mrugowsky 29, page 177. I offer it as Exhibit Mrugowsky 37. This is an affidavit by a former SS judge, Dr. Konrad Morgen. Dr. Morgen states:
"I ordered the arrest in Lublin of Hauptscharfuehrer Koehler and had him brought to Buchenwald. Subsequently, he made very incriminating state ments against various persons.
I had to interrupt his hearing in Buchenwald to go to Kassel to effect a warrant of arrest against Dr. Hoven. In Kassel I was informed by telephone that Hauptscharfuehrer Koehler had attempted to commit suicide and that he had been committed to the garrison hospital in Weimar in a serious condition. Shortly thereafter, I received a second telephone call to the effect that it was not a case of attempted suicide but that he had been delivered with serious signs of poisoning and that he was dying.
"After receiving this information, I went at once to Weimar accompanied by the presiding judge of Kassel. Koehler was still alive. He was fully conscious but already showed signs of death. Everything that had happened between Friday noon and Saturday evening was an absolute blank for him. He was therefore unable to make a statement as to how he had been poisoned.
"Koehler died 36 hours after making his statement and his body was dissected by the court medical expert, Professor Dr. Timm, of Jena. Traces of poison were neither found during the dissection nor in the subsequent chemical-pharmacological examination. Also there was no poison found in experiments on animals. On the other hand, the dissection proved that Koehler had been completely healthy. He only had a small harmless tumor on the supra renal glands."
The further part of the affidavit refers to a different point, to which I shall revert later. Would you please state your position on that contradiction?
A. The testimony of Kogon gives the impression that he was sneaking of his own knowledge. That is not the case. He is only repeating what someone else had told him. He made a number of errors. He states that Koehler died at Buchenwald. In reality he died at Weimar, that is, not in the concentration camp but in the hospital. Secondly, he states that he was autopsied in the autopsy room of the concentration camp. That is also wrong. He was autopsied in the local hospital of the city of Weimar. Thirdly, he states that during that autopsy alcaloid rests were found in his stomach, whereas the judge who was working on this case testified that during that autopsy no such results were registered.
Kogon is only repeating what he had heard. All of these things are wrong, as is proven by the testimony of the investigating judge. I might add that Professor Timm, who was carrying out the autopsy, is a very well known professor for legal medicine in Germany.
Q. Kogon further states, on Page 1185 of the English transcript and page 1216 of the German transcript, that Ding had said, "I am to test a poison on Russian prisoners of war. I have to make an immediate report on it. This is Mrugowsky's direct order." Then in the English transcript on page 1185 and in the German transcript on page 1217 he says, "Dr. Ding did not send a written report about that to Berlin. He said that he would have to report to Mrugowsky verbally." Ding, according to the work report submitted by the prosecution, dated 23 September to 4 October, was in Berlin. The experiment took place on the 26th of October. According to the document available, Ding was not in Berlin after that period. What do you know about that experiment and when and how did you get that report?
A. I know nothing of this experiment. I found out about that for the first time on the basis of Document No. 265. I never received a verbal or a written report about that activity.
TEE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q. We were discussing the testimony of Kogon, referring to page 1198 of the English transcript and pages 1226 and 1227 of the German transcript, and of Document 1300, Exhibit 289, which was submitted by the prosecution. We are concerned with the experiments connected with Dr. Wernet. Kogon said in that connection on page 1198 of the English transcript that if he remembers correctly that in the first letter Dr. Ding had received about Dr. Wernet it was contended contact had been established. The prosecution contradicted that by Document 1300, where your name is not mentioned and which according to its contents is the first letter on that subject. Kogon furthermore testified that it was possible that Ding on his part had made reference to you for the permission for these experiments at Block 50. What do you have to say about that?
A. Ding never approached me in this matter. According to Kogan's testimony it seems that Ding himself carried through these experiments. As became evident from the latter part of Kogan's examination the experiments were neither conducted in Block 46 nor in Block 50 by Dr. Wernet. They were conducted in the hospital of the prisoners. Dr. Ding was no longer conducted in the hospital of the prisoners. Dr. Ding was not longer concerned with that matter but that was the camp physician's. Kogans expresses that Ding actually had nothing to do with that affair himself and he said he didn't know why he was writing letters about that matter. At any rate, I didn't receive any letters from him. He didn't ask for my permission for these experiments. He didn't have to do that because those experiments didn't concern his work. In addition, I may point out that this is not a question of an experiment, but a therapy treatment of a disease and it has already been established on patients of that Danish physician that such treatment had been successful.
Q. Have you that document before you, dated the 7th of January?
A. Yes.
Q. Then would you please turn to page 1228 in the German transcript book and 1200 in the English document book and tell me what your position about that matter is? The question there reads: "And now, Mr. Kogan, would you please speak about Mrugowsky's attitude towards the experiments conducted in the concentration camp of Buchenwald. I am speaking of other experiments than typhus experiments."
A. This question of Mr. McHaney's refers to all experiments which Ding was conducting at Buchenwald. Kogan obviously tries to mention my name as often as possible in connection with such experiments and therefore tries to bring it up at every suitable and unsuitable occasion.
Q. I should like to interject here - please take into consideration there the answer to the question also; namely: "Was a report of the result of Wernet's experiments made?"
A. Yes, that's right. As an answer to that question Kogan says that, as a rule, reports were sent about the experiments of Wernet but that they were of a different nature than those which were made about the experiments in Block 46 as it was sent to me.
This answer is in contradiction to the so-called "Ding Diary" which Kogan himself sent to the prosecution and there can be no doubt that Kogan thinks that this document is authentic, and I already stated yesterday that Ding, only in the case of four or five of these experiments, says that reports on them were sent to Berlin. But he says in no case that a report was sent to me. Berlin is large and there are various agencies there. When discussing that question Kogan contradicts himself when whereas he says that he himself frequently had the impression in the summer of 1943 that ing himself knew no longer to whom he was really subordinate. That is to say, that he had no single superior where an error wouldn't be possible and not the least doubt could have arisen. This passage, on the other hand, proves by Kogan's word himself that there were a number of superiors over Ding. Kogan didn't quite realize what this difficult relationship of sub ordination was. In the summer of 1943 the production of vaccines had already started and, for that reason, he came into contact with me to a much greater extent than before. Naturally, he received a number of letters and directives from me which all referred to the production of vaccines and to other hygienic assignments which Ding received from me. I am convinced that if Kogan had seen an order referring to human experiments which emanated from me he would very clearly have stated that in his testimony. During his entire testimony he mentioned not one word about that. He always stated that he heard this or the other from Ding. In that case he does not speak of his own knowledge but is only repeating what had been told. How unreliable Ding was in that connection was seen throughout the whole trial. Furthermore, he testified that Ding, since 1943, wanted to cover himself to an increasing extent.
Q. May I interject here that is to be found on page 1162, page 1162 of the English transcript and page 1197 of the German transcript, dated the 6th of January 1947?
BY DR. FLEMING:
Q Would you please state whether Dr. Ding ever approached you -- oh, I beg your pardon. You have said that already.
Would you please speak about Kogon's testimony with regard to that socalled Ipsen vaccine of hisoriginating from Denmark? This is from the English transcript page 1177 of the 7th of January, 1947, and page 1209 of the German transcript.
A This testimony of Kogon refers to the objection raised by Professor Rose to Ding's experiments. On the occasion of the third meeting of the consulting physicians in the year 1943 Ding was to have been very excited about that incident, and he then said:
"About three-quarters of a year later Ding triumphantly showed me an order by Professor Mrugowsky to start a now series of experiments with a vaccine coming from Copenhagen, and he says that this vaccine was furnished I Professor Rose and that Rose had made that request accordingly."
This testimony is absolutely wrong. Rose never made such a request to me. Fortunately, Kogon corrects this statement during his own examination for on Page 1252 of the German transcript -
Q Which is 1224 of the English transcript.
A -- he states expressly that Ding had brought the order with him coming from one of his numerous visits to Berlin. He says further:
"How this order originated, I do not know." Kogon is then asked whether this order had come from me. He answers that Ding had told him that, namely, that he received that order from me. He further is asked whether he could personally testify on that, whether professor Rose had asked me to start that series; of experiments. Then Kogon clearly answers, "No."
Q Would you please state your position regarding Kogon's testimony of page 1216 of the English transcript and page 1243 and of the German transcript regarding the fact that certain political or other prisoners were smothered into Block 46 in order to be killed there. Is that in connection with the passages of experiments?
A I heard about this matter for the first time here during the trial. The situation asit prevailed in a concentration camp was unknown to me. I never had belonged to the staff of a concentration camp, and only from time to time I went there in order to deal with very clear-cut assignments. Mostly these assignments did not entail my presence in the concentration ramp itself but only my presence in the vicinity of the concentration camp since the water installations are naturally outside of the camp. It is for that reason that I know nothing about these matters, but I noticed here that there is a discrepancy between the document 265, the diary,and the document which was designated as the work report of the year of 1943. Insofar as the work report speaks about experiments on human beings, rather, speaks of passages on human beings, and this was defined by the Prosecutor by saying that this concerned human beings who were infected only in order to keep the typhus virus alive, no mention of that is made in the diary. Later we shall speak about that in greater detail.
I should only like to raise the suspicion here that if this testimony of Dr. Kogon were correct that inmates were sent to Block 46 in order to be exterminated there, that those are these so-called "passage" persons. I think I am justified in saying that because Kogon and Balachowski testified that these passage persons had a fatality rate of ninety-five percent but this is a percentage which cannot occur in any series of typhus experiments. These passage persons would have to be put on the same level as the controlled persons who were not immunized and not even among the controlled persons, and this is why such a high rate of fatality occurred. In that case I think we are concerned with some tiling entirely different. I think that will be clarified during the course of the trial.
Q Would you please speak about Kogon's testimony of the 8th of January, 1947, of the English transcript on page 1250, rather, 1274 of the German transcript? Kogon says:
"We applied that method practical Holen and, used in the Pasteur Institute in Paris in Block 46 for its effectiveness. The test from animals lasted approximately four months." Have you that transcript before you?
A Yes. This method of Durant-Giroud was certainly not stolen from the Pasteur Institute of Paris. That is a rather daring and shameful testimony. The method was published by Durant-Giroud in a French publication and was, therefore accessible generally to the scientific world. I repeatedly pointed out as it can be seen from the documents of the Prosecution that Ding was sent by me to Professor Giroud to Paris and was working there for four weeks in order to get himself acquainted with the method. Equipment was even obtained which was use in the Pasteur Institute and which received through the help of that institute. This procedure was absolutely normal since every published method can be used by anyone who is interested. That is really the reason for publication. If one would designate that as a secret method, it would certainly not have been published.
Q Would you now please speak about the animal experiments that Kogon mentioned?
A Kogon states that the examination of this vaccine had lasted for four months. He said that tests were carried on on animals. This testimony stands completely isolated and is not proved by the work report of Ding which deals with the same matter. Such a testing of the, vaccine on animals would not have been necessary either. Professor Giroud is a knowledge and exact bacteriologist and belongs to one of the best-known experts in France. The vaccine had been tested by him by way of experiments on animals. These discrepancies between the testimonies of Kogon, rather, these discrepancies within Kogon's testimony can only be blamed by his deviating from his own knowledge and by stating what he interpreted into events.
Q Did you give Ding the order to start a series of experiments with the vaccine that had been produced at Buchenwald?
A No, I had no possibility to do that. He was not subordinate to me in that connection.
Q Do you think that Ding on his own initiative conducted smeh series of experiments?
A I really would not have thought that that was possible, but during the course of the trial so many documents have become known which have a tendency to show that Ding wanted to act independently, and I, therefore, think i is possible that he started these experiments on his own initiative.
Q Ding started a series of experiments with the vaccine Weimar where he only used five persons for this test whereas in other cases he was using 20 to 25 persons. Does this difference mean anything to you?
A It is quite possible that he considered the selection of only a few persons as a preliminary test and that he selected these persons who because of these camp intrigues were smothered into Block 46. Obviously he didn't make any requisition for inmates. He probably just received a few people which he used for that purpose. That, however, is merely an assumption on my part.
Q On page 1252 of the English record dated the 8th of January, 1947, 1252 of the 8th of January, and in the German transcript on page 1276; Kogon maintains that Ding was not a real bacteriologist and, therefore, had to in case of all questions which cropped up on the reports which were made to him by the experts of Block 50. Would you speak on that?
A When Block 50 started to work. Ding was at the end of his third year of work in bacteriology. There may be much said against Ding, but it would certainly be wrong to say that he was stupid. On the contrary, he was an extremely intelligent person and had an easy ability to grasp matters and was extremely skillful in the laboratory. He certainly was not any particular expert or could be considered any leading bacteriologist, but, on the other hand, it would also be wrong to assume that after three years of expert trailing one would not be in a position to gain the necessary knowledge that a bacteriologist has to have. Official training in that field only needs to be three years, that is to say, that during that period of time his training could be concluded.
Q Would you say that Ding was not in a position to critically evaluate what was told to him by his co-workers in the field of typhus?
A I already stated yesterday that Ding worked on two places for his training on typhus questions and that this period of time could only have been the foundation for the gaining of any special knowledge in that field. However, typhus does not differ so much from the rest of bacteriology. I think that one could transfer the knowledge to be gained from bacteriology into that field, too, and he naturally was in a position to critically evaluate the various questions that came up.
I personally looked at a number of preparations with him, and I can say that on my own knowledge.
Q Did the vaccine produced in Buchenwald have an effect in practice?
A The vaccine belonged to the best we had in Germany. The American occupational troops used that vaccine in their internment camp after the collapse. Professor Handloser testified on that here. That naturally wouldn't have happened if it hadn't been usable.
Q I now turn to the typhus passages on human beings. You know that Ding in his work report of the 11th of April, 1943 states that "typhus passages on thirty-four persons up to now." This work report is NO-571 which is a Prosecution Exhibit 285. What do you know about these passages, and what does "passages" mean?
A The passage is the passing of a disease carrier through a human being or through an animal under control of a physician. If an individual animal or person falls ill and a bacteriologist observes that cause, that would be considered as the first passage. If he takes blood from that patient and then injects that blood into an animal or into a number of other animals, and if he sees that all these animals also fall ill, this is considered to be the second, third, fourth, etc., passage. This procedure is used in the laboratory in order to test the ability of a bacteria for infection. Since these tests were made and since about seventy years ago one had found out that the virulence, namely, the ability of a bacteria to infect in other persons decreases very quickly, if that passage is used by one and the same type of animal. In the case of a number of disease bacteria the custom was introduced into many laboratories of the world to change the types of animals used, that is to say, from the guinea pig to the rabbit, and then go over to the louse and then, perhaps, again return to the guinea pig and the rabbit, and then the mouse. In this case the bacteria receives its full virulence. It would lose it very quickly if one always applied it to guinea pigs or always applied it to rabbits, etc.
Q If one applies that to the case on hand, would that mean that had the passages been carried out in the way Kogon testified, namely, from one human being to another human being, would then the virulence be kept equally or would it have been increased or decreased?
A If it had actually been the case that the typhus bacteria in its poison would increase by passing it from one person to another, then epidemic would always increase and couldn't logically stop for the bacteria would become more and more poisonous, and at the end of the epidemic people would be infected by bacteria that beforehand had still be able to resist, because these bacteria had become more poisonous in the process. In reality, however, that is not true. Every epidemic at one time must stop even without any measures of control. We don't know the laws which govern the coming and leaving of epidemics, but that much is sure and is proved by every epidemic all over the world, namely, that every epidemic must at one time step and is limited timely; that is, the bacteria loses its poisonous quality although there is a passage from one human being to another.
Secondly the consequence would be at the end of the epidemics the most severe and most fatal cases would occur, but that is not the case. The most fatal and most severe cases with the greatest mortality can always be found at the beginning of the epidemic, and that in itself is very significant for tho physician treating epidemic. For he realizes that he is concerned with the beginning of the epidemic when he observes such serious cases.
Q The passages with human beings, would that have brought any advantages compared to passages on animals?
A No, in no way at all.
Q Wasn't there the danger that the virus when transfered to the animals would die?
A The vaccine was to be produced from the lungs of animals and one would therefore have to go over to the animal from the human being. The change of type of animal to be used is always a critical momentum. It often occurs that tho bacteria cannot be applied, but automatically dies, but in our cases, in Ding's case that wouldn't have mattered because he always had many spontaneous typhus cases at his disposal, and would have been able to get a new strain from then.
Q When did you hear of passages of human beings for the first time?
A Here during the trial when looking through the work report.
Q Didn't you receive Ding's report of 43 from him?
A This document is neither signed nor is the date filled in, nor does it bear the stamp "secret" or any number. The report obviously is only a draft, therefore and there was never sent off. At any rate, I never received any work report, and I never asked for it.
Q You remember, however, that your name appears on that work report by handwriting; how do you explain that?
A This handwritten note does not originate from Ding. It may mean something else. However, all that is an assumption. Nothing can be proved.
Q Did you receive a work report like that for the year 1941 or 1942?
A No, I didn't ask for one.
Q. The draft of the work report for '43 which is available here contains something about Block 46 and Block 50; wouldn't you have noticed that had you received the report?
A This certainly would have drawn my attention, because I know how clearly these two blocks had boon separated. This clear distinction between Block 50 and Block 46 was unanimously confirmed by all witnesses. One exception seems to be Mr. Balachowsky's assurance, which is Document 484, and Prosecution Exhibit 201, where he says in the German translation that between Block 46 and Block 50 there were close connections. That is in contradiction to all other statements contained in all other documents. I looked at the original and there is something else contained therein. It says there, there are le rapport etc. constant, that is to say there were continual relationships between the blocks, but it does not say these relationships were close. That is something entirely different. This testimony is in agreement with all the other testimony.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, in that connection I once more refer to Document Mrugowsky 23, which is to be found on page 161 Volume 1-A, which I offered as Exhibit Mrugowsky Exhibit 26, which is a passage which deals With the exceptions--Document 23, Exhibit 26, page 161. I will read the paragraph to be found on page 162:
"I was told now, that Dr. Ding is supposed to have infected so-called passage-persons with typhus during experiments, in order to keep the virus alive. I already stated that I watched the typhus experiments in Buchenwald very carefully because persons who were not liked were put on the list for the experiments. During my observations and inquiries which were conducted since July 1943 I never saw or heard anything about passages on human beings. On the basis of the information that in cases of passages the death rate was extraordinary high, it does not seem impossible to me that as so-called passages the disliked persons were used, who should be exterminated by the intrigues in the camp.
Q In Ding's Diary many letters are to be found which refer to the serum obtained by the typhus, ruthenol?
A In that connection we are not concerned with the prevention to be imposed as in tho case of vaccine, but we are concerned with the treatment of ill persons. In the case of a number virus diseases, for instance, in the case of infantile paralysis and scarlet fever, the experiments, was obtaining that serum from persons who had gone through that illness, has a curing effect in the cases of people who had newly fallen ill. This experiment was applied in the case of typhus at the very early state, and contradictory results were achieved. Some physicians had successes and some physicians had failures. Since we have no drug in the case of typhus with which we could treat the patients, the suggestion originated that this serum of the convalescents would have therapeutically capacity. In the case of typhus, which we encountered, we were naturally very interested in that question, and I know tho entire literature on that subject. I know how contradictory the results were, but I also know a large number of scientific thesis which speak of good results in case of that method of treatment. In order to make up a serum we took the serum from the persons who had survived typhus and applied it as a therapeuticun in other cases of illness, with the changing result sometimes which worked and sometimes which didn't.
DR. FLEMMING: I submit to the Tribunal Mrugowsky Exhibit No. 14, which is to be found on page 131 of the Document Book 1-A, which is a copy of the handbook Pathogenic Microorganism", and shall submit that handbook to the Tribunal as soon as I got it from the laboratory. This is Document Mrugowsky No. 14, page 131 of the Document book, and I offer it as Exhibit No. 37. I only submit it to tho Tribunal for their attention, and it is said therein that a number of research workers had good or better or not results at all in case of this serum by convalescents.
Q Were any persons harmed by using that method?
A That is completely out of the question. In the first place these convalescents were still under medical supervision. The serum was not only drawn from them in Buchenwald but was in hospitals wherever typhus patients wore treated. It is a peculiarity of the typhus disease that the vessels and the veins are in most danger, whereas the amount of blood in itself does not change. The vessels, therefore, are oberburdened, and the drawing of the blood is known for a thousand years in medicine as a taking away of the burden of the circulation system. It comes in order to gain serum, for only that the blood in the later case is not being poured away but that it is used for therapeutical purpose. If the drawing of the blood is executed skillfully any harm to the patient is out of the question.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken at 12:30 P.M.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 28 Mar 1947.)
JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY - Resumed
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q Before the recess we were talking about the taking off of blood in the case of typhus and you were saying in that connection that a cleverly carried out taking off of blood would be rather beneficial than damaging in the case cf typhoid. What do you consider a cleverly carried out operation of that type?
AA human being has a total of about five liters of blood. It has been known for decades that damage to health through removal of blood, and particularly danger to life, would only take place if one liter or more is taken off; but even that limit is not a certainty. In the case of removed blood, therefore, from the vein one will stay well below that limit. The rule is not to tale more than five hundred cubic centimeter From the entires in the so-called diary it becomes apparent that on the average 430 cubicecentimeters were taken from the convalescent patients. Consequently, usual limits were observed so that danger for this removal of blood was out of the question from the beginning.
Q These convalescent patients - were they previously examined before the convalescent scrum was taken away from them?
A They were still under medical consideration in the hospital and the doctor in whose care they were get them ready for this removal of blood. This would not have been done if in any way there had been any reason on the strength of which the patient might have been in jeopardy, for instance, through anemia or anything like that.
Q The persons from whom convalescent serum blood was removed - did they in any way receive compensation?
A In Germany even in peacetime there has been an arrangement usually according to which, in the case of blood transfusions and some such operatic accitional food rations could be allocated. This ruling, which was also applicable to the armed forces, was also brought into cooperation for concentration camp inmates and I know that a corresponding order was given through the chief of concentration camps through administrative channels.