"Some months after this first conference there was a meeting of numerous physicians of the Wehrmacht, presided over by Generalstabsarzt Dr. Schroeder, to which I also was invited. There Dr. Beiglboeck, among others, reported on the outcome of the experiments. This report did not show that the experimental persons had been treated any differently from previous scientific experiments in the same field. It was understood, of course, that in order to carefully supervise the supply of water close supervision had been maintained. The tests showed that the process suggested by Mr. Berka in no way improved the drinking qualities of sea water by people suffering from thirst. The discussion revealed that war experiences had shown that humans can suffer thirst much longer than the earlier doctrine of physiology had taught."
That is Professor Wolfgang Heubner's affidavit, who is at present teaching at the University of Berlin.
BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q Dr. Schaefer, were you present throughout the entire course of the conference on the 25th of May?
A No. Some time after the discussion began there was an air raid. Everyone ran into the cellar including those participating in this discussion. The cellar was divided into several smaller rooms and. the participants in the discussion broke up into little groups and mixed with the other persons in the house. There were a great many people there, people from everywhere in the Medical Academy.
Q On the 25th of May at this discussion was there discussion of human experiments with Wofatit?
A No.
Q Let me say that Professor Netter's affidavit states the same, that is, Exhibit 35, and. Becker-Freyseng corroborated that as a witness on the stand Dr. Schaefer, Becker-Freyseng and various affidavits have shown us that you were against the Berka method and that you were against experiments on prisoners. You also stated that during this discussion. Now, you stated that on the occasion of the previous conference. Now, why didn't you do so again on the 25th concerning experiments on Luftwaffe personnel or concentration camp inmates?
A On the 25th of May I again said that the Berka method was not useable after several university professors, including persons with a European reputation, such as Professor Eppinger and Huebner, had stated that the Berka method could not be rejected without a further experiment. I, of course, could not present any medical counter-arguments or refutations since I had no military rank nor did I enjoy reputation in science. I was, after all, then simply an employee in private industry.
Q However, you had other reasons which you explained to Mrs. Koenig and which are corroborated in her affidavit, misgivings concerning prisoners?
A There was no mention of prisoners in this discussion and I could not return to something that had been said in a previous discussion and take that occasion to express my private opinions of that experiment on prisoners.
Moreover, such a thing would have been a political attack on National Socialism and its system of concentration camps, which would not be exactly the thing to do in a meeting attended by officers. I don't believe even the most courageous resistance man would have done such a thing.
Q Perhaps you would like to describe to the Tribunal how you had previously been threatened.
A In a discussion that took place with Dr. Christensen before the 19th I had serious differences of opinion and he forbade my interfering in his business and he told me that Oberstarzt von Sirany certainly knew a lot more about these things than some Unterarzt. The man who had a colonel's insignia on his shoulder certainly was scientifically in the right also, and the higher his rank the more right he was.
Then there was my clash with Major Jeworek; not only my clash with him, but also Becker-Freyseng's; and then in addition there was the threat that Schickler made to me at or after the meeting of the 20th. All that would have been necessary then would have been a little note of some sort in the minutes of that meeting and Berka or Christensen would have been able to get their opponent, namely me, out of the way.
Q Then, in other words, you considered it impossible, on the 25th of May, to express you ideological objections to the Berka method?
A Yes, that was quite out of the question.
DR. PELCKMANN: I shall read now the rest of Frau Koenig's affidavit. This is again Exhibit 19 in the supplementary volume in which she discusses Schaefer's disappointment in the failure of the last possibility of preventing these experiments.
In the third paragraph from the end it reads -- this is on page 12*, the first paragraph:
"A short while later Dr. Schaefer returned home soon after a severe air-raid, with the following words which I clearly remember; 'These asses have also failed. I cannot understand what qualifications secured such persons their professorships. I am tired of it and I won't do anymore. The experiments will now probably be made at Brunswick.'
"I also very well remember that Dr. Schaefer returned from a discussion in an engaged state saying that he had just come from a meeting with officers of the Luftwaffe. He and Dr. Becker-Freyseng had been called saboteurs when declaring the Berka preparation as completely useless. They also had to submit to other strong attacks and the meeting had nearly been broken up."
The threats against Schaefer charging him with sabotage can also be seen from this document and also from Herr Pahl's affidavit, which is Document No. 40 to which I have given Exhibit No. 37. This again is in a supplementary volume and, as I said, this again mentions threats against Schaefer on the charge of sabotage. In the middle of this document -- or, rather, I shall read the third paragraph:
"The so-called transcript of 23 May 1944 (Document No. 177 Exhibit 133) incorrectly reports the discussion on 19 May. One of the most obvious mistakes in this transcript is the mention of a series of experiments which were supposedly to have been agreed upon at that time. Actually, no series of experiments were settled on this day, therefore, also not those listed under Figure 1A--d (6 day period) and as experimental series (12 day period). Not one word was mentioned to the effect that the experimental subjects would be supplied by the Reichsfuehrer-SS or that the experiments were to take place at concentration camps. As the Wofatit method was considered acceptable by all present at the conference, the question of experiments on humans did not arise and was not mentioned. The experimental series with Wofatit was later neither suggested nor ordered by Schaefer.
"During the meeting either Major Jeworek or the Chief of the testing station Travenuende accused Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer of being financially interested in the Wofatit method.
"Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer and I protested against this accusation and got up to leave the meeting. Christensen interceded and thereupon we remained."
I now put in Document 34. This will be Exhibit 38, page 118. This is an affidavit by Professor Hubertus Strughold. This proves that the RSHA, in other words, the Gestapo, took measures against scientists saying that they were saboteurs if they embraced medical opinions that differed from the officially accepted opinion. The affidavit reads:
"In fall 1944, my two collaborators Dr. Heinrich Rose, Luftwaffe Stabsarzt, and Dr. Ingeborg Schmidt investigated the effects of vitamin A, on night vision. They found out that when combined with a sufficient supply of fat vitamin A - when given in normal doses - it improves night vision. From another source, it was discovered that very big doses of vitamin A - when given in certain solution agents - improve the night vision in a way never previously experienced. My collaborators did not confirm this. Thereupon, some time later, the Research Management of the Luftwaffe or the Medical Inspection received a letter from - I believe the SS Sicherungshauptamt or whatever its name was, and in this letter, my collaborators and my Institute were reproached of sabotage. As far as I recall, a correspondence took place between the two agencies named, the subject of which I do not remember in detail. Later I heard no more about it. Anyway, the fact remains that both my scientific collaborators were attacked by the above mentioned organization merely because they could not confirm the results of another research worker. This is a matter unheard of in the field of science."
DR. PELCKMANN: Perhaps at this time, Your Honor, we could break off.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have only three more you may proceed and we will conclude this evening.
DR. PELCKMANN: I have only three more that is correct, your Honor. However, I see that the connecting test in what I intend to present here is so long, it would be better if I present it tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 3 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHALL: Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshall, have you ascertained that the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHALL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court. Do I understand that the witness Franz Vollhardt will first be called on behalf of the the defendant Becker-Freyseng?
DR. MARX: With the permission of the Tribunal, Mr. President, I should like to call Professor Vollhardt whom the Tribunal has permitted to appear as an expert witness on behalf of defendant Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng, and which has also been allowed to testify on behalf of defendant Dr. Beiglboeck.
THE PRESIDENT: The marshall will show to the witness stand Franz Vollhardt.
FRANZ VOLLHARDT, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Hold up your right hand and be sworn, please, repeating after mo the oath: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may sit down.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. MARX:
Q. Professor, please, would you state your full name.
A. Franz Vollhardt.
Q. Where and when were you born?
A. Munich, 2 May 1872.
Q. Please, would you briefly tell the Tribunal what your scientific activities have been and regarding which special field and since when you have taken a particularly great interest?
A. I am Professor of Internal Medicine at Frankfort and predominantly, I have dealt with the question of circulation, metabolism blood pressure or kidney diseases.
Q. Which are the German Universities where you have been a lecturer?
A. Halle and Frankfort.
Q. Have you been an author of scientific work regarding this special field of activity?
A. Yes.
Q. Have they been circulated and translated in foreign countries and in foreign languages?
A. Yes, they have been translated in Russian, behind my back.
Q. Considering the facts you have just stated, would it be right to say that you have had honors allotted to you in this country and abroad, so would you please tell the Tribunal what types of decoration you have received abroad.
A. I really have to?
Q. Which foreign acadamies and Foreign societies have you been a member of? Professor, I really want you to answer my questions because I am sure my questions pursue certain purposes.
A. I am Honorary Doctor at the Sorbonne, Paris, at Gottingen and Freiburg; and, as far as societies are concerned, there are a lot of them, Medical Society at Edinburg, at Genf, at Luxemburg.
I am an Honorary Member of the University at Santiago, and so on and so forth.
Q. Thank you very much. Then I would be interested to hear from you whether you had connections with the NSDAP and what sort of connections they wore and whether the Party persecuted you in any way. Perhaps, you might answer the last question first.
A. When I was lecturing in Spanish in South America and when I was giving a lecture in Corjoba Argentina, before a medical Congress, I received a telegram to the effect that I had been relieved from my office and the reason given was lack of anti-semitic attitude.
Q. When was that?
A. 1938.
Q. And since when have you once more been reinstated and are you active again?
A. Since 1945.
Q As a full professor?
A Yes, as full professor for Internal Medicine at the University of Frankfurt.
Q Now, Professor, a few questions regarding your own research work. You have dealt particularly with hunger and thirst treatment in the case of kidney diseases. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q So that you have personal medical and scientific experience regarding the observation of human beings when they undergo hunger and thirst treatment?
A Yes.
Q Mr. President, before continuing with the examination of this expert witness I should like to permit myself to make a suggestion. There are two types of possibilities for the examination of Professor Vollhardt regarding questions which interest us here. One possibility, the one which I myself consider the correct one, is that Professor Vollhardt should give us a continuous expert opinion regarding the entire complex of questions which are of interest here, and that at the end I would then permit myself to put a few concluding questions to the expert here as, of course, any defense counsel and prosecutor is entitled to do, too. The other possibility would be that I put a number of individual questions to the expert which would deal with the subject chronologically and technically from a medical point of view. But, that would distort context and would not give as clear a picture of the situation as would the first possibility. I should like therefore, Mr. President, for you to make a decision whether the expert is to give an opinion in the form of one lecture first.
THE PRESIDENT: If counsel would propound to the witness a hypothetical question covering the basic facts which here are at issue, and if the witness would answer that hypothetical question without further question from counsel and make his response brief and to the point, and without enlarging too much upon the fact that salt water is not fit to drink and is injurious, which the Tribunal very well knows, we might proceed that way as suggested by counsel.
The hypothetical question should cover the facts here at issue, that experiments were tried upon a group of people, a control group, a non-control group and others, then the witness may answer that question without further interruption by counsel if his answer is, as I said, brief and not enlarging too much on generalities.
DR. MARX: Very well, Mr. President.
Q Now, Professor, do you have sufficient insight into the planning and carrying out of the so called sea water experiments in order to give an expert opinion on that subject?
A Yes.
Q What documentary evidence did you have?
A I had the original records prepared by Beiglboeck which I had seen.
Q I shall first of all deal with the character and type of the experiments. Are there differences between the character of these sea water experiments such as experiments with artificial infection with malaria and cholera and; if there are differences, what are they?
A You can't compare the two at all, because in the case of the sea water experiments you have things so perfectly under control and can interrupt so instantaneously and because the experiments had been planned at short notice, it could be excluded with absolute certainty that no damage could be done. In the case of artificial infection you can not do that.
Q You are saying that in the case of sea water experiments, providing they are interrupted in time, danger to health and body can be avoided with certainty or bordering on certainty?
A Not the latter. I said with absolute certainty.
Q I shall now come to the planning of these experiments. Did Professor Eppinger's participation and the participation of Professor Heubner during the meeting decisive for the planning of 25 May 1944, which I assume you know about, did they give a guarantee for purely scientifically and medically proper treatment of the problem?
A No doubt they did. Professor Heubner is a leading scientist and an extremely critical person, and Professor Eppinger was one of the leading clinicians in the world and a most outstanding expert, and I assume both of these gentlemen had reasons for allowing these experiments to be carried out, presumably in order to strengthen the back of the medical men, vis-a-vis the technicians. And, secondly, it seems to have been in Eppinger's mind that during such extreme experimentation conditions might be possible that the kidney would suffer more than up to that time and it might have been that Berkatit which contains vitamins might support the work of the kidney.
Q Professor, what is your opinion about the individual experimental groups?
A I think that scientifically speaking the planning was excellent and I have no objection to the entire planning. It was good to add a hunger-and-thirst-group because, we know by experience thirst can be suffered better than hunger, and if people are suffering from hunger and thirst too, they do not suffer from hunger, but do suffer from thirst and that resembles what people in the sea would be subject to because he is only suffering from thirst. It was excellent that Wofatit was to be introduced into the experiments too, although it was expected from the beginning that this wonderful discovery would prove itself. It did turn out that groups treated with sea water according to Schaefer just reacted as a group that were subjected to a reasonable hunger treatment and did not suffer from any great discomfort. In the hunger cure of 12, or, we should say 8 days, because the people still ate during the first 4 days, that is a minor affair, and we carry that out innumerable times for medical reasons. There exists a sanitarium where people are made to hunger for four weeks, and as long as they get water in the shape of fruit juices, they still carry on well and often with enthusiasm. Group 2 was Schaefer's group, groups 3 and 4 was the group that received 500 cubic cms.
of sea water once without and once with Wofatit. Group 3 was the ones who had drunk 1000 cms. of sea water. That one could only use volunteers for this group is an obvious fact, since the cooperation of the experimental subject is indispensable. Without their good will such an experimental arrangement is impossible. That sufficient volunteers could be found for a case was a matter of course, since a period of ten days of excellent food before and after the experiment was before them and since one could assure them with the best of confidence they would not or could not bring any danger.
Q We will come to that, Professor. You have just started to speak about food, nourishment. What is your opinion about the food before, during, and after the actual experiments?
A Well, before the experiments it was splendid. During the experiments it was meager corresponding to ship wrecked people and afterwards quite excellent. In my opinion during such brief experiments nourishment doesn't play any part.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, might I inquire whether the witness is now testifying to facts as he has ascertained them from studying graphs and charts made by Professor Beiglboeck or is he testifying from hearsay that food was given to these inmates or what is the basis of his knowledge that he is eliciting here?
A I was giving my testimony based on the records which I have studied.
MR. HARDY: Thank you.
A But I don't attach any importance to the meager food served during the experiments because that is an insignificant point which as I have said we have allotted to others many times.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, when you referred to this examination of the records, state briefly just what records you examined.
A The original records.
THE PRESIDENT: Comprising the charts that were taken from day to day during the experiments?
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask counsel for the defense if those charts are available here in the Tribunal?
DR. MARX: Mr. President, those charts are not in my hands. They are held by the defense counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have the charts in my hands at this time. I will pass them up to the Tribunal for their purusal. I haven't had an opportunity yet to puruse them, therefore, I don't know what they mean.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not necessary to submit the charts to the Tribunal at this time. I would ask counsel for defense if these charts purport to be the complete record of these experiments from the beginning to the end?
STEINBAUER (For the Defendant Beiglboeck): Mr. President, I am in the most fortunate position of having been able to study Beiglboeck's records in his previous office and to find his additional material which he used for the composition of these records. I found some of these in Vienna and brought them along at Christmas and immediately showed them to Dr. Alexander in the original. Dr. Ivy was here from America at that moment and dealt with these records, looked at them carefully and then in the presence of the defendant returned than to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, my question was whether or not these charts purport to be a complete record from the beginning of the experiment to the end of the experiment. That was the only point contained in my question.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, at the time I was looking for them, the tables of weights were missing. I started looking for them and I have found the original patients' histories, made up for each individual patient from 1 to 44, so we can prove, in great detail, how these experiments developed. Now, these tables are available. The Professor composed them in a weight table which is contained in Document Book 3 because it had been impossible to copy these things.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, Counsel. But these charts purport to be complete to the end of the experiment? That's the point in which the Tribunal is interested.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, they are.
MR. HARDY: May I ask a question of counsel, Your Honor? The prosecution desires to know whether or not these charts and records purport to be those charts and records made during the course of the experiments, or whether Professor Beiglboeck completed them after the experiments?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will answer the question propounded by the prosecution.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes. That's quite out of the question since Professor Beiglboeck didn't even know where the documents were. He is a typical professor who leaves things lying everywhere. I managed to gather them together - bits of paper, notebooks, all sorts of things. I got it together with much pain. I brought it to Nurnberg and I didn't part with it until the witness saw them, and by comparing the handwriting, this can be ascertained. It's quite out of the question that anything could possibly have been altered in these notes.
MR. HARDY: What disturbs me, Your Honor, is that on one of the charts the name of the subject is erased. The subject's name appeared here and now it has been erased from the top of the chart, and throughout the charts I have been unable to read the German language and I only received them about thirty minutes ago.
THE PRESIDENT: Such a matter as that can properly be taken up in cross-examination.
With the understanding that these charts contain a complete record from the beginning of the experiment to the end of the experiment, counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness.
BY DR. MARX:
Q Professor, how do you judge the individual examinations carried out by Professor Beiglboeck? Were they adequate for the solution of the practical question whether Berkatit was sufficiently useful and a preferable thirst treatment, and was it sufficient to judge the daily condition of the experimental subjects so that the right time to interrupt the experiments could be ascertained?
Did you get my question?
A Yes, I've got it.
I thought that the arrangements of these experiments was splendid from the scientific point of view, and, apparently with tremendous industry and great responsibility Beiglboeck devoted himself to the carrying out of these experiments which he had been ordered to do.
Q Would it be right to say that a personality such as Beiglboeck, as a professor of Interior Medicine and chief medical officer at a clinic for many years, on the basis of daily examinations and through his personal consideration and examination of the experimental subject, would be in a position to recognize any threats to the health of the person before such threats could actually become serious.
A That was a matter of course. Beiglboeck is an excellent internal medical man and the great care with which he carried out these experiments shows that he was fully conscious of his responsibility. Only, it's hard to imagine that, during such brief experiments, serious damage could have occurred at all.
MR. McHANEY: I object to the latter part of the answer and ask that it be stricken from the record. This man is an expert and, as I understand it, he knows nothing whatsoever personally about the manner in which these experiments were conducted. I therefore take it he is not in a position to state how Dr. Beiglboeck conducted the experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands the knowledge of the witness and the objection will be overruled. The record may stand.
MR. McHANEY: While I am on my feet I would like to observe that of course the testimony of this witness is of suppositive probative value at this time. The records upon which he is basing his testimony have not been admitted in evidence. They have not been, in any way, identified.
THE PRESIDENT: That is understood. That is the situation before the Tribunal.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, I do want to say a few things about that. Professor Vollhardt, after all, is an internationally recognized scientist who, particularly with regard to the field in which we are interested here, namely that of thirst and water supplies, is the international capacity, as one puts it, so that he is in a position, on the basis of these clinical records of Professor Beiglboeck, to form an opinion regarding the way these experiments were carried out. I can't imagine that such a man would not be in a position, on the strength of such material, to form an opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it is not a question of the ability of the witness to form his opinion, but the records upon which he is basing his opinion are not in evidence before the Tribunal. They have not been subject to examination and cross-examination, and the witness' testimony is based upon the supposition that those records arc correct, and they are not even before the Tribunal at this time. That was all the statement of counsel was intended to convey. If the records had already been admitted in evidence, and been examined, and people examined and cross-examined on them, the situation would be different, but the testimony of the witness is based upon the hypothesis that the records are correct, and they are not before the Tribunal.
Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. MARX:
Q Professor, a little earlier you had already briefly dealt with the question of starving - of hunger or of thirst for the purpose of treatment, and I now want to ask you whether the administration of hunger and thirst cures of several days is a medically recognized fact, and also how long would you consider that hunger and thirst with complete refusal of food and liquid could be administered without putting someone's health in jeopardy?
A It depends who it is. Initially, I recommended hunger and thirst treatment in the case of acute inflammation of the kidneys, but there people have a great deal of water in their system and the water is absorbed during such a cure. Astonishing as it may seem, a cure is effected very rapidly. In such cases, three, five, seven and even more days of hunger are employed. In other cases, where no water surplus is in existance, we would only apply six days of hunger treatment. During the time when I had to be interested in these particular experiments, there were four women in my clinic, all who were there because of high blood pressure. They were aged 50, 51, 53 and 63 years. One had a blood pressure of 210/100, and, six days later, it had been reduced to 170/100. The third had a blood pressure of 280/160 and, six days later, it dropped to 180/100. The loss of weight amounted to three or four Kilofraus and the patients naturally, during those days, suffered from thirst and felt weak at the end of the sixth day, but they were so happy about the improved condition that they considered the unpleasantness of the recent days as being worthy of forgetting.
Q Is it correct that when water is withdrawn, nourishment should also be withdrawn?
A It's easier to suffer thirst when you are also hungry be cause the supply of nourishment makes claims upon the kidneys and, if you exclude salt in the nourishment, the water loses further humidity.
Thus, appetite disappears when you are thirsty. Therefore, it is definitely better to be hungry and thirsty simultaneously.
Q Professor, is it right to observe the individual doses in order to prevent diarrhea, and, if individual quantities of less than 300 cc are admitted, can you prevent diarrhea?
A In the case of sea and bitter water you only suffer from diarrhea if you drink a large quantity at once. If you distribute it over a day you suffer from constipation.
Q Yes, but you didn't quite answer my question. I inquired about the individual doses.
A Yes, well, I'm trying to say that if you spread it out over a day, giving smaller individual doses instead of all at once, then there isn't any danger of diarrhea.
Q Can you describe sea water as poisonous at all?
AAbsolutely no. There is a trend towards the treatment with sea water which is increasing, and people are drinking half a liter of sea water, every day, for weeks. There can't be any question of poisonous quality. In fact, people say they are feeling splendidly. The only difference is that in the case of such cures fresh water is administered too in the manner of tea, coffee and soup so that the dehydrifying effect of the sea water is done away with.
Q Professor, I wonder if you would speak a little more slowly and make a pause after individual answers in order to enable the interpreters to follow.
Has there been an experiment during which a dose of 500 to 1,000 cc of sea water daily was taken and it is to be described as dangerous providing the experiment is discontinued as soon as there is a threat of a danger to health?
A There can't be any question of there being any danger to health during the first few days. The only question is, how long can the body stand up to this continuation of the deprivation of humidity?
Sea water has a three per cent salt water content. Generally speaking, at least so far, we have assumed this to be so, that the kidneys cannot deal with such a salt concentration so that salt will remain in the system which is anxious to collect water from the tissues. In the beginning, this is of no importance; but after six or seven or eight days, this becomes unpleasant and it is to be expected that after the twelfth day there is some danger, but there have been cases of sea rescue when oven seventeen or more days afterwards recovery was achieved, but one would generally say that I would never continue such an experiment - dare to continue such an experiment beyond the twelfth day, and in this case with which we are concerned, all experiments were discontinued after the sixth day, so that danger to health during that period was out of the question.
Q Could the aim of these experiments have been achieved with a semi-penetrable membrane?
A I can't understand how one should imagine this. What we are concerned with is the question of how long the human body can survive without water and under the excess quantity of salt. Now, that is subject to the water contents of the body and it depends upon whether, first of all, water is only used by the intermediary tissues or whether the cell liquid too is being used up. In the latter case, there is a danger which becomes apparent through excess potassium quantities and this was also continuously observed and checked during such experiments and there were no excess Potassium quantities such as can be expected after six days.