Q. Dr. Ruff, we know from the proceedings so far that after the chamber was returned to Berlin, Rascher, Wolff, even Himmler personally and also Sievers were at great pains to get the chamber back to Dachau, but this was frustrated by the Luftwaffe; did you have anything to do with this; what was your attitude toward this demand of the SS?
A. Yesterday I described briefly that I saw two letters from Wolff. The first was a telegram in May. The second was a letter from Wolff dated the beginning of June. In both cases Hippke agreed with me that Rascher was not to get the low pressure chamber back to Dachau. Of the later letters which are in the documents here I know nothing. Only a few months later I heard from Romberg that Sievers had called him up and had asked him whether he intended to perform new experiments with Rascher at Dachau. He, Sievers, had given the assignment to obtain and buy a mobile low pressure chamber for the SS. I reported this fact to the medical Inspectorate, to Dr. Recker-Freyseng I called his attention to this point and told him that I considered it superfluous for Dr. Rascher, who was still on the Luftwaffe then; even if he was to be assigned elsewhere, he should have his won low pressure chamber.
My attitude toward Mr. Rascher's experiments -and this led to the withdrawal of the chamber and the refusal to grant further experiments--was that I did not see any important, urgent reason to carry out experiments in which deaths could or had to occur. In addition to this attitude towards Rascher's experiments, there was another factor for me personally, which caused me not to collaborate with Rascher at all any more and not to carry out experiments in a concentration camp at all.
That was because of the minor things, above all the fact that during the experiments in the concentration camps one was completely in the hands of the camp commandants, Rascher or Himmler; that one had to subordinate oneself to these people; and that there was painful secrecy, no doubt at the instigation of Rascher, who wanted with this secrecy to avoid any results of these experiments turning up without his name being mentioned. On the one hand, he and Himmler demanded strict secrecy; and, on the other hand, he tried to have these results published. Later I also learned from Rascher that he had sent his own father to a concentration camp, or, rather, that he boasted about the fact that he had sent his own father to a concentration camp.
This showed me that this man had qualities of a character which made it impossible for me to work with him at all.
Q. Then, Ruff, you saw to it that Rascher was not able to experiment with the low pressure chamber at all any more and for this purpose through the co-defendant Becker-Freyseng you confiscated all production in this field for the Luftwaffe? Is that true?
A. No, that is not quite true. I was not able to do that. I was able only to warn the medical Inspectorate and give the suggestion to Becker-Freyseng.
Q. But Becker-Freyseng did confiscate all the production for this purpose in order to frustrate Rascher; is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, witness, the witness Neff, whom we have mentioned several times, on the 18th of December stated here that approximately 180 to 200 prisoners had been used for the high altitude experiments, and about 70 to 80 of them had died. Neff did not make a distinction and was not able to make a distinction between the orderly experiments in which Romberg participated and the independent experiments of Rascher of which you knew nothing. Now, I ask you, when did you learn for the first time that 180 to 200 prisoners were used and that no less than 70 or 80 lost their lives? You said yesterday that only about twelve prisoners, between ten and fifteen, and always the same people, were used?
A. I heard these numbers for the first time here during the trial. During the interrogations I did not hear these figures.
Q. Dr. Ruff, you told us that you were told that these people were volunteers. Now, let us take the case that someone, Romberg or Rascher or Neff or the camp commandant, told you, We don't have any volunteers. The are simply assigned. What would you have done then when you know nothing about this trial? What attitude would you have taken then?
A. Then as well as today I would have refused to accept these prisoners. I would have had to refuse them. I have said yesterday that in our experiments for rescue from high altitude we were dependent on the active cooperation of the experimental subjects. The experimental subjects had to be interested in the experiments; otherwise, it was impossible to carry out the experiments properly. Even under the conditions prevailing at the time under the power of the commandant or Himmler I would have been able to refuse these experiments without any personal danger to myself by saying, "We cannot use involuntary subjects. It may be all very well from the legal point of view, but for these experiments we cannot use anyone except volunteers. These experiments can be performed only on volunteers." That would have been my point of view at that time; and I still hold this same position today.
Q. Dr. Ruff, you told us yesterday that Dr. Romberg had a definite program to clarify an important question for the Luftwaffe and that he had gone to Dachau with this program. Your report of the 28th of July 1942, the official report, which we discussed before, does it show that the Dachau, experiments, that is, the experiments which you approved, were actually limited to the necessary experiments, that is, the experiments which were necessary to clarify this problem for the Luftwaffe?
A. That is expressly mentioned several times in the report. On page 2 of the report it says, I quote: "I had to dispense with detailed clarification of purely scientific questions for the time being. On page 15 it says, I quote: "Since the slow sinking experiments without oxygen had reached the limit apparently, sinking experiments were carried out from higher altitudes with oxygen." On Page 16 it says, I quote: "Sinking experiments with even higher altitudes were not performed, since in practice there is no necessity to use the open parachute at such altitudes and expose oneself to the danger of freezing."
On the same page, in the next paragraph, it says, I quote: "Three falling experiments were begun at 14,000 meters in order to avoid having too large a number of experiments." On page 20 it says, "Experiments with explosive decompression without previous oxygen respiration were not carried out because we were working on the assumption that in combat the enemy pressure cabin planes can fly with an eight kilometer atmosphere." These quotations, I believe, show that the experiments were limited to what was absolutely necessary.
Q. Witness, Neff told us that in an alleged high altitude Experiment one experimental subject died and that then at 10,000 meters within the chamber an autopsy was performed. When did you first learn of this case?
A. I heard of this for the first time when Neff said that on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
Q Dr. Ruff, we shall be finished in two or three minutes with the direct examination. We have only a few questions yet to put. Aside from the high altitude experiments with the low pressure chamber Dr. Rascher carried out numerous other experiments, for example the freezing experiments, the low temperature experiments, etc., which lead to many deaths or to severe damage to the subject's health; when and how did you hear of Dr, Rascher's further experiments?
A I knew only of low temperature experiments. I was at the freezing conference which has frequently been mentioned here in Nurnberg, and heard there Professor Holzloehner's report. When hearing this report did not have the impression that Dr. Holzloehner had had fatalities in his experiments. The preparation was such that one would certainly think when he was speaking of fatalities he was speaking of Seenot fatalities. It was known that Holzloehner had previously had a station to alleviate sea distress in the North Sea, and that he had complete experience about sea distress there. On this occasion I heard of low temperature experiments being carried out, that Himmler had told Rascher to carry out freezing experiments was known to me previously because when Rascher and Romberg reported to Himmler, Himmler mentioned this order to Rascher in some way and asked Romberg to participate in the experiments. At that time Romberg refused to do so on the grounds that he was not a specialist in this field. The Institute had never concerned itself with sea distress problems, and when he returned from this report to Himmler Romberg told me about this and asked me in case a request should be directed to the Institute that Romberg should participate in these experiments, -- I should help him to avoid participating in them. However, such a request never came. Otherwise, I never heard of any other experiment of Rascher either before or after that.
Q At the freezing conference in 27 October 1942 you were present?
A Yes, this was an Aviation Medicine Conference. There were several such, and even if the field under discussion there was not specifically our field, nevertheless, we were asked to attend these conferences, and if we had time to we participated in them.
Q In other words, you were there only as an auditor?
A Yes.
Q Because you were ordered to do so?
A Yes.
Q Dr. Ruff, you are also charged with conspiracy, in other words, conspiracy with all the other defendants, and those you were made co-responsible for everything that the other members did; for this reason it would interest me to know what relationship you had with the other members in the dock, and what relationship did you have with the experiments carried out by the doctors?
A Before I came to Nurnberg I knew of the co-defendants personally only Professor Schroeder; Professor Rose very slightly, we had seen each other once or twice; Dr. Romberg, of course; Dr. Becker Fryseng, Professor Weltz and Dr. Schaeffer. I met Dr. Schaeffer in 1945. I knew by name Professor Brandt, Professor Handloser and Professor Rostock, also Professor Gebhardt and Sievers, and otherwise no one. The others I knew neither personally or by name. I had professional relationships only with Professor Schroeder, Dr. Romberg, Dr. Becker Freyseng and Professor Weltz. Regarding experiments that are here under consideration, and on account of which the other defendants are accused, I heard here in Nurnberg as I have already said, only the freezing experiments, and in 1945 or the beginning of 1946 when I saw a report I had occasion also to find out about the drinking water experiments. It is of course to be understood that I may have heard something at the end of the war to the effect that experiments were being carried out to make sea water potable, but I cannot recall that, however, only of the experiments I heard of at the end of 1945 or the beginning of 1946.
Q Dr. Ruff, since you are speaking now of the drinking water experiments, I should like to direct your attention to what has been put in evidence in this case, namely the minutes of a meeting on the 19 of May 1944 in Document Book 5, exhibit 133, Document 177, these are minutes of a meeting in the Reich Air Ministry.
The Technical Office there from the rest of the distributors, it shows that a copy of these minutes was sent to your Institute, at least it is so stated, and under the list of those to whom the minutes were to be sent the Institute for Aviation Medicine, DVL, Berlin Adlershof, is mentioned. A representative of your Institute was not present at the conference of 19 May 1944, that is to be seen from the list of those present. However, among those present under No. 14, Unterarzt Dr. Schaeffer is mentioned. However, he did not belong to your institute, but to the so-called Luftfahrtforschungs Institute of the Reich Air Ministry, in other words, the Institute which Professor Strughold was in charge of, but Professor Strughold's Institute is not among these to whom the report is distributed, although a professor from that institute was present. Now, I shall be interested, to know whether in 1944, at any rate before the end of the War, you saw these minutes of May 1944; were they brought to your official attention?
A I cannot recall this document, and I believe I should remember it had been brought to my attention. Moreover I can't quite see why this report, these minutes should have been sent to me, because as I said before our Institute never concerned itself with any of the questions involved in sea distress, in other words, they did not concern themselves with making sea water potable.
Q Did Professor Strughold's Institute concern itself with that?
A Yes, they did, yes.
Q Did you not assume, Dr. Ruff, that the name of your Institute was included by accident in the name of those to which these minutes were distributed, because your Institute is almost identical in name to Professor Strughold's Institute?
A I consider that possible, but I do not know.
Q Dr. Ruff, in the course of the trial we have heard of numerous medical conferences, for example the regular conferences of the consulting physicians of the Wehrmacht meeting in St. Johann, Tyrol, Berlin, Hohlychen, and so forth; did you yourself take part in such conferences, or was your institute Represented there?
A I never took part in the conferences of the Consulting Physicians since I was not the consulting physician of any branch of the army. My co-workers also did not take part in any such conference, and I did not receive the reports from them.
Q Dr. Ruff, you knew of the experiments in Dachau, I should like to know now did you otherwise in a concentration camp or a prison or penitentiary, carry out experiments with prisoners or participate in such experiments?
A Neither before or after the Dachau experiments did I carry out experiments in a concentration camp or a prison or penitentiary.
DR. SAUTER: No more questions in the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of the defense counsel desire to propound questions to this witness?
DR. WILLE: Dr. Wille for Weltz.
BY DR. WILLE:
Q Dr. Ruff, let me ask a few questions. To compare, Professor Weltz, let me ask first of all that I gathered from your direct examination that you had known Professor Weltz possibly for a long time, as colleagues you had mutual respect and esteem, and therefore you may be able to state that all your agreements were carried out in this respect also?
A Yes, I have already said that when Professor Weltz made this opinion that experiments be carried out in Dachau I had known him for many years, and that I had no reason to suppose he was proposing any experiments which he considered unethical or about which he had any legal assumptions.
Q In order to clarify this matter, namely the matter of this affidavit, I should like you to describe briefly just what I am talking about here in Document NO-437, page 46, of the German Document Book, page 46 in the Document Book, you said "I believe that Weltz told me in December he wanted me to carry out experiments in the concentration camp of Dachau; it would be well if specialists in this field would help in these experiments, and for this reason Weltz got in touch with me.
"That is what you said in this affidavit; now, in your direct examination you explained this statement by saying that the agreement was the result of a conversation that took place in Aldershof Berlin, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct. When he visited Berlin, Professor Weltz told me that through Rascher and through Weltz institute, experiments were to be carried out in Dachau, that Hippke had given his agreement in principle to these experiments months ago, but that these experiments were still in the planning stage since they were not urgent and it was for this reason he suggested that the experiments be carried out in Dachau
Q New, I have this further question, which again refers to your affidavit; you also stated that Professor Weltz was informed of the experiments being carried out in Dachau and was orientated regarding that; now his statement could be misunderstood; what exactly did you mean by that?
A That meant that Weltz was informed and orientated about the planning of these experiments, because it was his suggestion that the experiments take place. He had the conference in Munich, we were in Dachau at the same time and discussed the matter with the camp commander to that extent Weltz was orientated about experiments in Dachau.
Q My next question; was Weltz informed about the carrying out of the experiments?
A I did not speak to Weltz about that.
Q Did you give him a final report?
A No, no report reached him from us.
Q Do you know whether Weltz received such a report from elsewhere?
A Of that I do know nothing.
Q Regarding the high altitude experiments, there is a film in existence; do you know whether Weltz saw that film?
A No, I do not.
Q Can you say whether Weltz know about the fatalities?
A I cannot say that for sure, of course, but I consider it improbable. I, myself, told him nothing about that.
Q No further questions.
BY DR. TIPP: ( Counsel for the Defendant Becker-Freyseng.)
Q Dr. Ruff, how long have you known Becker-Freyseng.)
A Since 1938 or 1939, at that time Dr, Becker-Freyseng, was assistant at the Luftfahrt Medizinische Forschungsinstitut of the Air Ministry.
Q Then, when during the war did you enter official relations with him?
A In the course of 1941.
Q On what occasion?
AAt the beginning of 1941, I was ordered by Hippke of the Medical Inspectorate, to visit all the law pressure chambers in Germany; there were twenty-five or more of them and then to submit a report of the condition of the low pressure chambers and also to suggest any technical improvements that should be carried out on the low pressure chambers. Then, in connection with the report that the Medical Inspectorate received, Dr. Becker-Freyseng was assigned to carry out these technical improvements and it was on this occasion that I resumed official relationship with Becker-Freyseng.
Q Dr. Ruff, how long did Becker-Freyseng have anything to do with this re-modeling?
A This, I cannot tell you, but it was quite a while at least; more than a year.
Q You say, in ether words, that Professor Becker-Freyseng from 1941 on had to do with the low pressure chambers; now the mobile low pressure chamber that was used, in Dachau, which plays a considerable role in this trial and the Tribunal could perhaps be of the opinion that Becker-Freyseng was improving of the use of the chamber in Dachau, particularly because you said in your direct examination that this chamber belonged to the Air Ministry and the Medical Inspectorate had ordered to use of the chamber in Dachau. Can you please tell the Tribunal whether Becker-freyseng had anything to do with the use of the Dachau chamber?
A No, he did not. This was a new chamber, which was sent to us by the delivery firm and we had received orders from the Medical Inspectorate to build a few additional pieces of apparatus into the low pressure chamber.
For instance the telephone system that corresponds to the one you have in an airplane, also we had to install the oxygen equipment. This was done by us, because we had the specialists available who did it when short of works in our airplanes. In other words, the chamber was not being used in the normal military way and for that reason it was not set up under Becker-Freyseng's supervision.
Q Good. Witness, now in this connection one other question. In your direct examination by Dr Sauter, you said that you had only spoken to Becker-Freyseng, I suppose at the end of 1942, about the fact that Rascher wanted a low pressure chamber for his future experiments and you said that you saw no necessity for sending such a chamber to Dachau and you said further that you had warned Becker-Freyseng about the SS plane to get a low pressure chamber for yourself, is that what you said?
A Yes.
Q Now will you please tell the Tribunal what Becker-Freyseng said, when you gave him this warning?
A Dr. Becker-Freyseng said he would get in touch with the firm. At first he was of the same mind as I, he said he would get in touch with the firm and see to it that the firm made its entire production available only to the Luftwaffe.
Q This is the firm Zeurtzen?
A Yes.
Q Thank you. Now a further question, Dr. Ruff did you know the socalled Medical Experience reports and when were these reports introduced?
A I know of them, they were issued monthly by the troop doctors with the flight units and they reported on anything that was interesting from an aviation point of view. When they were first introduced, I cannot say, but roughly it was during the first years of the war.
Q And do you also know who worked on these reports at the Medical Inspectorate?
A I know that Becker-Freyseng did. I know this because we frequently saw parts of these reports and we received them whenever the reports could help us in solving any of our own problems. For instance, in the case parachute jumps, there had been several fatalities because the electric cord from the ear phones had become lodged around the neck of the person who was dropping and strangled him. We had to clear up the question of how these accidents could be prevented.
Q Could you estimate how many reports there were every month?
A I should say there were from two to three hundred.
Q Thank you. Now a question regarding high altitude experimentation. Dr. Ruff, you received reports on the corrections, you delivered a lecture regarding the results of these high altitude experiments and this report was printed; when was this lecture and when was it published?
A It is true that I delivered such a report in the Academy for Air Research, not directly about these experiments but about the general question of the possibility of saving people from high altitude, but in this lecture the results of the Dachau experiments were also discussed and evaluated, that must have been in late autumn or early winter of 1942, or the end of 1942; in other words I do not know the exact date. as you say, it was published, but I do not know the date of that publication either, it certainly appears in " Jahrbuch der Luftfahrtforschung," 1942 -1943.
Q Thank you. Now, can you also say whether you mentioned the names of Romberg and Rascher in your lecture?
A Yes, certainly.
Q Do you know whether this report went to the Medical Inspectorate?
A I had to show this lecture to the Medical Inspectorate, before I delivered it, for approval and afterward, of course, special copies of the lecture were sent to the Medical Inspectorate because that always was the practice.
Q Now, in your direct examination, you also mentioned the Nurnberg conference and said about it that there were many such medical aviation conferences, I can assume that you, yourself, delivered many lectures at many such conferences not only at Nurnberg?
A Yes.
Q Did the lectures that were delivered at such conferences have to be submitted to the medical inspectorate for approval before they were delivered?
A Since these were conferences on the Medical Inspectorate itself, it was not necessary in this case to submit the entire draft of the lecture for approval before hand, either the medical inspectorate asked: " Can you read a paper on such and such a theme or one applied to deliver a lecture himself, giving the title and general contents, but nothing more than that.
Q Frequently you took part in discussions at such conferences; I assume now the notes on the discussions certainly did not have to be submitted for approval?
A. No, of course not because the discussion took place only after the lecture.
Q. Now, I'd like to discuss a document with you, Dr. Ruff, submitted by the prosecution. This is Document No-934, Exhibit Number 458. This was submitted during Schroeder's cross examination and is consequently not in a document book. This is a list of the medical research assignments of the OKL, Chief of the Medical Services of the Air Force and the research administration of the RDL and OBDL. Dr. Becker-Freyseng is mentioned as the person who worked on this. I give the document to you.
I am discussing this with you for the following reason: The Prosecution put the Haagen research assignment before Dr. Schroeder in this report. The report is called "Secret"; and the Prosecution drew conclusions from it that are disadvantageous to Prof. Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng. Dr. Becker-Freyseng said to me that the list was not only incorrect about this point, the Haagen assignment was not secret, and that you could also find other errors in this document, namely, regarding points which you, Witness, could clarify. Please look at Page 2 of this document, Number II, entitled "Air Medicine", and I waste No. 4.; "Current evaluation of air accident reports from the medical point of view. (Secret) Research about the effect of underpressure on the teeth, DVL, Institute for Air Medicine, Dr. Siegmund Ruff." In other words, you are mentioned as the person working on this. You see a sign there, and that sign means that this is an assignment by the Research Center and not by the Medical Inspectorate. Can you please tell us, Witness, whether what is set forth in this list is correct?
A. What is said under point 4 is certainly wrong. The current evaluation of aero-medical accident reports was something that took place after 1936. It was renewed every year and certainly was an assignment made by the medical Inspectorate because it is a purely medical matter. Moreover, it is also wrong that this assignment was secret. The semi-annual reports that were made on the basis of this assignment were in part secret, namely, these that contained simply accident statistics, where every accident was listed, its cause, the number of deaths, number of wounded.
Then in the second part the experiences that could be derived from these accidents were listed: and this part was not secret. It was the purpose of this report, which was printed in great numbers, that the contents should be made available to every pilot so that he could knew why accidents happened.
Q. Now, Doctor Ruff, there is mention also of the effect of under pressure on the person's teeth.
A. That, too, is something which was not of a medical nature given by a technical agency.
Q. Did this assignment have anything to do with the current evaluation of air accidents?
A. No. I has nothing to do with this assignment; it was an assignment by itself.
Q. In other words, this entry here is false in its essential points?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, please look at assignments Number 5 and 7 in the same list. Let me quote Number Five: "Experiments on the strains made on physical system and housing of a pilot in an Anti-Aircraft Rocket, Top Secret" and again the assignment is issued to you. The little sign that I mentioned before is missing. In other words, this assignment was made by the Medical Inspectorate. Now, is that true?
A. No, that is again erroneous. This is an assignment on the basis of a purely technical development and was assigned by the research leadership of the RLF.
Q. Please take a look at Page 3, Witness. Number 5 is again mentioned here; and here there is a little sign next to it. It is the same assignment; and the little sign means that it was an assignment on the part of the research leadership. In other words, these two are the same assignment; but once it seems to have been an assignment by the Medical Inspectorate and the other time by the research leadership.
A. Yes, the two assignments agree word for word.
Q. Then again there is again a mistake here?
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. Now, take a look at Number 7. I quote: "The carrying out of sheeting-off procedures, statically and in the airplane, with the centrifugal seat and with propulsion by powder. Secret." The little sign is missing. That means that the assignment was supposedly made by the Medical Inspectorate. Is that so?
A. This is certainly also erroneous. This is certainly an assignment on the part of the research leadership; but aside from that mistake, there is another one here. This was certainly not secret, because this must have been an assignment from the year 1944; and the work on centrifugal seats was, as far as I know, never secret, because this was a new rescue instrument, from the use of which you could draw deductions about anything else concerning technical developments in aviation; and so far as one could not draw deductions from the use of this rescue material about other matters in the air in aviation, they were not designated as secret.
Q. In other words, Witness, you agree with me that in the few assignments that I have read to you here there are numbers of errors which seriously put in question the value of this list as a whole?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Dr. Ruff, as can be seen from this list, you and your institute received a large number of research assignments from the medical Inspectorate. How often when you were carrying out these assignments were you checked on by the Medical Inspectorate?
A. In carrying out these assignments we were not checked on at all in general. We frequently had visits from some department chief or other in the Medical Inspectorate; the Medical Inspector himself, and of these occasions we reported how the experiments were coming along, and showed in what form they were being carried out. But we were not checked on.
Rather, we simply submitted a report on the carrying out of the research.
Q. Was it customary in research, Witness, if a research assignment was issued to carry out any sort of checking?
A. Neither with us in aviation nor elsewhere was that customary. Frequently the office that had issued the assignment, and which usually provided the funds for the research, asked for a report at stated intervals on the work being done; but a personal check on the work did not take place. At least I do now know of any such cases.
Q. One last question. Was the way in which you should achieve your results prescribed to you in any way?
A. The way was in general not prescribed. Either the assignment came directly from the Medical Inspectorate or the research leadership; and it sometimes happened that how the experiment was to be carried out was suggested, but certainly it was not prescribed.
Q. Now another last question. So far as I know at the end of the war you worked in the Aerial Medical Center in Heidelberg for the American Air Force, and you worked in conjunction with Becker-Freyseng. Can you tell us whether Becker-Freyseng between October 1945 -- namely, when he was hired -- and September 1946, -- namely, the time he was imprisoned -- carried out dangerous experiments on himself in the Heidelberg Aerial Medical Center and whether he or any of his colleagues suffered any harm because of these experiments?
A. That is correct. Together with a certain Dr. Gauer and myself, Becker-Freyseng carried out experiments on himself. These were experiments in which he stayed for a considerable length of time at 12,000 meters altitude, At that time we did not know what results the Americans had achieved in this field; and we had several very unpleasant incidents. One of our colleagues, Dr. Gauer, had a severe discharge in the knee joint, was in the hospital for several weeks and then had to go on crutches for three months. But there were no cases of death.
DR. TIPP: Thank you, no further questions.
BY DR. VORWERK for Romberg:
Q Witness, in your direct examination when you described the course of your career you spoke of the various sorts of experiments. Can you say that Dr. Romberg made experiments to the same extent and in the same way you did?
A Yes, that is so. Dr. Romberg was, as I said, my oldest collaborator and carried out these experiments on himself as I did.