Q Now, you said this morning that in these very healthy young persons who were subjected to such an experiment for the sake of their indoctrination there was a fatality that would simply have to be taken as something done by fate. Do you know that in Germany that we carried out thousands of experiments and examinations for training purposes and that we have not had one fatality at all?
A I did not know that you had no fatalities. I knew that you carried out training experiments in altitude chambers, but not nearly on the same scale as was carried on in the United States.
Q In the point of numbers the United States carried out probably more experiments as compared to Germany, that is true, but we too carried out thousands of experiments without one single death. The difference in the experiments in the United States and in Germany was that in the United States, the persons being trained were subjected to 12,000 meters for a considerable length of time while in Germany they were subjected to that altitude for only ten or fifteen minutes, and I personally assume that in ...
THE PRESIDENT: You not been asking the witness questions, you have been in effect testifying, making statements yourself. If you have a question to ask the witness, propound the question to him.
BY DEFENDANT RUFF:
Do you know wherein possibly the difference lies from the fact that you had fatalities in America and in Germany we did not?
A The time factor was probably significant. We were training our men in long flights at high altitude and in bombers for 3, 4 and 5 hours.
Now, let us turn to the last fatality, the one you mentioned yesterday, in which a major descended by parachute from a great height and died thereby. I unfortunately did not take down his name at the time. You paid that this unfortunate man of course was carefully examined after his death; what killed him on the descent, what was the cause of that?
A That was uncertain, and on the basis of my knowledge of the circumstances surrounding this unfortunate death and my knowledge of the physiology changes associated with free fall through the air, I suspect that he fainted. He was very fatigued before he went to altitude and. had been advised that the jump should be postponed to another day, but he went on through with the jump.
Q Was this an experiment in which at the beginning the parachute was not to be opened at the beginning of the ascent?
A Yes, so called free falling; he did not have with him an automatic parachute opening devise. Now perhaps it would have been possible and already you have intimated that he was unconscious and could not operate his parachute; wasn't it just possibly namely that the opposite happened, that he opened his chute immediately or that it opened by mistake and for this reason the man fell ill of altitude sickness?
A No, in this case the parachute did not open, it was the case of Major Boyton.
Q Before this practical experiment, had you carried cut a low pressure chamber experiment to determine the oxygen problem involved?
A Yes, as a matter of fact before the pre-fall experiment, which I performed in 1940 and 1941, we studied the question of oxygen requirements during free fall and we supplied our jumpers with a mask and a bail-out-bottle of oxygen.
Q I should like to anticipate a bit, Dr, Ivy, yesterday you told the Tribunal when you were asked whether our experiments for research at great height were necessary, and I shall repeat your answer more or less in its meaning, you said no that was not necessary, it could all have been calculated at the time, but you yourself carried out such experiments in order to ascertain how the oxygen situation is; why did you not rely on your calculations?
A That answer "no" pertained only to one portion of the experiments, which you did and that was slow descent from high altitude, that is descent by early opening of the parachute.
Q Then I misunderstood you yesterday, I understand you to mean that the free falling experiments that my colleague Romberg carried out in Dachau and are mentioned in Document No. NO-402you consider necessary for the clarification of this problem?
A I qualified my answer in this way and I said the slow descent experiments were unnecessary in my opinion because of the hazards they entailed and that instead of doing that particular experiment on human beings and that I should rely on results on animals and make the necessary calculations with the human beings in order to determine the amount of oxygen it would be necessary to supply under these conditions. I did not object to the other experiments you did, which I did not feel they were nearly as hazardous as the slow descent from high altitude.
Q Very well, I shall return shortly to this question. Now you said previously to my counsel, Dr. Sauter, that so far as you knew explosive decompression experiments were carried out in America to the height of roughly 50,000 feet; did I understand you correctly?
A I recall, I said 47,500, which is a little below 50,000, but approximately 50,000.
Q Can you cite me the most recent American paper on this subject?
A There are some preliminary reports published in the Federation proceedings for Biology in Medicine by Dr. Hitchcock. All of the results on that subject will not become available until the Committee on Decompression Sickness of the National Research Council publishes a monograph on the subject of decompression sickness and the findings made by American scientists during the war.
Q As I understand from my examination by my counsel and by the prosecution, you were an. active member of the Committee; is that so?
A Yes.
Q Then for certain the expert in Wright Field is know to you?
A Yes, that is right.
Q Would you please name him to me?
A Dr. J. J. Smith did the first work on decompression sickness, Dr. Hitchcock of the University of Iowa collaborated with the Wright Field group and, I believe, Dr. Dempsey - I do not recall his military title. I believe he is a Lieutenant Colonel, - was interested particularly in explosive decompression.
Q Do you know that in 1944 H. M. Sweeney reported from Wright Field on decompression?
A That is the man's name when I said Dempsey, I got Sweeney and Dempsey mixed up.
So far as we know that is the most recent American publication on explosive decompression and the limit there is stated to be roughly 50,000.
A Yes, and it is the most complete American report and covers the most experiments, except those of Dr. Hitchcock, which have not yet been reported. Dr. Sweeney followed Dr. Smith on the work on explosive decompression in the laboratory at Wright Field.
Q Dr. Ivy, we have been saying now for some time that explosive decompression experiments are made during indoctrination and for other purposes; would you please describe briefly to the Tribunal why this is done and why flying practise makes such explosive decompression experiments necessary?
A The Tribunal, I believe, is familiar with the expression pressure cabins in airplanes; pressure cabins are being used to some extent on pressure plants in the United States in commercial aviation. In the pressure cabin the pressure is maintained at an altitude equivalent to that of ground or some predetermined altitude at which the administration of supplemental oxygen is unnecessary, such as 10,000 feet. We shall assume we have passengers, in a pressure cabin in which pressure is being maintained at an altitude equivalent to 10,000 feet and the plane is flying at an altitude of 40,000 feet; the question arises what would happen to the passengers or occupants of the plane if the seal of the pressure cabin was suddenly fractured and what would he the relation of the size of the fracture in this seal to the danger of the passengers.
Is that clear?
THE PRESIDENT: It is time for the evening recess. The Tribunal will be in recess until 09:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 14 June 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 14 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court room.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all defendants in court.
Counsel, how long do you anticipate that your further cross examination of this witness will take?
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I estimate that Dr. Ruff will require perhaps half an hour, if the Tribunal permits. Following Dr. Ruff, I myself, should like to ask two or three more questions, so that we will be finished in about three-quarters of an hour.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you may have that time allocated to you.
I would ask Dr. Steinbauer -- you may remain at your seat, Doctor.
DR. STEINBAUER: I believe I need about an hour.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, an hour will he allocated to Dr. Beiglboeck.
I understand that Dr. Servatius will conduct the cross examination of the witness on at least some of the general subjects. Will any other counsel cross examine the witness upon any general matter?
DR. FLEMMING: I will need about ten minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be allocated to you.
DR. NELTE: I will need about a quarter of an hour.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, that may be allocated.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: I should like to have Dr. Ruff ask a few more medical questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ruff may propound the questions to the witness.
DR. ANDREW C. IVY - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. RUFF (Defendant):Q Dr. Ivy, yesterday you explained to the Tribunal what conditions and practice explosive decompression comes about and you had said that if a plane is flying at high altitude and the pressure cabin is damaged, this explosive decompression occurs.
Now, what happens to the persons in the plane if they have survived this explosive decompression? What happens to them after that? To make the question more precise I might add the following: Let us assume that the plane is flying at 17,000 meters.
A They can either take a dive to the ground or they can bail out. In the American Air Forces they bail out, they disconnect from the oxygen supply of the plane and plug in with the oxygen supply of the bail-out bottle before leaving the plane.
Q Professor Ivy, if this explosive decompression occurs at 17,000 meters then the crew has only a very short period of time for bailing out, is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Because even with oxygen the crew becomes unconscious very quickly at 17,000 meters, is that right?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Could you. perhaps indicate how much time passes from the moment of explosive decompression until unconsciousness sets in -still at 17,000 meters?
A That will depend upon the size of the fracture or damage of the plane, the rate at which the explosive decompression occurs. If it occurs relatively slowly they will be able to connect with their oxygen supply and will be able to get out of the plane before they lose consciousness in the course of perhaps 30-35 seconds. That period of time will vary.
Q Yes, I quite agree with you. Now, if we assume that a whole pane of glass is broken, if there is a comparatively large hole in the cabin, would you agree with me that this time which we in German aviation call time reserve at this altitude is about 10 or 20 seconds?
A I agree with that under those conditions.
Q Now, Professor Ivy, if for reasons of aviation medicine one makes experiments with explosive decompression is it not sensible to carry out experiments on the course of the parachute descent following explosive decompression?
A Yes, I think up to a certain point.
Q Do you agree with me if I say that only explosive decompression experiments for 17,000 meters again, are senseless in practice if one does not at the same time investigate the question of rescue after explosive decompression?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Now, Professor Ivy, in America explosive decompression experiments were carried out through about 17,000 meters--47, 000 feet. Can you confirm this second part of the problem, experiments for parachute descent from such altitudes were also carried out?
A Yes, up to a certain point they were carried out but were not carried out the way you carried out your slow descents from 15 kilometers or approximately 49,000 feet, which requires subjecting the subjects to a long period of oxygen lack.
Q . The experiments to this end were not carried out in America because the American Air Forces oxygen equipment is available for parachutes so that the person is equipped with oxygen after bailing out, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Now in order to avoid any misunderstanding which might arise on the basis of one question asked by the prosecutor, I ask you on the basis of theoretical calculations can binding finds be made as to the exact altitude from which oxygen equipment for a parachute is necessary?
A. An approximately correct answer can be obtained by calculations.
Q. By calculations. Would you please briefly explain to the Tribunal what physiological factors would have to be considered in such a calculation?
A. One has to consider the questions of partial pressure of oxygen in the inspired air at the various altitudes, when the subject is breathing 100% oxygen at high altitudes, you would have to consider the ambient pressure in making the calculations of the pressure of the 100 % oxygen as I have indicated previously in my testimony; in order to obtain a 100% saturation of the blood with oxygen above an approximate altitude of 12,000 metres it is necessary to breath the 100% oxygen under pressure, so that breathing 100% oxygen between an altitude of 12 kilometres and 15 kilometres there would be some under-saturation of the blood with oxygen, even though the subject were breathing 100% oxygen. That would have to be taken into consideration and the rate of fall with the parachute open would have to be taken into consideration. The only place that the blood would not be 100% saturated would be in the region above 12 kilometers. I believe that is as simple as I can make the matter.
Q. Now, Professor Ivy, you mentioned two factors which have to be considered in these calculations.
Do you agree with me if I say that in addition to these two factors, the carbon dioxide in the lungs has to be considered because this influences the amount of oxygen in the lungs?
A. That will influence. The percentage composition by the partial pressure oxygen when you breath 100% oxygen can be determined the carbon dioxide and water vapor content would have to be taken into consideration in the calculations.
Q. Yes, you mentioned a fourth factor. That is the water vapor which also has to be considered. Now the speed of occurrence of altitude sickness may be influenced by the circulation too.
A. By altitude sickness do you mean the symptoms due to lack of oxygen only?
Q. Yes, only the symptoms of lack of oxygen otherwise that becomes too complicated.
A. Yes, the circulation is a factor, but there is no reason why the circulations should be significantly disturbed due to these conditions which we are discussing.
Q. I believe you misunderstood me, Professor Ivy. I asked whether this circulation time, that is the time a particle of blood needs to go through the entire circulation once and back to the lungs, whether this time is not also a factor.
A. Yes, that's always a factor, whether we are up in the air or on the ground.
Q. Then that would be the fifth factor. Now would you agree with me again that the respiration of the aviator in question, that is, the frequency and depth of respiration is responsible, would also influence the results of the calculations?
A. Yes, that influences results of such calculations whether you arc in the air or on the ground.
Q. Now, would one also not have to consider the so-called adap tation to altitude?
A. Yes, there is a variation in susceptibility to the oxygen lack in different individuals, but that can be determined at altitudes of 18,000 feet only.
Q. Professor Ivy, do you know the German term, "Vormobilisation?" premobilization? In Germany we mean the attitude of human organism that in ascent to altitude he reacts differently to the lack of oxygen than in descent from altitude. To give a practicle example, in ascent to 7,000 or 8,000 metres a person becomes unconscious if he is then taken up to 12 or 13 kilometres and then down again he becomes conscious at 9,00 metres and is capable of acting. Do you find this fact in your work too?
A. I have not studied that, but I car understand its explanation physiologically.
Q . Do you agree with me that this premobilization must be included in the calculations if one wants to come to reasonably valid results?
A. Yes. I agree with that question the way you have worded it.
Q. Now, one more brief question about respiration. We just said that the character of the respiration of the aviator in question is a factor in this calculation. You no doubt know that the time, reserve, for example, at 15,000 metres can be increased two or three times by holding ones breath. You know that, don't you?
A. What do you mean by "holding ones breath?" You mean holding one's breath in exerting pressure?
Q. I mean by not breathing, if one has been breathing pure oxygen before.
A. Yes, to some extent, a very minor factor.
Q. Now, if an aviator breathes very quickly, because he is excited, then this time reserve can be reduced to a fraction of normal, is that true?
A. Yes, that's true.
Q. Very well. Now, if we consider the reaction of a person at 15,000 metres and want to calculate, we have about ten factors and these ten factors vary individually. Do you believe that in view of all these factors one can come to a reasonably reliable picture through calculation of what the conditions are.
A. Yes, I do, because many of the factors are very minor, not important, or significant. I had such small factors in mind when I explained my opinion in previous testimony that I believe that it was unnecessary to place subjects to the hazard of that part of your experimental program in which the subjects were exposed to slow descent. I also stated that I should be reluctant to perform such experiments on myself or other subjects.
Q. Can you understand that German aviation medicine men held a view very different from your opinion saying that these calculations are too unsatisfactory and we are not to take the responsibility for conclusions drawn from these calculations?
A I can understand that and I can also understand the fact that some people might be as reluctant as I would be to perform those experiments.
Q Now, Professor Ivy, another question - a question on animal experiments. From the record you have, no doubt, seen that before our experiments we carried out orientation experiments on animals. Yesterday you yourself mentioned the work of Lutz and Wendt and, if I understood you correctly, in answer to a question of Prosecution you came to the conclusion that the slight difference between results of animal experiments and human experiments does not completely justify experiments on human beings. Did I understand your correctly?
A That was my opinion as applied to this particular instance.
Q Now, Professor Ivy, do you consider the difference between 14,000 meters and 21,000 meters as a maximum altitude from which one can rescue aviators for sure? Do you consider that so slight?
A Will you repeat those figures again?
Q 14,000 meters which was the maximum height as the result of animal experiments, and 21,000 meters which was the result of our human experiments. Do you consider this difference between 14,000 meters and 21,000 meters really so slight?
A Not when that applies to slow descent with an open parachute. That doesn't apply there. No one would recommend, for example, that an aviator bail out at 21 kilometers, open up his parachute and descend. The experiments which we have under discussion involve slow descent from 15 kilometers. That's what we are talking about.
Q Professor Ivy, I quite agree with you that one cannot one should not - carry out slow sinking experiments from 21 kilometers without oxygen and that one should recommend this to pilots. You have read our document 402 very carefully that no slow experiments without oxygen were performed from 21,000 meters.
A That's right - 15 was the height from which you performed such experiments.
Q The altitude at which we stopped and at which we said in a reports "slow sinking experiments without oxygen from high altitude.
.." I shall quote: This is on page 82 of the English Document Book, page 19 of the report, page 97. I quote: "Slow sinking from higher altitude were not carried out since in practice there is no necessity to descend from such altitude with an open parachute and expose oneself to the danger of severe freezing."
A Yes, on page 88 of document 402 you say "descending experiments were made in larger numbers from 15 kilometers altitude since it became evident that at this altitude the approximate limits for what was possible in emergencies had already been reached essentially surpassed."
Now, the only point that I am making is that when those experiments were being done you had reached the physiological limits and were working in a very dangerous and hazardous zone insofar as the welfare of your subjects was concerned. And I said that I should be reluctant to perform such experiments and that I should prefer to depend upon that degree of accuracy which I could obtain from calculations of the results of animal experiments.
Q Professor Ivy, do you know the state of technical development of high altitude flying in Germany in 1941 and 1942. That is the time when these experiments were carried out.
A Yes, I know something of that.
Q Then you no doubt know that at this time we had a fighter plane, Messerschmidt 163 which had the quality of having a rocket drive.
A That is correct and I know that you were ahead of us in our developments as far as the ejection seat is concerned.
Q Do you also agree with me that with these rocket planes one can reach any altitude desired and that the altitude reached depends only on the amount of fuel?
A Yes.
Q Professor Ivy, you know, you surely know, of modern de velopments in America in this field.
Do you know the American plane type X S1?
A Yes, I know something about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Can the translators get the question?
Q Professor Ivy, do you know the American plane type XS1?
A I do hot know it by that number.
Q It is a rocket plane with a pressure cabin which is built for a ceiling altitude of 80,000 feet.
A I know something of that.
Q Is this a plane which in principle has the same propulsion as the Messerschmidt 163 which we had in 1941 and 1942?
A I can't say yes or no to that. You are just making a statement without asking me a question.
Q I asked you, Professor Ivy, whether this XS1 in principle has the same propulsion, that is rocket drive, as the Messerschmidt 163 which we had in 1941 and 1942?
A My knowledge of the engineering factors of the two planes does not permit me to say yes or no. I know that the problems of aviation medicine involved are essentially the same.
Q Very well. Your Honors, perhaps I may refer to Document 5 in the Romberg Document Book, Exhibit 3 in respect to this type XS1. For the state of German technological development in the year 1942 I should like to refer to affidavit in Ruff Document Book No. 20, Exhibit 8, it is an affidavit of the technical officer, the General of the Fighters at the time. I may also refer to the affidavit of the Chief of the German Fighters Major General who speaks of the development at that time. This document has not been submitted yet. It will be offered to the Tribunal later.
Now, Professor Ivy, I should like to read you a few sentences from the German expert who commented on these experiments described in document 402 and I should like to ask you whether you agree with the statements of the German expert. This expert is the lecturer, Dr. Gauer whom we unfortunately are unable to hear since at this time he is in the United States as a scientist.
The statement of this expert is on page 43 of the Ruff Document Book, Document 10, that is Exhibit 14. The expert comes to the following summary of his opinion on these experiments:
"1) The question of rescue from extremely high altitudes constituted a problem of the utmost importance for aviation medicine. The experiments yielded unexpected results which were of importance for technical development.
"2) Experiments with animals yield no quantitative, binding values.
"3) The experiments were carried out on a scientific basis. The experiments were discontinued after a certain practical aim had been attained. No casualties ensued.
"A) The subjective troubles during experiments with low pressure chambers in high altitudes without oxygen are slight."
Do you agree with this opinion of the German expert?
A I agree with the opinion of the German expert that you just read with the exception of the experiments of slow descent from altitude of 15 kilometers.
Q Very well. We have already discussed that. Now, Professor Ivy, I have a few brief questions on car document 402 in another connection. You said day before yesterday that the sinking experiments were more dangerous than the free falling experiments from 21,000 meters. You said that in the sinking experiments as in all other experiments, there was no damage to the heart but that there was the possibility of damage to the brain cells. Did I understand you correctly?
A Yes.
Q You also said that the possible damage to the brain cells could have been checked.
MR. HARDY: We are not getting Dr. Ivy's answers, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the interpreters check the system?
BY.DR. RUFF
Q Professor Ivy, would you please repeat your answers to the previous question? I asked you whether in the examination by Mr. Hardy you said that there was the possibility of damage to brain cells. Is it true that you said that?
A Yes.
Q Professor Ivy, you also said that possible damage to the brain cells by lack of oxygen could have been tested by asking intelligence questions before and after the experiments. Did I understand you correctly?
A By making the appropriate tests for ability, capacity to learn.
Q Can you cite any work where the possibility of testing brain cell damage through lack of oxygen by an intelligence test is reported on?
A That has been reported on only insofar as animals are concerned. I know of no one who has performed learning ability tests on human subjects and then have exposed them to prolonged periods of oxygen lack, such as your subjects in slow descent from high altitudes were exposed, and then follow it through with intelligence tests. But learning ability tests in animals before and after exposure to oxygen lack have been done, and it has been found that their learning ability is damaged.
Q Then I misunderstood you the day before yesterday. It was not an intelligence test, it was a limited field of learning ability which to a certain extent can be tested on animals too?
A Yes, because an intelligence test as applied by psychologists is nothing more than a test of ability to learn.
Q Professor Ivy, I do not know whether the psychologists would quite agree with your opinion, but we will leave that aside.
A You have quite a number of them to agree with that statement when I made it.
Q Professor Ivy, did you know of any case in literature where after a brief lack of oxygen, ten minutes at the most, any provable organic damage to the brain was observed?
A No. You know as well as I do that that depends upon the extent of oxygen lack and its duration. Permanent damage of the human cerebrum will occur if it is completely deprived of oxygen from five to seven minutes. That is lethal as far as the human, and I might also say the dog cerebrum is concerned. It is not necessarily lethal insofar as the vital medullary centers are concerned.
Q Professor Ivy, do you know the work of Buechner and his school on this subject?
A No.
Q Professor Buechner found, and I am certain that similar work was carried out in America too, that if one leaves animals for days and hours in such a strong lack of oxygen that they are just barely kept alive, that even after these days one can find no damage to the cerebral cortext with these animals.
A Well, that may depend upon the extent of anoxia to which they have been exposed. He probably determined just the threshold at which no damage occurred, and I have in mind, for example, experiments of Professor Wendell at North Western University where the extent of oxygen saturation of the blood for a period of several minutes was only 20 - 15, 20 or 30 per cent.
Q But as far as I remember this work in a short lack of oxygen, by this I mean a maximum of ten minutes such as occurred in our experiments in such short experiments no damage to the brain was observed, is that correct?
A No, I am not familiar with that. There are two factors concerned. One is the degree of oxygen lack, and the time. Those two factors have to be considered, and as you stated in your own report, you were working at the upper limits of what you considered to be safety.
Q Now, Professor Ivy, I am sure you know that the first damage to the brain from anoxia and usually after a long interruption of the oxygen supply is damage to the ganglia, and especially the corpus striatum.
These things are known to a far extent from chronic carbon monoxide poisoning and from literature.
A Yes, that is morphologically speaking. In such experiments learning ability tests, to my knowledge, have not been applied. There is particular reference to carbon monoxide poisoning.
Q Professor Ivy, you will no doubt agree with me that in these cases of brain damage in the area of the corpus striatum there are so-called Parkinsonianisms, Parkinsonianismss.
A That is correct. I happen to be very familiar with that subject. For example, this week at the meeting of the American Medical Association in Atlantic City, I have an exhibit on the subject of resuscitation from carbon monoxide poisoning. I happen to be the expert consultant on that subject for the Council on Physical Therapy of the American Medical Association.
Q Now, Professor Ivy, since you are especially well Informed in this field, do you agree with me that this damage which appears after a long period of anoxia, these Parkinsonianismss, that they can be found in neurological tests and in the clinical aspect of the person much better than in an intelligence test?
AAll patients do not manifest the symptoms of Parkinsoniansm or paralysis agitans. I should like to also indicate that some of the human beings and animals who have been subjected to carbon monoxide poisoning, human beings, of course, accidentally, will show a blear period after they recover consciousness of from five to ten days in which they are apparently normal. Then they will develop various manifestations of damage to the nervous system or neurological sequela which may take the form of tremors in Parkinson's disease, may take the form of amnesia, loss of consciousness, and may be followed by death. So one might reasonably ask whether or not any of these subjects that were exposed to this anoxia as a result of slow descent showed any symptoms after a period of from five to ten days had passed.
Q I absolutely agree with you on this point, Professor Ivy. I can tell you as far as I recall, that was not mentioned exactly in the report, that the experimental subjects who went through these sinking experiments were under observation for about six weeks afterwards, and that after six weeks the nervous system and the clinical aspect of these experimental subjects showed nothing whatever, and I believe you will agree with me if I say that with the probability bordering on certainty, that is probability which is the most which we as doctors can give, it can not be expected that these people suffered damage at any other point in the brain.
MR. MCHANEY: I object to the remarks of Dr. Ruff. He is not now testifying. He is engaged in the examination of Dr. Ivy, and I submit that he should restrict his remarks to direct questions to the witness.