Q Did you erase the name off these charts of the 6th experimental person?
A I erased no names at all.
Q Did defense counsel tell you that he erased them?
A No.
Q You never talked to your defense counsel about the erasure of names in these charts?
A No.
Q Case No. 7, -- if your Honors will kindly mark those A.B.C. and D. Now, I call your attention to chart A-7, could you kindly tell us whether or not the name has been erased from this chart, the erasure there is obvious, isn't it?
A It would seem so, yes.
Q Do you know who erased that name?
A No.
Q Our experts have found that the first three letters that have been erased there may possibly have been the letters L--a--i; does that help your remembrance to tell us who this experimental subject, was?
A I can see an "L" here for certain. The other letters I am not so sure of.
Q You cannot recall looking at that erasure just who the experimental subject was, can you?
A No.
Q This case No. VII is this the first case of persons given Schaefer water to drink?
A Yes.
Q And how long did this person drink Schaefer water?
A I estimate 12 days.
Q He drank Schaefer water then from the 21st or 22nd of August?
A From there on.
Q If he drank it from the 22nd of August: Does that ******* for the urinary output registered on the 22nd, or would it be usual to record a urinary output on the day yon* began your experience
A From the day on when the experiment began the amounts of urine were set down.
Q Then if you began the experiment on the 22nd then you would immediately start collecting the urine of the person upon whom you were experimenting, and isn't it more likely that this experiment began of the 21st as indicated by your own red notation on chart A--VII under the date 21st?
A The amounts of urine were measured for a few days previously in all the cases. I simply had them written down here as a balance. Before the intake was free there was not much point in measuring the fluids or urine before the amounts were strictly mea-ured and calculated. Consequently, the urine was measured roughly from the 16th on.
Q Am I correct in my understanding that when a person is subjected to exclusively seawater to drink that the urinary output will exceed the intake, disregarding this chart?
A Then if seawater is consumed the elimination of urine is greater than the consumption of water, but if you have different food, if that is what you mean, perhaps then anyone who is suddenly given less to eat, and these people were taken from 3000 calories down to emergency sea rations, any transition to fasting or sort of fasting cure is associated with elimination of water.
Q Well, isn't it possible in the first instance the seawater that you applied the Schaefer method to was impure, that is Schaefer method hadn't been applied correctly, and that accounts for the excessive urinary output on the 22nd, of this case B-VII?
A Literature on fasting throughout the whole world, which amounts to 4,000 pages at least, will readily prove to you that as soon as a person is receiving too little food, there is a vast increase in the elimination of water and that it had nothing to do with incorrect handling of the sea water by the Schaefer method. The fact that the Schaefer water is in order can be seen from the fact that the urine extracted is more than the water drunk and the amount lost through the skin and lungs. It is made apparent in the urine, of course, consequently the figures show here more water was consumed than was eliminated in the urine. If you eat food, which is rather large in salt contents, such as these people received in their preliminary food and then you feed to them sea ration emergency caliber food, then this amount of salt is used up. That is an iron law. Then, for this reason the body must eliminate some more water.
Q Now, I interestingly note, Doctor, that this experiment continued until the third day of September and then you continued to observe this subject until the 12th or 13th day of September; how do you explain the fact that you observed this subject until the 13th day of September and indicated your observations on charts C and D-7 and did not observe the hunger and thirst group any longer until the third day of September; was that because the ones using or drinking the Schaefer water survived?
A I can readily explain that to you why that was done. When this experimental group was still in the experiment with Schaefer water, namely on the 1st of September, the second group had already begun its series with sea water and those who were still in the experimental state had their temperatures taken, whereas those who had finished the experiment no longer were having their temperature taken, they were not on the bed but already on the table. Then, more or less by prediction, this temperature watch was continued on the charts here. The measurements of temperature and pulse were not continued because it would have meant a great deal of work.
A This is now the chart of subject eight; would Your Honors kindly mark those A.B.C, and D.
Now, on Chart A-8, under date 21 August, the eighth day of the observations, we note that you have indicated that this person was to be subjected to the Schaefer water and then the marks indicating that have been crossed out in red pencil; when did you make those corrections?
A These corrections were made in Dachau. This was an experimental subject who had diarrhea on the 16th. In other words, a catarrah of the intestines, thus I postponed beginning the experiments on him until his weight was in order. At first he weighed 51.5 kilograms, then after two days of diarrhea, he lost some weight, he then recovered it and attained a weight of 53.3 kilograms. In other words, he gained more weight than he had at the beginning. This is a definite indication that the intestinal influenza he had, had been corrected, and then he started on the Schaefer experiment.
Q Well, when were these three markings made with the red and blue pencil made on the 21,22 end 23 of August, let us treat with the 22nd of August, that is the red arrow with the black circle at the end there which has been stricken out with the red pencil; when did you make this line?
A This change from the 21st to the 23rd was made in Dachau. When I looked these drafts over I possibly thought the experiment began on the 22nd and then I saw my error so I crossed out the mark and moved it over.
Q When did you make the clumsy attempt to erase the lines making a urine output on the 22nd in Chart B-8?
A I did not erase that, that is not erased at all.
Q I think you will find that our experts will state that is an erasure there, Doctor?
A It looked to me as if there was something sticky there, as if something stuck to that part of the paper.
Q Wouldn't it have been feasible that you attempted to erase the red line in order to conceal sea-water consumption on the 22nd?
A If I had erased here. I would not have erased the line in the middle of a line. That would really have been sort of stupid as I would have begun at the beginning to erase the line. I would not erase a piece out of the middle of the line as that would be somewhat more or less stupid.
Q That is questionable whether you would start at the beginning of the line or in the middle of the line; at any rate it is obvious from this document, Your Honors, that someone attempted to erase the red line and seeing the erasure would have been impossible, then stopped.
A I am absolutely sure that there was something sticky which fell on the piece of paper and for that reason the red line did not take on the paper, that is why it looks as though it was erased, something like rubber or something sticky fell on the paper, maybe it was food.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, the blue line of the draft is also missing as well as the red.
THE WITNESS: It seems to me that something fell on the paper here.
THE PRESIDENT: My question was that the blue line of the draft is also missing; part of it, is it not?
THE WITNESS: You mean this one? Yes, all the lines are broken off or interrupted here. Something fell on it, you can see a larger spot is discolored on the paper. Something fell on the paper. I think that when they were pasting the tables together or something, some of the paste fell on it; that is what it looks like to me. You can see very clearly that the continuation of the lines is there.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q We will turn now to Case No. 9, Your Honor, kindly mark those. Now, this is the case, is it not, of the experiment subject who obviously was too ill to undergo the experiments, hence you dismissed him.
A This is an experimental subject who had diarrhea on the 16th and on the 20th had bronchitis with a bronchial pneumonia heart; that was an accurate case of illness.
This is experimental subject 9.
Q This is the case of the Mettbach boy, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q Was that the subject that you attempted to call here as a witness?
A Yes.
Q And he did not have to undergo the drinking of sea-water in your experiments, did he?
A But, he saw them.
Q What happened to him after he had been dropped on the eighth day; did he still stay at the experimental station?
A He had arelative there who visited him all the time and he was transferred to the hospital.
Q He was transferred to the hospital on the eighth day?
A Yes.
Q While still carrying a temperature considerably higher than normal?
AAt that time when transferred he had a temperature of 39 degrees centigrade.
MR. HARDY: I turn now to Case No. 11, Your Honor. If you will kindly mark these.
THE PRESIDENT: Take these, Mr. Hardy, and place them in order.
MR. HARDY: This, your Honor, is the first sheet. Just a moment -
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Now, this Case No. 11 is the first case wherein we note that the experimental subject was used on two occasions. Is that correct, Dr. Beiglboeck?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what was the purpose of subjecting this man to drinking sea water for a period of seven days and then terminating the experiment with the lapse of five days and then putting him back on sea water for a period of five more days?
A. This man had drunk fresh water several times. From the 24th to the 25th he lost only five hundred grams weight. Although he was fasting and was losing weight he only lost five hundred grams weight. That is a sure indication that he drank water. Also from the 26th to the 27th he only lost five hundred grams weight although at this time he should have lost that much through the kidney alone. In other words, this would mean that he didn't lose any weight at all from fasting and didn't lose any through perspiration or through the lungs. In other words, it is perfectly clear that he drank freshwater and for this reason the experiment was useless, so what happened here was that for a few days he drank fresh water and then he began the experiment all over again.
Q. Did he revolunteer to be resubjected to sea water experiments? This is a case of a man drinking plain sea water, isn't it?
A. Yes, and he did revolunteer.
Q. And after having drank water and cheated on the experiments during the first seven days he then revolunteered and allowed you to subject him to further experimentation although he found out it was very distasteful and uncomfortable?
A. I have already told you that he did that in order to get those cigarettes I mentioned.
Q. Oh, then after he had cheated you offered cigarettes to him so that he would continue the experiment?
A. When I caught him drinking I told him that he would get no cigarettes and then he came to me and later said he wanted to do an experiment again.
Q. Can you tell us the name of that subject? Look over these three charts and see if you can see any erasures thereof -- that is, up in the section where the name should appear. Can you see on chart. No, C11 the name, Siegfried Schmidt, which has been erased?
A. Yes, that's possible. Yes.
Q. Who erased that name?
A. I don't know. I didn't.
Q. Do you know whether your defense counsel erased it?
A. I am sure he did not.
Q. What would be the purpose in erasing the names of these charts; doctor?
A If I remember correctly, we were to erase all the names at that time. I think we were told then that we were to use no names.
Q Is it possible that that man's name was erased because he was later exterminated, so that he wouldn't talk?
A. These fever graphs at the end of the experiment I took away from Dachau with me. I returned the experimental subjects under the conditions that I have already described to you with the request that the be treated as convalescents for a few days and that they receive the additional rations promised. That any of the subjects were annihilated, that I considered out of the question, at least in connection with my experiments. Of course, I can't tell you what happened to the subjects later when I was no longer in Dachau. That I cannot tell you but it is sure that no experimental subjects had to be annihilated because of my experiments.
Q. Do you know whether or not the names had been erased when you had these documents in your custody hero at the Nurnberg jail in January?
A. I didn't have them in my custody in January. I got them only at Easter. I have already told you that. I didn't pay any attention to the names. I simply looked at the weights.
Q. You mean you didn't pay any attention to the names of the subjects?
A. No, I didn't because I had the names in the black booklet anyway.
Q. Of course, they are not in the black book any more.
A. That is so.
DR. STEINBAUER: Because I have the cover, Mr. Hardy, and you are not going to get it either.
MR. HARDY: Before I proceed to the next case do you wish to adjourn until the afternoon recess? I am going to proceed now to case No. 13, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the next chart?
MR. HARDY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We will proceed with one more.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Has the name been erased from this chart?
A. I don't believe that there was a name, only on the last time -it would have been on the first chart.
Q. Is it true that this experimental subject was also interrupted, that he drank sea water for a period of seven days, then was interrupted, then drank sea water again for a period of five or six days, and in the first instance drank five hundred cc's and in the second instance drank one thousand cc's?
A. This subject from the 24th to the 25th, only lost a hundred grams weight. It can easily be seen from this that on that day he drank at least a liter of water. From the 25th to the 26th he lost three hundred grams.
From this you can see for certain that he drank at least a half of a liter of freshwater. In other words, for practically three days this man wasn't in the experiment at all for all practical purposes. For that reason I let the man continue to drink and I proved to him that he had drunk. Then he applied again.
Q. You offered him cigarettes if he would go through further experiments?
A. I didn't offer them cigarettes for that reason. I told him that he was not going to get any cigarettes because he had drunk. Then he said, "I want the cigarettes anyway and I apply again."
Q. Of course, he cheated once and you now were going to let him try again and you didn't know whether he would cheat the second time. How did you decide whether he was cheating the second time? Is this one of the patients you tied to the bed?
A. I didn't tie anybody to any bed. In the second experiment he also drank. Here you can see the gradual loss of weight. You can see from that gradual loss that he didn't carry out the second experiment either in a proper way.
Q. Now, the date "7 September" on Chart D13, we note the red arrow indicating interruption and the initials thereunder in blue pencil "L.P." What does that refer to?
A. That means liver puncture.
Q. What was the purpose of the liver puncture in this instance?
A. I have already told you that Eppinger asked me to make liver punctures.
Q. Why did you only follow this patient for a period of four days; that is, the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th, perhaps, of September after having subjected him to sea water for such an extended period of time when you followed the patients that drank just plain Schaefer water for a period of six or eight days?
A I have already said that these curves were continued in connection with all the other curves. The curves for the second group to which this man, of course, belongs were continued to the 12th or 13th of September, and since that Schaefer group was still in the experiment when this series began on the 1st or 3rd of September, and since the charts were still hanging on the bed they also were continued. This man went up to 61 kilos, though when he was taken in it was 57.5; that is a clear indication that he suffered no injuries; if he had been injured he would not have been released with a weight higher when he entered the experiment. This man conducted both experiments poorly. He drank so much fresh water that he might just as well have thrown these records of his away. This was no experiment at all.
Q Now, I notice that this patient or subject used, whose name has been erased was 20 years age. Did you have the written consent of his parents to perform a liver puncture? Did you have the written consent of his parents to perform this on him?
A No, I did not. You do not ask anybody in the Wehrmacht; nobody is asked in the Reich labre Service or in the Wehrmacht. No 18 year old boy when inducted into the Army is asked if he wants too. If a man is a soldier and is in pressing need of an operation, the parents are not asked whether it can be carried out. If you wait until that happens the man would probably die in the meantime.
Q Was this boy in the army?
A Possibly he was one of the soldiers -- former soldiers.
MR. HARDY: This is a good break, Your Honor.
JUDGE SEBRING: I want to ask a few questions.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Doctor, in connection with the sea water experiments, what is the prupose of making liver punctures?
A In some of these cases it was seen that after fluid was again taken into the body the liver-became somewhat enlarged. In my opinion that resulted from the fact that some of the salt from the sea water remained in the liver, and that the enlargement of the liver, which also happens when a large amount of fluid is injected, but is very sensory, in this case because of the residium of salt in the liverlasted for somewhat longer time.
And, when Eppinger was there he saw that the liver had become enlarged, and asked himself what the cause of that might be; and he said, do take a look into this and make a few punctures so we can find out whether something of a pathological nature has remained in the liver."
Q What is the technique or procedure for making a liver puncture?
A There is a local anesthesia administered in the area of the liver and a needle is inserted into the liver so a part of the liver is sucked into the hypodermic needle and that concludes the puncture. It might he compared with and no marrow puncture.
Q Did you explain to the experimental subject that you were going to make a liver puncture?
A Yes, I did. I told him that I wanted to make a puncture; I told him he would feel no pain; I tell him nothing would happen to him. Then I have them the local anesthesia. This is an operation that can be carried out in just a few minutes. Most cf the time is used in waiting for this local anesthesia to take effect. The puncturing take less than a minute.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.
(Thereupon a recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. HARDY:
We will now proceed to Case #14, Your Honors. Kindly mark these A-14, B-14, and C-14, Also attached to Case #14 is this microfilm of curves. Professor Beiglboeck, will you tell us what this microfilm purports to be?
A That is an electrocardiograph. It is not the one of Case 14, but apparently it only slipped in there erroneously, but it is the electrocardiogram of Case 9.
Q Thank you.
Now, in this Case #14 we note, on the 27th, or on Chart B-14, considerable rise in temperature, and then, on the 29th, an exceptional rise in temperature. Would you tell us, Dr. Beiglboeck, whether or not this was one of the patients you had considerable trouble with?
A I don't know what you mean by considerable trouble. After an intake of salt solution, it is seen quite frequently that small temperatures arise. That is called table salt fever. With children, such a temperature rise, up to 38 or 39 degrees centigrades. In this case, the temperature went up to 37.6 during the course of an injection of hypertonic salt solution. That is no dangerous event, and immediately after the intraveneous injection they had a short rise in temperature. That is something which occurs quite frequently, as I have already stated several times before. That the interruption was really undertaken intraveneously is also shown here. On the next day, the temperature was again quite normal and it remained normal.
Q Would you tell us how long this subject was subjected to 500 cc of sea water?
A That was discontinued on the 8th day.
Q Of course, if the mark indicated under the 22nd is the date of the commencement of the experiment, and not the 21st.
A Yes. I can only again and again give the same answer to the same question. If a person is brought into a condition where he loses water, whether you let him thirst or whether you give him sea water to drink, then the person must lose weight, and this experimental subject too lost 2 kilograms on the first day, then it gradually became less. Furthermore, from the 25th to the 26th, this experimental subject drank water for here, although he is fasting, he lost only 400 grams. He should have lost approximately 1,000 grams. Therefore, it is certain that he drank, and it is probable from the 27th to the 28th, where he lost 600 grams altogether, he drank some water again. Thus, it is an experiment which could not be regarded as a seven or eight day long lasting sea water experiment, because it was interrupted by intake of fresh water several times and, in my estimate, more than one liter.
Q On the 29th, which is indicated on Chart B-14, what was the pulse rate on that day?
A 60.
Q And what was the temperature rate on that day? The highest temperature rate?
A Well, there was a short rise which appeared after the intraveneous injection of liquid. I don't know whether the pulse was taken at the same time too. Probably that was higher too at that time.
Q Well, isn't it true that when the pulse reaches the rate of 60 and the temperature reaches the rate of 39, that that man is rather ill?
AAs far as I can see from the curve, the temperature was taken in between here. Probably because immediately after the injection he got the chills. As far as I can see, they took the pulse when he had a normal pulse. Probably during the time when he had this short rise in temperature they did not take the pulse. That is an occurrence which disappears quite quickly. This rise of temperature after the injection of physiological salt is not a result of my experiment. It did not happen for the first time in Dachau and had nothing to do with sea water, but it is quite a frequent reaction when liquid is injected intravenously.
Even in the case of a healthy person, this can occur. In itself this is quite an insignificant occurrence.
Q What marks indicate, under the date of the 29th, that he received injections?
A That means that by means of intraveneous injection of liquid the experiment was terminated.
Q Is that what this arrow means? The red arrow under the date of the 29th of August?
A The red arrow? The experiment was discontinued by means of a hypertonic solution.
Q Now, on the 1st of September, we note that no urinary output is recorded. Was it because this patient may have been unconscious at this time and, therefore, incompetent, he was suffering from a flaccid paralysis of the bladder?
A It does not mean anything but that this amount of urine was not recorded. Perhaps from that date on, the urine output was no longer measured. You can find that out from the black notebook, whether the measurement of the urine output was continued.
Q Kindly look at the black notebook and determine that, Dr. Beiglboeck.
A No, the last measurement in the 14th case is recorded on the 31st of August. That is, from the 1st of September on, the urine output was no longer measured. It does not mean a paralysis of the bladder nor unconsciousness, but one sees that apparently he was feeling very well because, during that time, he had, after all, gained already 2 kilograms and he continued to gain in weight, and I certainly don't know what reason anybody who had been taken out of a thirst experiment should still be unconscious five days later. It is a physiological principle that if somebody is taken out of a thirst experiment and given water, that he recovers immediately.
Q Well, this is not five days later. This is two days later.
A Four days. 1, 2, 3.
Q 1, 2, 3 days it would be then, from the 29th to the 1st. Then how do you explain the fact that you only observed this patient for a period of five days after he had been rather ill, as noted by the temperature curve of the 29th on Chart B-14?
A If someone, after physiological salt solution has been administered to him, or sugar solution, during a half-hour has a rise in temperature which disappears then immediately, this does not signify that this person was seriously ill but it is a reaction which has been observed more than one hundred times, a reaction to the intraveneous injection of liquid, and that he did not have a paralysis of the bladder after the termination is evident from the fact that on the other days when the measurements were still taken there was still a urine output, so if any person should become unconscious and have a bladder paralysis that would occur during the thirst. If it did not occur during the thirst, then it wouldn't have occurred three days later either. That doesn't exist. It is medically impossible.
Q This is Case #17, Your Honors. Would you kindly mark that A, B, and C and D?
A You are not submitting Cases 15 and 16.
Q No, there is nothing salient there.
Now, could you kindly tell us the name of that subject? I note that his name has been erased from A-17 and from B-17.
A. Its probably Oleschkewitsch.
Q. Coudl that be O-l-e-s-c-h-k-e-w-i-t-s-c-h?
A. Yes.
Q. Who erased that, Doctor?
A. I didn't.
Q. Do you know who did?
A. No.
Q. Can you tell us from the top of that page how old that subject was?
A. 17 years old.
Q. Did you have any written consent from his parents to experiment on him?
A. No.
Q. Did you customarily use 17 year old boys in medical experiments?
A. Normally not, but at that time the War had already been going on for five years.
Q. This 17 year old boy was obviously one of the cheats too; you had to interrupt the experiment because he obviously was drinking water, inasmuch as his urinary output of the 23rd, 24th, 25th and 26th wasn't substantially more than his intake?
A. In other words on the 25th he had a weight of 47.6 kilos, and on the 26th his weight was 47.3. Then he reduced from 46 to 45.7, and from that to 45.3. And those two time she certainly must have had something to drink.
Q. Then did you interrupt the experiment because he must have had something to drink or was it your purpose here to experiment on this young man for a period of 12 days with an interruption which would assimilate rain at sea?
A. Well, this was interrupted here quite regularly on the 29th. Anyhow, I never had the intention and nobody had the intention to assimilate rain at sea, because rain at sea that is something the experimental subjects produced themselves, not because it was within the scope of our experimental program, but because secretly they obtained water.
Q. Then there would have been no purpose in having conducted an experiment wherein you would have subjected a person to seawater for a period of 6 or 7 days then interrupt the experiment and give him a small quantity of water, and then again put him back on seawater for a period of 5 days in the interim, making an attempt to assimilate an actual rainfall while a person is on a raft in an open sea, wouldn't that be of interst?
A. I do not believe that a person on the high seas could have it happen to him that in five days they could obtain about 10 liters of water, or even more by means of rain; in the interim more than 8 quarts, probably 10 quarts of water were taken in.
Q. When you discovered this boy was cheating had you stopped the experiment and offered this 17 years old boy cigarettes to volunteer for further experiments, is that it?
A. I did not offer him cigarettes. I have to repeat that again and again. Those who did not carry out the experiment correctly and whom we found out, in accordance with the agreement, which I had made before I took the cigarette premium away from them, and then they said, "We want to have cigarettes after all, and in the second group we shall try the experiment again." I could assume the responsibility for that absolutely. If a person during the first experiment lost only small amounts of water for instance the loss of water in the case No. 17, it was only about 7 per cent of his water balance that is a loss of water which is absolutely not dangerous.
During the second experimental period he probably lost even loss.
Q. We turn to case 18, if your Honors will kindly mark that in the order of sequence. Can you decipher the name on the chart D-18 which has been erased? Could that possibly be the name Jacob Bamberger?
A. Yes.
Q. Was Bamberger a jewish subject?
A. No.
Q. You are sure of that?
A. Yes, I am quite certain I had only gypsies.
Q. Bamberger is a Jewish name, isn't it?
A. I wouldn't say so. On the contrary Bamberger is a very wide spread name.
Q. Tell us how long this person was subjected to 500 cc of seawater?
A. This subject was practically very-
Q. Tell us from the charts before you and not your pencilled notes, that is charts B-18, C-18 and D-18, how long was this subject to 500 ccs sea water, you can observe that quite clearly from the charts?
A. On the 10th day the experiment was discontinued and this case shows especially well now such an experiment was carried on; I can show you from the 24th to the 25th that is already on the third day of the experiment he loses 100 gram. It is quite certain that he drank at least onehalf a liter or half a quarter of water. On the 25th to 26th he does not lose any weight at all, even though suffering from hunger, starving.
It is quite certain he drank at least one quart water, then he loses a kilo. Then he loses 600 gram, and then starts to drink again. Here from the 29th to the 30th he does not lose any weight, thus he obviously again drank from three-quarters to one quart of water. Thus this is a case that during this extended period lost 7 kilos. That this loss of weight during that time was reached is not shown by the first page at all. From that it can be seen without doubt this was not a loss due to lack of water but a loss due to hunger. So that is a case which cannot be considered a seawater experiment at all. The loss of water is ---
Q. This person after having been subjected to 10 days drinking seawater was interrupted for four days and put back on seawater again; so in total he drank seawater 141/2 days?
A. Yes, of course one can continue an experiment with seawater for 13 years if in between fresh water is administered again and again, The essential in a seawater experiment is how much water is lost by the body. If the water is replaced again then the body is in the same condition as before. One cannot say the man drank sea water from time to time, if he had done so without interruption this would have been a dangerous experiment. If during the 9 days he was in this experiment this subject had not during 5 days drank a half liter to a liter of water than the experiment would have been a long one.
Q. Lots turn to Case 21. Now, this patient or subject received 500 cc. seawater for a period of 6 days, 6-1/2 days, is that correct?
A. No, he received, two, three, four days, -- during 5 days on the 5th day during the night it was discontinued at 2300 o'clock.