Q. Dr. Ivy, when you state that it is possible for a person to reach at sea a maximum of fourteen or fifteen days before death, how do you account for the fact that in America in 1943 we can recall having seen articles and headlines about a seaman in the United States Navy named "Icjy" who survived on a raft on the Atlantic Ocean 83 or 84 days?
A. No, that seaman was Icci, I c c i, I recall. I interrogated him when he returned to Washington. I was interested particularly in the details of his adventure. I found that the longest that he had been deprived of sea water was seven days. Now, I can recall that figure for this reason.
Q. Pardon me, Doctor, you mean deprived of sea water or deprived of natural water?
A. I mean deprived of water. Did I say "sea-water"?
Q. Yes, doctor.
A. I mean he was deprived of water for seven days. When he boarded the raft he had some water with him. That was used up and then he collected rain water which he would collect and hold. I remember the seven days because at that time I was in the process of making rain charts for the oceans and he had passed through an area of ocean in the South Atlantic where the longest period of freedom from rain was eight days and, when he was in that particular region of the ocean he had been without water for seven days. That was the longest period that he was without water to drink.
Q. That death may have occurred in fasting and thirsting subjects is not probable, is it?
A. Will you ask that question again?
Q. Is it probable that death might occur in fasting and thirsting subjects used in experiments like this?
A. Yes, after a period of days, 6 or 3 to 14, depending upon the environmental conditions and the original health of the subject.
Q. Then it is possible that death might occur?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it probable that drinking 500 cc of sea water daily from four to ten and a half days and taking no food for from two to six days will cause injury?
A. Well, it might cause acute injury and embarrassment such as fainting.
Q. In the drinking of sea water -
A. Or collapse.
Q. On page 12 of Document No. 177, in Document Book No. 5, Doctor, this is the report on the committee meeting held in Berlin. On page 12 of the document book, the last two sentences from the bottom, you see the following language:
"External symptoms are to be expected such as drainage, diarrhea, convulsions, Hallucinations and, finally, death." Is that an accurate statement?
A. I have not found that.
Q. That is on page 12 of Document Book No. 5. That is Document NO. 177.
A. I have it now.
Q. That last sentence on that page 12.
A. I do not know what is meant by the word "drainage" but it is true that diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations and, finally, death, may occur when one takes 500 to 1,000 cc of sea water every day. Diarrhea would not occur in the case of fasting and thirsting hallucinations, finally death, muscular twitchings, perhaps convulsions, might occur in similar thirsting and fasting conditions.
MR. HARDY: This is a good breaking point for recess, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, the interpreters have called to my attention that the word on page 12 of Document Book V, that is in Document NO-177 which is Prosecution Exhibit 133, in the last sentence from the bottom of the page the interpreters state that the German word which has been translated as "drainage" in English should be replaced by the word "dehydration". In as much as Dr. Ivy could not quite understand, the meaning of "drainage" the interpreters checked the German and the German is better translated as "dehydration ". In that connection. Dr. Ivy, dehydration, of course, is a symptom which would be found in experiments of this sort?
A. Yes, In all of the groups with the exception of the Schaefer water group.
Q. Now, how many of the 14 subjects were supposed to have received 300 cc of sea water daily for six days or more according to your study of the individual charts?
A. You mean of the 44?
Q. Of the 44, pardon me.
A. You say how many received 500 cc of sea water?
Q. Yes, daily for six days or more.
A. 14.
Q. Dr. Ivy, could you refer for a moment to some of the charts herein the person drank 500 cc of sea water and determine whether or not the experiments began on the 21st day of August or whether the experiments began on the 22nd day of August. You will note on any one of the charts that a mark has been inserted under the date 22 August which is an arrow - a red arrow - with a blue circle at the end thereof, indicating the date of the commencement of the experiment and in addition to that there is also a mark in red indicating the date of the commencement of the experiment on the 21st. Dr. Beiglboeck suggests that he placed the arrow with a blue circle at the end thereof under the date of 22 August at some later date when he was re-evaluating these charts.
Now, can you straighten out for us, in your opinion, just when those experiments began, whether they actually began on the 22nd or whether they began on the 21st. Do you understand the import of my question, doctor?
A. Yes, I understand. If we refer to subject 12 who was given 500 cc of sea water presumably. On the chart marked 12 under the space of the chart indicated for August 21st there is a square arrow and on the next chart 12 under the space of August 22 there is a circle in blue from which there extends a straight arrow upward. The experiment apparently started on August 21st where the first arrow is indicated and the first results on urinary output are indicated on August 22. That is a natural way to make a report and a study of this sort because if I start an experiment we shall say on May first we generally make a wieghing before breakfast on May first and then on May 2nd we will make a weighing breakfast. That is the first day or the first 24 hours of the experiment and as a general rule we end the urine collections at a similar time and then the urinary output is indicated as the urine output for the first day of the experiment. So, on the basis of these records I should say that in the case of subject no. 12 the experiment actually started on the 21st and the urinary output is recorded for the 22nd. That however may differ from what actually occurred.
Q. Dr. Ivy, Prof. Boiglboeck points out that the reason why he put the arrow under the date of the 22nd was because of the fact that no discrepancy in weight appears from the date of 21 to the date of the 22nd, and hence he deduces that if no loss of weight occurred, that the experiment could not have begun on the 21st. Now is that a logical deduction on his part?
A. No. The first weight loss would occur on the first day of the actual experimental period. As I explained, you get your first weight loss by taking the weight before breakfast on the first day of the experiment and from that subtracting the weight obtained before breakfast on the second day.
Q. I see. If you started the experiment on the 21st day of August as indicated by the square arrow on those charts, would you necessarily record an intake of water on the 21st, or would the first recording of an intake of water be made on the 22nd?
A. Well, on the basis of the way I explained the keeping of the records, you would record it on the 22nd. But just exactly what Dr. Beiglboeck did I cannot state, and we can't state from his records, because the water intake and the urinary output for the days preceding the alleged starting of the experiment are not indicated. The water intake and the urine output is only indicated in these charts for the experimental period.
Q. How many of the 44 subjects were sick at the end of the sea water period, according to your interpretation of the charts, regardless of how much of the 500 cc, they actually consumed?
A. Well, if we take subject 3, which was on or supposed to be on thirsting and fasting, according to the medication the subject received, that patient was sick or disabled. If we refer to Subject 14, which was supposed to be receiving 500 cc. of sea water for, according to our calculations, 8½ days with 4½ days of hunger, there was an acute fever and temperature of 39 degrees Centigrade on the day of the conclusion of the experimental period. That patient was sick.
If we refer to patient or subject 36, receiving allegedly or supposedly 500 cc of sea water, that patient was given strophanthin therapeutically, indicating that the patient was ill; otherwise why give such medication? If we refer to patient 37, we find that that patient had a fever during the course of the experimental period. If you refer to pationt 39, who likewise was supposedly receiving 500 cc of sea water daily, sterosundin was given therapeutically. That would indicate that the patient was ill and needed intravenous or parenteral medication.
Q. Do you believe, Doctor -
A. Referring -
Q. Go ahead, continue.
A. Referring to Subject 21, that patient was supposed to have received 500 cc of Berka water each day, was given chloramine and was too weak to stand for blood pressure reading on two days. Subject 23 in the same group was apparently very sick and comatose, and according to the acute weight gains, 8 to 10 pounds after the experimental period, the patient was sick. Subject 25 in the same group had a fever and was given morphine. There was x-ray evidence of lung pathology, which causes me to believe that that patient was ill. Patient 28 was too weak to have the blood pressure taken. The same was true of pationt 29. That completes tho list of the patients who were ill during the experiment.
Q. Do you believe, Dr. Ivy, that any of these 44 subjocts were permanently injured or died later?
A. One cannot answer that question yes or no. It is possible, but I should say not highly probably. There are three patients whose after records I should be particularly interested in knowing about. That is subjocts No. 3, 23, and 25.
Q. Have you carefully observed case No. 30? Dr. Beiglboeck informed us that the shorthand notes which are contained on the back of sheet 23-C are shorthand notes concerning the condition of the patient in case No. 30.
Are you able to determine from these stenographic notes and study of case No. 23 and Case 30 whether or not the notes apply to Case 30 or to Case 23? I will pass up to you an English copy of the transcription of the stenographic notes on the back of case No. 23.
A. From my study of the charts for subject 23 and subject 30, since the stenographic pencil record on the back of the Chart C-23 is not dated, l can only answer your question by stating that the stenographic record on the back of Chart C-23 is just as likely to be true of subject 23 as of subject 30. There is nothing in the clinical record or data which would indicate that the implications of the symptoms and signs described in the stenographic record is more likely attributable to subject 23 than subject 30.
Q. While you have the copy of the stenographic notes before you, Doctor Ivy, could you analyze for the Tribunal just what state of health the subject referred to in the stenographic notes, contained on the back of Graph C-23, was in?
A. This patient was in a coma. He was quite sick. Does that take care of your question?
Q. Would there be a great deal of difference in your analysis if, in the sentence which reads "He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnulent condition," that the word "somnulent" was replaced by the word "semi-conscious"?
A. There's a definite difference in the medical implications of somnulence and semi-comatose.
Q. If you please those two words that I suggest in this paragraph, would you be under the impression that the patient was sicker than as indicated in the paragraph as now written on the mimeographed sheet you have before you?
A. By those changes you improve the clinical condition of the patient.
Q. Improve the clinical condition of the patient?
A. With the changes made.
Q. You mean, with the changes that will now appear on the mimeographed sheet I have given you, not by the words I have suggested to you to be replaced, to make the word "no" and the word "semi-conscious"?
A. The idea that I'm trying to convey is that after the changes have been made you get the idea that the patient was not as sick as is originally indicated before the changes were made.
Q. Perhaps I have created a difficulty. I have asked you to replace the word "little" with the word "no" and the word "somnulent" with the word "semi-conscious", but you mean now, that it is written on this mimeographed sheet and as the document now reads, after it has been changed, it would indicate that the patient is not as sick as it would indicate before the stenographic notes were altered?
A. Thats' correct. In other words, by asking these changes in the stenographic record, the clinical condition of the subject was improved.
Q. Now, in the sentence in the second paragraph which reads: "The general condition gives no cause for alarm", if the stenographic symbol for "no" was added later would that make a considerable difference in your analysis of the patient?
A. Obviously.
Q. In the sentence in the third paragraph which reads now as follows: "Respiration some what flatter, moderately frequent" would there be a considerable difference if it was written as it appeared originally before an ensure, in that the word "is" was placed in he sentence instead of the word "somewhat"? In other words, the sentence would read: "Respiration is flatter", and then, later in the same sentence, after the word "flatter", in place of the word "moderately" we insert the word "hardly" so that the sentence as written originally would nave read: "Respiration is flatter, hardly frequent."
Would that convey an entirely different meaning to you than the sentence as it reads now: "Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately Frequent."?
A. Yes, the changes made indicate that the clinical condition of the patient is better.
Q. In the sentence in the 8th paragraph which reads: "Heart beats very low, poorly audible", if the word poorly was replaced by the word "scarcely" would that tent to create a different meaning so that the sentence would read:
"Heart beats very low, scarcely audible" rather than "poorly audible"?
A. I'm trying to make a difference between "poorly" and "scarcely".
Q. Would there be a difference?
A. So far as I am personally concerned, that would make no difference. Poorly and scarcely audible are almost the same thing.
Q. Doctor, are you familiar with the expression "Romberg plus plus" as indicated in the last paragraph?
A. I am, of course, familiar with the Rombarg test or Romberg sign, but the use of plusses varies with different doctors, so just exactly what is meant by Romberg plus might mean something different for me from that it would mean to some one else.
Q. What is the purpose of a Romberg test, Doctor?
A. It is to determine one's ability to stand steadily without falling with their feet together and their eyes closed. A two plus would indicate that it would be difficult for this subject to stand without falling. That would be my interpretation.
Q. Could you explain to us what the remark in the last sentence in the last paragraph "bulbous reflex positive" means?
A. Well, that is the patient would respond when the eye ball was pressed upon.
Q. What is the purpose of such a test as that, Doctor Ivy?
A. That is generally used to determine the extent of unconsciousness or the degree of coma.
Q. The second sentence from the bottom, in the last paragraph, which reads: "Tonus of the bulb of the eye bad", what does that indicate?
A. That again is a test used for the purpose of estimating the extent of unconsciousness or degree of disability of a person. If the tone of the eye ball is low, that indicates that the blood pressure is low or the state of the circulation is quite poor.
Q. Is that a bad prognostic sign, Doctor?
A. It is one among others that is bad.
Q. If such a condition exists in adults is it apparent to the attending physician that a serious condition is existent and that death may result?
A. Will you repeat that question?
Q. Is it apparent in the general condition of adults, in grown-ups, that death may be approaching if we find the tonus of the bulb of the eye is bad?
A. Yes, as you say "may be".
Q. Do you have any other analysis to make concerning any of the other notations on the back of this Chart #23 as set forth in the translation that you have before you?
A. No.
Q. Have I pointed out to you clearly the remarks which are indicative of illness on the part of the patient?
A. Yes, I think it is obvious that the patient was quite sick, and as a matter of fact, I should say in a dangerous condition and requires immediately remedial therapy.
Q. Well, then, you would state that a follow-up of this patient would have been necessary?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell as from observing Charts #23 and Charts #30, inasmuch as it is not certain whether or not these notes apply to case #23 or Case #30, just how long the follow-up was made on these two patients?
A: In case 23 temperature and pulse record was made for four days after the termination of the experimental period, and in the case of Subject 30, 5 days.
Q: Do you think that was a sufficient length of time to follow up those cases?
A: I do not think so. As I have already indicated, I believe that records should have been kept as in the case of Schaefer water experiments for approximately a week, and in a case where patients or subjects have become as ill as this subject apparently was, I should think should be followed for or three weeks after the termination of the experimental period.
Q: Would you say it was possible that this subject could have died if not properly taken care of?
A: On the basis of the symptoms and signs recorded I should answer that question, yes.
Q: Now, in the summation concerning these records, Doctor, let us consider the group of 8 subjects that were supposed to drink 500 ccs Berka water or seawater treated with Berkatit; now, of thses 8 subjects receiving 500 ccs Berka water daily do you state that three became definitely sick and one other subject, No. 24 doubtfully sick, according to the record?
A: That is correct.
Q: And Subject 21 had to be given coramine, a heart stimulant, as he was too weak to stand on two occasions?
A: Yes, he was too weak to have his blood pressure taken.
Q: And Subject 25 had a fevwr at the end of the Berka Water period and was too weak to stand up on two occasions, and he had to have morphine, and X-ray of tile chest disclosed pathology, perhaps pneumonia?
A: Perhaps pneumonia, yes. There a,as a shadow on each side of the bronchous.
Q: Doctor, you said this morning that condition was bronchitis, would you be able to determine from the charts whether that was pneumonia, on is that too difficult?
A: No, I would have to see the actual film.
Q: Now, you state that one should have certainly followed up the subjects 21, 23, and 30, and number 25?
A: Yes, and number 3.
Q: And number 3. Now, the subjects that supposedly received 1,000 cc. of Berkatit treated seawater daily from about 7 to 10 days, how many of those became sick again, Doctor?
A: Two.
Q: That was subjects -
A: 28 and 29.
Q: Now, I note that Subject 27 is supposed to have gone 10 days, Subject 28 supposed to have gone 29-1/2 days, and Subject 21, 8 days on 1,000 cc Berka water, is that possible?
A: Not that is not possible. According to the urinal output in relation to the 1,000 cc of intake Patient 27, for example, supposedly did not take all the 1,000 cc of Berka water.
Q: Well, now, how did the five subjects supposed to have taken 1,000 cc of seawater daily from 4-1/2 to 8 days fare?
A: Subject 32 and Subject 40, among the five who were supposed to have taken 1,000 cc of seawater, were quite ill. Subject 32 was too weak on two occasions to have the blood pressure taken, and Subject 40 was given some sterofundin perenially.
Q: Now, Doctor, it is obvious that all of these patients did not drink the seawater, but that some of them cheated, isn't that true?
A: Yes, that is true.
Q: So it us apparent that these experiments turned out to be a farce scientifically?
A: Scientifically speaking, yes.
Q: Now, out of the total of 44 subjects is it true 12 were too weak to stand up on one or more occasions, and who had a fever and who required cardiac medication or were unconscious, those subjects being 4,3,14,21,23, 25, 28, 29, 32, 36, 37, 39 and 40?
A: Yes, according to the data recorded on the charts those patients either required some sort of X-ray or unusual therapy, or were too weak to have their blood pressure taken, or had a fever or had difficulty with the X-ray, for example?
Q: Dr. Ivy, several witnesses have testified here that one or three of the 44 subjects died during the course of these experiments or later, now, in your opinion after studying these records which of these 12 subjects who manifested observed signs of abnormality during the period of observation recorded on the charts were sick enough to cause concern regarding whether they might have died?
A: Well, subject 25, the subject to whom the stenographic notes on the back of page C-23 apply, and Subject 3. Those are the subjects in this group which concern me in relation to your question. Now, that statement is simply an opinion based on the data that are available.
Q: On page 8762 of the official transcript of this trial, Doctor, the testimony of the defendant Biegelboeck, which will be found in the afternoon a session of 9 Jame 1947 -
A: What was the page, please?
Q: That is page 8762. A question put to Dr. Biegelboeck reads as follows, and this is found in the second paragraph of the official transcript for 9 June 1947, on page 8762 of the English. When the interpreters have that will they tell me. I will wait for you.
THE INTERPRETER: We don't have the English text at all yet. We don't Have the 9 June, but if you continue we can translate.
Q: (continued) The question: "The witness Bauer, who is a business man, in a civilian profession, says further that he saw symptoms of heart weakness; what do you say about that?" Dr. Biegelboeck answered as follows: "The witness Bauer developed the electro-cardiograms which I took. He developed the film. I suppose that on that opportunity ho also examined them like an expert. What occurred in the case of the experimental subjects was a slowing down of the pulse.
This is called in German medical literature Schon Stellung. It is a protective position of the blood circulation. This is supposed to express that through the slowing up of the heart beat, as in the case of any case of deficiency, as in the case of hunger, a certain economic using up, that is a quieting down of the circulation develops. This theory, I believe, is the correct one, but not the one that Herr Bauer accepted." Now, Dr. Ivy, do you recall that several of the subjects were given coramine or strychnine at the end of the experimental period?
A: Yes.
Q: What are the drugs commonly used in treating patients, what are these drugs commonly used for in treating patients?
A: As a cardiac stimulant?
Q: Does not the use of heart stimulants by Dr. Beiglboeck on a few of these subjects confirm the reports of Herr Bauer?
A: Yes, I would say so, toward the theories, the opinion expressed by Bauer?
MR. HARDY: At this point I have no questions to put to Dr. Bauer concerning seawater experiments, and if the Tribunal has any I will not proceed to another portion of the examination.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Doctor, do you have before you Document NO 177, which has been introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 133, and appears in Prosecution Document book V, at pages 11 to 17, inclusive?
A: Yes, I have it.
Q: Will you please turn to page 13 in Document Book V?
A: Yes, I have it.
Q: Will you please turn to page 13 in Document Book V?
A: Yes.
Q: And I direct you attention in particular to that paragraph which be with the Arabic numeral 2. Prior to that paragraph these words appear: "duration of experiments maximum 6 days. In addition to these experiments a further experiment should be conducted as follows:
2. Persons given seawater and as a diet also the emergency sea rations. Duration of experiments 12 days." Can you tell by an inspection and analysis of the graph papers and the data books which you now have before you whether there were any experiments set up to last a period of 12 days nourished with sea water and emergency sea rations?
A. Except for the subjects in the group receiving Schaefer water, which is essentially fresh water, none of the experiments extended longer than 10½ days, according to my way of interpreting the extent of the experimental period. According to Dr. Beiglboeck's way of interpreting the extent of the experimental period, the longest period would be 9½ days.
Q. Will you please explain what is comprehended within the period of 10½ days as you estimate it and 91/2 days, as the defendant Bieglboeck estimated; maybe perhaps I can make myself more explicit; in estimating that period of time are you taking into account the preliminary observation period of seven days?
A. No, when I used the expression experimental period, I meant the period of time that the subject was thirsted and fasted or the period of time the subject received Schaefer water or the period of time the subject received either Berka water or sea water. The period before the experimental period was refered to as the control period or pre-experimental period and and the period after the experimental period may be referred to as the post control period.
Q. Let us assume that your interpretation of the records are complete and that some of the experimental subjects participated in the experiments for a period of as long as 101/2 days; can you say from examining the report whether that was an unbroken experimental period?
A. In every case, I should first say that I have studied the records with that idea or point in mind and in every case, according to the urine out-put, I should say that the experimental period was broken. That is, if you refer to the chart of patient No. 27, you will find that patient was supposed to take 1,000 cc of Berka water for ten days, the last six of which were hunger.
If you look at his record of urine out-put, you find it was impossible for him to follow that strict routine.
Q. In regard to the experimental subject you have just been referring to, can you state from looking at the chart and records what his physical condition was at the time he broke into the experiment by gaining access to water or to fresh water as the case may be?
A. The record will show that I did not include subject No. 27 in my list of the subjects who appeared to be sick on the basis of the study of these records.
Q. The defendant has made the statement, if I understand his testimony correctly that he found of the entire group of experimental subject that twenty of them gained access to water during the course of the experiment and he listed them, if I understood his testimony correctly. Perhaps you have a pencil and pad there, do you, Doctor?
He listed them as the experimental subjects Nos. 2, 5, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, and 43. Can you examine the grafts or records of those experimental subjects, or any or either of them and give the court your medical view as to the condition, physical or mental, that those subjects were in at the tine they broke off the experiment; by that I mean at the time they discontinued the strict routine under which they were placed as experimental subjects?
A. First, I should like to give an answer to that question insofar as Subject No. 27 is concerned. I just referred to that subject as having been supposed to receive 1,000 cc of Berka water. According to my interpretation of his urinary output, that subject received sea-water to any significant extent only on the first four days of the ten day experimental period.
Q. Here is the thing, Doctor. Perhaps I may aid you in getting the information, if you can get it, that the Tribunal is interested in. Here is an experiment, which as you say, according to your interpretation of the charts, was conducted for a period of at least 101/2 days with some of the subjects. I think that the Tribunal is interested in knowing.........
A. I think we should correct that figure to ten days.
Q. Ten days..... I think the Tribunal is interested in knowing what the condition of those subjects was when they broke off their experiments, because as I remember the Defendant Beiglboeck said that when he discovered that fact, he placed some of them again back on the routine as volunteers. As he puts it, if he found them and continued them in that status; we are interested in knowing whether or not at the time they broke off the experiment by gaining access to fresh water, they were in physical fit condition or, if they were not, whether during the interim that they gained access to fresh water they again became fit enough so that they could safely be put on a second routine of salt water, or hunger and thirst; do I make myself clear, Sir?
A. Yes, in the case of Subject No. 27, and we are talking about that subject, the chart indicates that the pluse was quite slow and unstable and that is the only indication on this chart.
Q. When?
A. This was on August 30th, which is the ninth day, and the patient was taken off of the experimental period the following day, so that would indicate that either because of the other evidence indicated that the patient was quite dehydrated or because of the condition of the pulse, that Dr. Beiglboeck decided to break the experiment.