A. Yes, the suit was electrically heated until the time they left the plane. It was not electrically heated, however, after they left the plane. But the warmth of course would be retained for some time after leaving the plane.
Q. With this equipment could the flying personnel of the United States Army Air Corps abandon a plane at heights up to 40,000 feet?
A. That is correct.
Q. Could they abandon a plane at any higher altitudes with this equipment?
A. They could abandon the plane at a higher altitude, but they might lose consciousness because at altitudes above 40,000 feet in order to adequately oxygenate the blood it is necessary to supply 100% oxygen under pressure.
Q. What is the chief danger in bailing out at altitudes of 40,000 feet? I imagine the cold would be one danger, and then the unconsciousness feature. Would those be the two dangers that they would encounter?
A. If you did not take a free fall or open your parachute within a few seconds after leaping out, you would be subject to the hazard of freezing an exposed part, particularly, and to lack of oxygen.
Q. Now in the development of this equipment used by the United States Army Air Corps for flying personnel who escaped from high altitudes was it necessary to use prisoners as experimental subjects to develop that equipment?
A. No. As a matter of fact, it was unnecessary to use human subjects except to test the equipment after it had been made. It was possible on the basis of theoretical considerations to determine the amount of oxygen that had to be put in the bail-out bottle in order to preserve con sciousness or to maintain an adequate oxygenation of the blood from a certain high altitude to a lower altitude where a supplementary oxygen supply would be unnecessary.
Q. Dr. Ivy, are you familiar with the evidence which has been presented before the Tribunal in connection with the high altitude experiments conducted at the Dachau concentration camp?
A. I am.
Q. Have you had the opportunity to study the report written by Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher, which is Document No. 402 found in Document Book No 2?
A. I am.
Q. Do you have Document Book 2 before you, Doctor?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you kindly turn to Page 88 of the English Document Book, and you will note therein a report of an experiment. Can you tell us whether or not it was necessary to perform such a hazardous experiment as set forth in this document?
A. I do not believe that it was necessary to do this experiment in order to determine the equipment to supply aviators who have to bail out of an airplane at high altitude.
Q. Do you think it was necessary to subject these human beings to such a prolonged period of unconsciousness due to oxygen lack to find out whether or not it would be best to supply bail out oxygen equipment and to take a free fall part of the way from 40,000 feet if the oxygen equipment were not available?
A. No, I believe that the information which was obtained by these experiments on human beings could be obtained from animals, as is indicated by the results of Lutz and Wendt referred to in the document. The differences between the responses of the human subjects and the animals as reported by Lutz and Wendt were not sufficient, in my opinion, to warrent the performance of these quite hazardous experiments.
Q. Prof. Ivy, do you consider the experiments which are described in this document, that is the group Romberg and Rascher report, Document No. 402, to have been particularly dangerous?
A. I consider them to be dangerous because of the prolonged period of unconsciousness to which the subjects were exposed. For example, they were unconscious for periods of around twenty minutes, and they were disoriented for periods of around thirty to ninety minutes. That is a dangerous period of oxygen lack to which to expose the brain. I agree that since these workers followed the electrocardiogram demonstrates that the heart of those subjects was not momenterially affected or significantly affected by this prolonged exposure to oxygen lack. But these experiments do not show, or the results do not show that the cells of the brain were not injured. One of the higher faculties of the brain is learning, and we know that the learning process is rather sensitive to oxygen lack, and the only way to check against the possibility of damage of the learning mechanism by prolonged exposure to oxygen would have been to have determined the I.Q. of these subjects or the ability of these subjects to learn before and after the subjects were exposed to such a prolonged period of oxygen lack.
MR. HARDY: I wish to interrupt you for a moment, Dr. Ivy. May it please the Tribunal, it has been called to my attention that defense counsel for Ruff and Romberg are not present, end inasmuch as this testimony will affect their cases, I at this time will ask Dr. Ivy to set aside his testimony concerning the high altitude experiments, and I proceed to the sea water experiments.
I am advised that Dr. Sauter and the other defense attorney may be here this afternoon. If not, we can take it up tomorrow in their presence.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you see to it that counsel for Ruff and Romberg are notified of the fact that this testimony is to be given?
MR. HARDY: I will, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What phase of the witness' examination are you about to take up?
MR. HARDY: Seawater experiments. I note that counsel for Becker-Freyseng are present. Is it possible that Dr. Pelkmann is here in the court house? I wonder if Dr. Stein-bauer can answer that?
DR. STEINBAUER: Dr. Pelkmann is on a trip.
MR. HARDY: Then in view of that, Your Honor, I will ask to proceed with the sea water experiments and interrogate Dr. Ivy concerning them. I don't know what we can do about the absence of Dr. Pelkmann, inasmuch as he is out of the city.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Ivy, what has been your experience relative to the larger problem of survival on a raft at sea or the potability of sea water?
A In 1939, as a member of the Committee on Clinical Investigation for the National Research Council, I was asked to make an investigation of the best procedure for packing drinking water in cans for use as emergency drinking water aboard rafts. As a result of that study, canned water was produced and was supplied to the rubber rafts that are part of the equipment of airplanes. I was also asked to make a study of survival rations for rubber life rafts, and the ration that is now being used by the U. S. Army and Navy for that purpose is a part of that development. I might say, that when I was at the Naval Medical Research Institute as scientific director, I served as a collaborator in the project which led to the desalination or the removal of salt from sea water in order to render it potable. In that connection, I might say that the chemical method which we developed is, from a chemical technological standpoint, very much like that which was developed by Dr. Konrad Schaefer. We carried it further, however, and developed it, insofar as its application to conditions aboard a raft is concerned, so that it was very efficient. We used plastic bags which could be packed in a very small space and which would be used for carrying out the chemical reaction.
Q Did you ever make a study of the toxicity of sea water?
A The toxicity of sea water, yes. It's one of the first experiments that we performed at the Naval Medical Research Institute. There were three subjects. I served as one subject, the first day taking only 108 calories in the form of candy. I consumer 600 cc of sea water which had a salinity of approximately 3.4$ and a sodium chloride or table salt content of 3%. The second day I consumed 800 cc of the sea water. The Third, day, 1000 cc, or in three days, I consumed a total of 2,400 cc of sea water. At the end of that time I was rather markedly dehydrated and rather intoxicated to the point of developing hallucinations.
A second subject, who served with me voluntarily, was a hospital corpsman. He did not follow directions. The first day he became so thirsty that he consumed a total of 1,000 cc of sea water. The following morning he was so thirsty that, within the course of three hours, he consumed an additional 1,000 cc, which caused him to develop vomiting and diarrhea. We stopped the continuation of the experiment on this subject. The other subject was a doctor who did not consume the sea water in quantities to which I consumed the sea water. He consumed, as I recall now, only 800 cc of sea water in three days.
Q And what effect did that have on him?
A That quantity of sea water had no particular effect on him. No deleterious effect.
Q Then what studies did you make during the course of this experimental series?
A We made rather elaborate studies of changes in the composition of the blood and changes in the output of urine. We were primarily interested in knowing, purposes of confirmation of literature, the effect of drinking sea water on ourselves, and also in confirming data already in the literature regarding the capacity of the human kidney to concentrate salt in the urine.
Q To what extent can the human kidney concentrate salt or chlorideexpressed as sodium chloride?
A In this and subsequent studios we performed on this subject we found that tho human kidney will concentrate sodium chloride or table salt to the extent of from 1.8 to 2%. Now, occasionally in the literature you will find a figure as high as 2.3%. I know of only one such figure that has been reported in the literature, However, and I have always been skeptical about the accuracy of that figure, and when I read in the Record the report that certain subjects of Dr. Beiglboeck concentrated salt in the urine to the extent of greater than 2.3, or even as high as 3, I felt that that was due to inaccuracy in the use of chemical methods.
Q What is the concentration of salt in sea water, Doctor?
A That varies depending upon the source of the sea water. As I indicated some time ago, the salinity of the sea water we used which was picked, up off the coast of Norfolk, Virginia and had a salinty of around 3.4%. Sometimes, water taken from the ocean has a much lower salinity than that. The reason for that generally is that the sea water is removed too near the mouth of a river which would dilute the salt in sea water. The average salinity of sea water from the oceans throughout the world, according to my recollection, is somewhere between 3.4 and 3.5%. That means that it contains around 2.9 to 3.2% table salt.
Q When one drinks sea water containing approximately 3.3% salt, the kidney, in order to excrete the excessive salt, must use body water. Is that correct?
A That is correct. If you drink sea water that contains 3% of table salt and if the kidney cannot concentrate salt to a greater extent than 1.8% then, in excreting the remainder of the salt from the body, body water, which otherwise would not be excreted, would have to be used in the excretion of the extra salt. This would bring about unusual, or greater than otherwise would occur, excretion of body water.
Q Well, if a person were given sea water to drink, would they dehydrate faster than if they were given no water to drink?
A Yes, that is correct up to a certain point. The body, under conditions of lack of intake of fresh water, can excrete a small quantity of table salt which might come from a small amount of sea water. For example, if I were to start fasting, after two, three or four days the output of urine - my output of urine would be approximately 400 cc. That would contain less than a ram of salt or it would contain only a fraction of 1% of salt, so it would be possible for me to take in maybe a gram or a gram and a half of salt in the form of sea water so as to increase the concentration of salt in my 400 cc of urine up to a concentration of 1.8%.
Q Well, Doctor, would you say that if persons were given 500 or 1.000 cc of sea water daily to drink that they might die sooner than if a person was given no water?
A There is no question about that.
Q Well, would you refer to the official transcript of this trial on page 8483 of the English transcript? Do you have that with you, Doctor?
INTERPRETER: What date is that, please, Mr. Hardy?
MR. HARDY: This is the afternoon session of 3 June 1947, the testimony of Dr. Volharl. Page 8483 of the transcript, in the middle of the page, beginning with the words: "However, the experiments didn't give a definite supportive evidence of that." Does the interpreter have that sentence?
INTERPRETER: Yes.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Now, Doctor, here, in the testimony of Professor Dr. Volhard, it states as follows:
"However, the experiments didn't give a definite supportive evidence of that, but they did have an important result. Not only the obvious result, namely that the Schaefer water was superior to anything else, but also the observation that the kidneys can, nevertheless, concentrate water so astonishingly well, up to the concentration of sea water, that, in the future, one could give the advise that in cases of sea distress, instead of being completely thirsty one could rather drink 500 cc of sea water and, in that manner, increase the salt content of the blood but would not have to be afraid of dehydration quite so quickly."
Now, is it true that the human kidney can concentrate salt to the extent that salt is present in sea water?
A No, it is not true. The statement is not true and the reasoning is not true and it would be a very dangerous statement to make for people at sea on a raft. It would lead to their death in the course of around 6 to 14 days. I mean, sooner than from 6 to 14 days, depending upon the environmental conditions.
They would die sooner, drinking 500 cc of sea water a day, then if they drank no water.
Q. Have you had an opportunity, Dr. Ivy, to read extensively this testimony of Professor Vollhard?
A. Yes, I have read all of it.
Q. I wish to point out to you on page 8484 of the record that Professor Vollhard testified that drinking sea water treated with Berkatit would have serious consequences after six days and lead to death if continued. Now, is that statement on the part of Professor Vollhard inconsistent with the statement on page 8483 which you have just analyzed?
A. Yes, I believe that it is inconsistent and I agree with the statement you just read on page 8484.
Q. Then you agree that Berkatit is nothing more than sea water without the taste, is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. In studying these experiments of Professor Beiglboeck and the charts and records could you tell us whether or not these experiments were necessary?
A. They were not necessary in order to determine whether or not Schaefer water could be taken without harming the body. That would be determined by a chemical test. We have set up public health standards where the chemical composition of potable water, Schaefer water, produced would be analyzed to see if it came up to these chemical requirements, and a number of experiments have been done to demonstrate that sea water in quantities larger than 100 to 200 cc's, as I have already indicated, have a deltarious action on the body when sea water is the only source of water, and it is well known that there is no fruit juice or similar organic material which can be added to sea water which will neutralize the effects of salt on the body. All that one had to do would be to add some Berkatit to this sea water and study it chemically, as Dr. Konrad Schaefer did, to see if the salt in any way were modified, and there was no reason really to do that, because a person who knew anything about bio-chemistry would know that you could not modify table salt in any way so as to modify its effect on the body.
Q. Was it necessary to test the Berka method upon human beings in order to determine its efficacy?
A. Not for practical reasons, no.
Q. Could you have determined whether or not the Berka method was of any value chemically?
A. In the same way Dr. Konrad Schaefer did it.
Q. How long would that take. Doctor?
A. If you had the apparatus set up, the solutions and the necessary arrangements made, you could determine that in the course of half an hour. In order to study water requirements and salt and water metabolism, the experiments as were performed by Dr. Beiglboeck could be justified, but they were only necessary to perform in order to determine whether or not Berka water was a potable water, and whether or not Schaefer water was a water which would be of benefit to human physiology.
Q. Dr. Ivy, do you have before you Document Book V? That is the document book of the prosecution which contains the documents concerning the sea water experiments.
A. Yes.
Q. Would you kindly turn to Document NO 177, which is Prosecution Exhibit 133? Have you had the opportunity to study that document?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, this document is the minutes of a conference which was called to devise an experiment to test whether the Berka method of treating sea water could be tolerated, and it is stated in this document that the chief of the medical Services of the Luftwaffe is convinced that if the Berka method is used damage to health is to be expected not later than six days, and will lead to death, according to Dr. Schaefer, not later than twelve days. Now, on the basis of your knowledge of the toxicity of sea water, is that statement essentially correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Why do you say that, Doctor?
A. Upon the basis of my knowledge of the effect of drinking sea water on a body metabolism, body chemistry.
Q. Would the application of sea water treated by the Berka method in quantities of 500 cc. cause death in twelve days, or would the application of sea water treated by the Berka method in quantities of 1,000 cc. cause death in the same time or a shorter period?
A. It would cause death in a shorter period, that is the larger amount, because it would dehydrate the body more rapidly.
Q. What do you estimate would be the length of time a person could drink sea water treated with the Berka method before death would be reached after they had been subjected to 500 cc. of sea water, or Berka water?
A. That would depend upon the environmental conditions and upon the strength or robustness of the individual who was drinking the sea water or Berka water. For example, if one drinks no water under desert conditions, death occurs in three or four days. The desert is hot and dry and this increases the rate at which the body loses water. If a person is on a raft at sea where the humidity of the atmosphere is high and the temperature we shall say is around 70, then death would occur in around 8 to 14 days. There is no report on the latter, because the survival of a person on a raft at sea without water is for 17 days, but there is reason to believe the authenticity of that report, but one can calculate that under ideal conditions that a robust person could live 14 days without any water at all.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Dr. Ivy, excuse me please, you said that in going over that report concerning the person who lived 17 days that there was reason to believe the authenticity of the report?
A. Reason not to believe, reason to disbelieve the authenticity of that report. For example, it isn't certain but there is reason to believe this person had a small amount of water with him when he got into the life raft.
Now, if one were to take 500 cc. of Berka water or sea water in a desert where the temperature is high and the humidity is low, they would not survive the otherwise three or four days which they would if they drank whole water, and there are I might say deserts on the sea, so far as rain is concerned. There are areas in the ocean which have no more rain than the Sahara desert, for example. If one were to take 500 cc. sea water or Berka water under ideal conditions, they would not survive the 8 to 14 days, but would die sooner. If they were to take 1,000 cc. of sea water or Berka water, they would die sooner,for reasons which I have just tried to explain, than if they took 500 cc. Berka or sea water.
Q. Now, Doctor, this Document NO-177, on page 17 of the English Document Book B-7, we find under the Section 2 a heading "Duration of Experiments 12 days", which reads as follows: "Since in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service (Chef des Sanitaetswesens) permanent injuries to health, that is, the death of the experimental subjects has to be expected, as experimental subjects such persons should be used as well as will be put at the disposal by the Reichsfuehrer SS." Now, in order to determine whether the Berka treated sea water is less dehydrating to the body than untreated sea water is it necessary to be so atrocious as to conduct the experiments to a point where lives or health is endangered?
A. No, three or four days would be all that is necessary.
Q. So it was absolutely unnecessary to endanger life or to cause permanent damage to organs to determine whether the treatment of sea water with Berkatit made it better for the body than untreated sea water?
A. It was unnecessary unless one desires to determine survival time of human beings on 500 cc. or 1,000 cc. of Berka water or sea water.
Q: Was that perhaps the explanation why a ten day experimental plan was talked about here?
A: It is the only logical deduction that I can make from that statement.
Q: Then, in other words, from reading that Document NO. 177 and from your knowledge of sea-water research problems, you are certain that this committee's minutes or this report deliberately plans or expects death to occur?
A: I do not know what they had in mind when they wrote the statement of the report, but that is the only interpretation which I am able to give.
Q: In this report dad you run across the word "volunteers" at any time?
A: No.
Q: Are you familiar at all, now after your study, or are you familiar enough to testify regarding the experiments performed by Professor Beiglboeck on prisoners at Dachau?
A: Yes.
Q: Could you tell us the design of the sea-water experiments conducted on the experimental subjects by Dr. Beiglboeck at Dachau? I will pass up to you, Doctor, for reference if need be the records of the experimental subjects in the two books and if you wish to refer to them at any time, you may do so.
Dr. Ivy, to date just what records have you seen which outline the results of the experiments conducted at Dachau?
A: When I was in Nurnberg in January and I met with Dr. Leo Alexander, Dr. Beiglboeck and his attorney, at that time I saw records in two books, which contained data which came from these experiments and which I discussed with Dr. Beiglboeck. Since returning to Nurnberg, as of this time, I have seen these documents, which you just brought up; one data, book and another data book which is only part of the data books, which I saw in January and then these charts, giving the individual data or record on the 44 subjects of the experiments.
Q: Have you seen any further data on these experiments?
A: I have seen one summarizing table, which was submitted to the Tribunal as a Document. The number of that ....
Q. Was that one written by Professor Beiglboeck since has incarceration here in Nurnberg you mean?
A: That is the one I had in mind.
Q: Then you have seen no other documents concerning the results and records of the experiments at Dachau?
A: Not that I recall at the present.
Q: No that one note-book, which you say that there is only a part thereof in the folder at the present time; was that a note-book which had a black cover on it when you saw it in January?
A: I could not say what color the cover was. According to my recollection, it was a cover, it was a stiff cover and different from the note book which has been submitted in evidence with a cover. As I recall, it was a stiff cardboard cover.
Q: Were you able to ascertain or can you remember what was removed from that book?
A: I specifically recall that there is missing a summarizing table with the list of names of the various subjects. I recall this specifically because in discussing the data that has summarizing this table from day to day as the experiment progress, I could tell from the data that the subjects or at least some subjects, had gotten some water, some fresh water and at times urine was lost, at times part of the day's specimen were lost and apparently things of that sort.
I remember that specifically because after I looked over the data, the summarizing date, I said to Dr. Beiglboeck, "Would you publish this data, as a scientific report in a medical journal?" He said, "No". That was the answer that I expected to get from an honest conscientious scientist Then I said, "Why did you, a well trained clinical investigator, along with adequately trained chemists for assistants, consent to perform experiments requiring a great deal of effort on such unreliable and irresponsible subjects, particularly in an experiment of this sort where the cooperation and interest of the subjects in the out come of the experiments is essential for the success of the experiments?"
He told me that he did that because he was ordered to. He said that he had written to Professor Eppinger and had suggested that those experiments be performed on himself and his co-men, or some convalescent soldiers about to be returned to the front, but he had been told that these experiments were to be performed on prisoners at Dachau.
He also told me that he had written a letter to his relatives or home folks telling them he did not like to do this work. So, I remember specifically for that reason that particular table and I do not find it in these Documents.
Q: Is there anything else, which you think is missing from these document or do you think that those documents before you now show the complete records of one experiments at Dachau or is it customary in scientific research or this sort to keep more accurate records?
A: Well, I think these records are in as much detail as those which one generally makes chlorite readings and phyosphoria figures, from which these final results have been calculated are sometimes kept, but as a general rule are thrown way. There is one general defect in the records of the individual patients and that is it would some to me that when one is making a study of the effect of the deprivation of food and water on the human body for a period of iron four to eight days or when one is making a study of of 1,000 cc per day, there should be a longer follow-up period to determine whether or not there were delayed effects of these procedures on the patients open subject. So, I believe that it would have been highly desirable for Dr. Beiglboeck to have added a longer period of after observation. He did add a relatively long period, six to twelve days, in the group of study on Schaefer water. I believe his experiments would have been much better if he had at least a week after study on him subjects in the other groups.
Q: Then you are familiar, Dr. Ivy, with the design of his experiments; could you outline for the Tribunal that design he followed, chat as the various groups, etc.?
A: The general plan of the experiments I think is adequate for a study of water and salt metabolism in the human body. He had one group who received no food or water, I believe there were six subjects in this group. He had mother group which received Schaefer water, which essentially is fresh at or and they received 1,600 to 1,500 cc a day. That is adequate to keep them in water balance unless the weather happens to be warm, because 800 to 1,000 cc of water is all that is required to keep the body in water balance.
Now it would have been better in all of these experiments if he had taken into consideration the loss of water by the lungs and by the skin, because when we say that from 800 to 1,000 cc of water digested per day is enough to keep an ordinary adult in mater balance. That is enough to make up for the loss of water loss through exhaling of air in the lungs through sensible or insensible perspiration and by way of the urine. I believe there were six subjects in the second group. He had a third group, which received 500 cc of sea water and a fourth group which received 500 cc of Berka water and then a group which received 1,000 cc of Berka water; five subjects in that group. I remember five subjects, which received 1,800 cc of sea water.
Q. In general would you say from your observation from the records that the various tests were performed adequately?
A. Yes, I should say so.
Q. By and large -
A. There is one exception. That is, I think some of his chloride determinations were inadequate, too high, so as to give him a concentration of table salt in the urine of greater than 2% approximating 3%.
Q. Have you been able to ascertain from the study of the records what was the purpose of this experimental plan?
A. As I said, it was adequate to make a good study with reliable subjects on water and salt metabolism -- that is, under various conditions or under the conditions that scientists working in this field would like to have.
Q. By and large, the experimental plan was technically to determine whether or not Berka water and Schaefer water differed from sea water, was it not?
A. Well, this elaborate setup wasn't necessary in order to determine whether or not Berka Water was different from sea water. I thought I had already made that point. You could determine that in the chemical laboratory and if you had to do some experiment on human beings you could determine the answer to that question in three or four days.
Q. Were the results of these experiments of any scientific value? Dr. Beiglboeck states he would not publish them in a medical journal. Have you anything further to ado to that?
A. I don't believe they were of scientific value.
Q. Is it probable, Professor Ivy, that one might expect acute, chronic bodily injury to occur as a result of these experiments?
A. If dehydration of the body is carried too far, acute injury and permanent injury may occur, even in the robust, healthy individual.
If individuals have some chronic disease such as tuberculosis, a period of fasting and marked dehydration may cause an exacerbation or a lightning up of the chronic disease or process.
Q. The only group actually in those experiments in which acute symptoms would not be anticipated is the group which were receiving the Schaefer water. Is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. Would a period of fasting for one week weaken a person?
A. Yes, obviously.
Q. Would they be liable to faint?
A. On standing, yes. Some people would be likely to faint. I fasted two weeks. I tolerate fasting quite well. I have had other subjects, however, when fasting only three days, faint on suddenly arising from a cot.
Q. Would an undernourished or underweight person be more inclined to weaken quicker than a normal person?
A. Yes.
Q. Could injury have occurred in the group in those experiments which received no water and no food?
A. That is possible.
Q. Now, some of these people went on the hunger and thirst from, oh, anywhere from five to eight days. Did you notice that in the records, doctor?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Could you turn to subject No. 3 in the records there? Is there any indication in subject No. 3's records to the effect that he may have suffered as a result of this hunger and thirst period?
A. Well, I notice on studying the record that on several occasions the patient or subject was too weak to stand, apparently, to have his blood pressure taken.
Q. Doctor, on those records before you I believe on Case No. 3 you will find on the top of each graph a number "A3", on the second page "B3", and on the third page "C3". Do you find those numbers?
A. That is correct.
Q. Would you kindly refer to the entries on those charts by the chart number and the date where you find these entries you are referring to?
A. On the chart labeled "B3" I note that the subject was too weak to have his blood pressure taken on August 27th and 28th, and in the after-period, on August 31st and September 1st and September 2nd I notice on chart labeled "B3" that the patient was given an injection of Coronine which is a heart stimulant. That was on august 28, the day before the cessation of the supposed period of deprivation of food and water. On august 20th he was given some strychnine. On Chart "C3" I find that on august 30th and 31st he was given some Strychnine. Strychnine is given as a general stimulant and also as a cardiac stimulant. One wonders why these stimulating drugs were given and why the patient was too weak to stand or too weak to have his blood pressure taken unless ho was an ill patient or markedly disabled by the experimental procedure.
Q. Do you have any further comments to make concerning Case No. 3, doctor?
A. No.
Q. What is the range of survival, Dr. Ivy, of strong men without food and water?
A. As I have indicated, that depends upon the environmental conditions; under certain conditions around three or four days, under ideal environmental conditions eight to fourteen days.
Q. How do you happen to specifically know that so well? Did you over publish any works in that regard?
A. Yes, I have reviewed the entire literature on that subject. I have published those reviews of tho literature in two places, one in a couple of articles on desalination of sea water, the minimal water and food requirements in the U.S. Naval Medical Bulletin, and another in the proceedings in the Chicago Institute of Medicine.