Is that not so? The State releases a soldier from a soldier's highest ethical principle, this principle of reverence of human life, and it does so morally and with regard to penalty.
A Defensive war seems to be a necessary evil but even in war a physician takes care of soldiers, be he friend or foe, with us of the medical profession is an exception in war time.
Q I simply want to make it clear, and I don't think we arc of two minds in this matter, that the State has the possibility of releasing human beings from their moral and legal responsibilities if it does so in the interest of the State, isn't that so?
A Yes, in the United States you don't have to fight if you believe that it is wrong.
Q I doubt whether the translation came through correct. Would you please repeat your answer, doctor? I asked whether or not we are of one mind in our belief that the State has the right for reasons of national necessity because of a state of war to free its citizens from moral and legal responsibility and you said .......
A. I believe it does, but in the United States if a person believes it wrong to fight and to kill people in the course of battle, he does not have to take up arms. We have conscientious objectors in the United States to which I have already referred.
Q. Do you consider the actions of the conscientious objector to be as ethically pure as the actions of the soldier?
A. I do.
Q. Then you are saying that men who follow the orders of the state, namely the soldiers, and men who refuse to follow those orders, namely the conscientious objectors, are ethically on the same level?
A. I do, although I do not agree with them.
Q. Would not the absolute affirmation of the person's right to refuse to serve in the war lead to the ultimate dissolution of the state and hence to the state's inability to defend itself?
A. Well, some believe that war is futile and they think they can defend that position. Others believe that defensive war is necessary and that aggressive war is an evil.
Q. Have you ever seen a case in history where a state admits that it itself is carrying on an aggressive war? Do not all states insist they they are carrying on a justified and legal war?
A. That does not make their claim true.
Q. But the citizen of a state must decide whether what he is doing is good or evil. Would a citizen of the United States believe his own state or believe the views that he hears over the radio from Germany or France?
A. We have difference of opinion in the United States and we tolerate that difference of opinion.
Q. I am asking whether the citizen, as a simple citizen is more or less obliged or coerced to hear what the state tells him.
If, for example, he is called to arms; How is he to decide whether the reasons for the government's decision are good or bad?
A. In a democracy, the citizens elect their own legislators who determine that. Totalitarism and democracy are two different worlds of thought and behavior and it is difficult to reconcile them.
Q. Must not the citizens of totalitarian states obey their governments?
A. I do not believe that they should.
Q. Do you mean to state that the citizen of any totalitarian state should refuse to obey the orders of his government?
A. I agree.
Q. In that case, witness, no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Did Dr. Steinbauer desire to address the Tribunal?
DR. STEINBAUER: (Defense Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): Mr. President, I have purely medical questions to put to the witness concerning themselves solely with the sea water case. I ask that I like the other counsel be permitted to ask these questions through my client, apart from a few general questions which I am going to put myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, your client may propound purely scientific and medical questions as Dr. Ruff was allowed to the other day. We shall finish first with these shorter cross examinations and then proceed with your questions, but I noticed you rise in your place and I thought perhaps you had some matter to call to the attention of the Tribunal. Cross examination by yourself in behalf of the defendant Beiglboeck will be taken up after the shorter cross examinations are completed.
Does Dr. Flemming desire to cross examine the witness fur fifteen minutes?
We will hear from Dr. Flemming.
DR. FLEMMING: Dr. Fritz for Dr. Rose desires to ask a few questions in this connection also.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, Dr. Flemming, out we will hear you now for fifteen minutes if you desire to cross examine the witness.
BY DR. FLEMMING: (Defense counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky)
Q. Professor, is it an offense against the professional duties of a doctor, in your opinion, if a doctor refuses to help a patient solely because the patient is an enemy of the state?
A. No, I do not believe that a doctor should refuse medical services to a person because he is an enemy of the state or even an enemy of the doctor.
Q. Such refusal of medical services would then be an offense against the medical and professional duties of the doctor, in your opinion, would it not?
A. I believe so.
Q. A doctor who expressed such an opinion - would you deny him the right to lay down policies for correct ethical medical behavior?
A. I answered my statement because I believe his acts were contrary to the teachings of medical ethics.
Q. Are you familiar with Hippocrates' works, or only with his oath?
A. I am familiar with some of his works, not all of them.
Q. In particular, do you know Hippocrates' fifth letter?
A. No, I do not.
Q. If I tell you that Hippocrates stated in his letter #5: "I shall not have any advantage from the rightness of the Persians nor shall I treat a Persian because he is an enemy of the Greek state." Now, if Hippocrates says this would you still be of the opinion that Hippocrates, who expressed such an opinion, is the right man for lying down the basic principles of medical ethics?
A. No, that is not coincident with practices today. I don't know that he said that.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, if Dr. Flemming wishes to refer to any of the works of Hippocrates, I suggest that he make them available to Dr. Ivy prior to questioning thereon.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel simply said "If Hippocrates said that what was the witness' opinion of the statement." It was based purely on an assumption.
Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q. Mr. President, the question was not hypothetical. Rather, Hippocrates actually did say that in his letter #5. Unfortunately, I cannot put the passage to the witness because I have it only in a German text.
Witness, in your testimony you have said that even today the oath of Hippocrates is still the basic policy for medical behavior. Let me ask you now, what role does the oath of Hippocrates play in American medicine? Does the doctor in America take the oath of Hippocrates?
A. When he graduates from some medical schools he does, other not.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, if you have, in a reputable German translation, the letter of Hippocrates which you mention, you may read that portion of the translation into the record giving the volume, the page and the work in which it is found.
DR. FLEMMING: Because this is in German I did not bring it along with me, but I can do so later if you wish.
THE PRESIDENT: I am simply affording counsel the opportunity to do that if he desires.
BY DR. FLEMMING:
Q. Witness, I have put the Oath of Hippocrates in evidence in this trial, first in the classical version and, secondly, in the version that is used in France. The two versions are radically different. Therefore, I should like to know what version of the Hippocrates Oath is used in America? Can you tell me whether it is a literal translation of the ancient oath or is it a now formulation?
A. According to my best recollection, it is a translation of the original oath. The American Medical Association, however, has developed its basic principles to apply to modern conditions, but the basic principles have not been altered.
Q: Then the Hippocrates Oath that is taken in America is a further development of the ancient Hippocrates Oath and incorporates modern conceptions, if I understand you correctly?
A: The principles of the Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association is a document of some 5,000 to 10,000 words. Each principle of the Oath of Hippocrates is developed to indicate how they apply to modern conditions of medical practice, how they apply to the choice of students for entrance into medical school, and how they apply to group practice, the practice of industrial medicine, and other economic and social conditions that did not exist in the time of Hippocrates. "The basic principle of reverence is life," and that the welfare of a patient is the prime interest which is maintained through the development of the ethics of two American Medical Association.
Q: If I understand you correctly the ethical standpoint of the medical profession is, so to speak, codified in American, and the Hippocratic oath was simply taken over to express the reverence for human life and the principle that the patient who is under the doctor's care should not be done any injury by the doctor, is that correct? So that it is not the Hippocratic Oath, but this codification of the professional medical ethics, according to the doctor in America, how to determine his behavior?
A: No, I said the original oath of Hippocrates is served as a basis upon which have been developed the details of medical practice as it is performed under modern conditions.
Q: Then Professor, I must read the Oath of Hippocrates to you in the classical version. You will see from this that the Oath of Hippocrates in the classical version really is not a codification of medical ethics, but is the contract of a pre-med student with this teacher, and that may incidentally in this Oath are a few ethical elements introduced. It reads as follows: "I swear by Apollo, the doctor, and by Asklepios and Hygicia and Panakeia, and by all time Gods and godesses for whom I bear witness to the best of my ability and best of my judgment I take the following Oath and accept the following responsibility: I shall revere my teacher in this art as I revere my parents."
This is undoubtedly a point of view that the doctor does not demand today, "And if he is in need he shall partake of my goods, also his descendants shall do so. I shall regard him as my brother. I shall teach my brothers this art if they wish me to without payment and without any contract." All the pertinent science I shall give to my own sons as I shall give them to the sons of my master, and I shall give the same knowledge to the students in the same grade and stand under the medical law. However, to others I shall not give this knowledge." Now, Doctor, I think you will agree on these versions of the Hippocrates Oath, that they are impertinent and out of line with that?
A: I do not agree with that interpretation, that part of the Hippocratic oath directs medical educators today to be careful and to exercise judgment regarding the intellectual ability and moral character of wen that are permitted to study medicine.
Q: Professor, this part of the oath does not concern the medical teacher, but the medical students who accepted these obligations vis-a-vis is master?
A: The oath continues, "The prescriptions to make life easy for the Patient I shall regard and I shall avoid doing what can harm or injure the patient"?
A: Yes, that indicates a reverence for life, and that you should do nothing in the way of therapy which you know will harm the patient.
Q. It is precisely this part of the Hippocratic oath that is missing in the French version. From this it can be seen that the various conceptions of the doctors' medical ethics and what his obligations are differ from time to time vastly and that the Hippocratic oath contains nothing but general principles which as you can see from this letter of Hippocrates, which I am going to read to you, were not regarded even by Hippocrates himself in the way that they are regarded and held to be necessary today. In this letter to Hippocrates it says:
"I am not justified in taking advantage of the richness of the Persians nor in treating barbarians who are enemies of the Greek people or freeing such barbarians from disease."
That is the fifth letter from Hippocrates and you have already said that you consider that such an attitude cannot be brought into or is constant with the basic principles of medical ethics, is that so?
A. Yes, that is not coincident with my principles of the medical ethics, as in reverence for life, whether that life be friend or foe, when it comes to treating their disease and sickness.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you will read into the record the title of the book, the author, and. the page upon which that quotation is read from.
DR. FLEMING: This is the "Hippocrates Fibel", excerpts from Hippocrates Works, editor Dr. Richard Kapferer, Munich and Bad Woerishofen, 1943, Hippocrates Publishing Company, Marquardt and Co., Stuttgart.
WITNESS: I might add that I doubt whether Hippocrates wrote that letter.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give the page of the volume on which that letter may be found, counsel?
DR. FLEMING: Page 307; the title in German is "Hippocrates Fibel".
I have no further questions, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz on behalf of the defendant Rose may crossexamine the witness. Dr. Fritz, I think, asked for fifteen minutes for cross examination.
DR. FRITZ (For the defendant Rose): Mr. President, the assumption that I asked for fifteen minutes is an error. I asked to cross-examine the witness for one hour.
THE PRESIDENT: According to my schedule I do not think that much time can be allowed, Doctor. You may have half an hour in any event.
DR. FRITZ: Your Honor, there is another matter I want to clear up. I have purely medical questions to ask of the witness and in addition there was little time during the last few days to discuss this question with the defendant Rose. In order to utilize the time and in order to be able to finish I would like to ask your permission for the defendant Rose to ask the medical Questions himself of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Rose may propound the medical Questions to the witness on cross examination. The defendant Rose may leave his place in the dock and assume his position beside his counsel.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Professor, did I understand you correctly that you said that the experimental subjects of Dr. Reed, in the yellow fever experiments, were the doctors who conducted the experiments and members of the American armed forces, and outside of the fatalities of the physicians there were no fatalities in these yellow fever experiments?
A. Yes, that is according to my information.
DR. FRITZ: Your Honor, the defendant Rose thinks that the Questions which we intended to ask, because of the limit of time, will have to be shortened to such an extent that it would be better if he could begin the cross examination immediately in order to ask the Questions from a medical point of view, and ask them more briefly and use up less time.
THE PRESIDENT: As I stated, the defendant Rose may examine the wit ness as to purely medical questions.
He may begin to propound those questions now, if his counsel desires.
BY THE DEFENDANT DR. ROSE:
Q. How many members of the American armed forces were used in the yellow fever experiments of Reed? How many of them were there?
A. I do not know.
Q. Is it not correct that, outside of the two persons whom you mentioned, only coolies who had volunteered for payment were used?
A. According to my information, the two doctors whom I mentioned, Carroll and Lazar, and then American soldiers. I did not know that there were any natives used.
Q. Well, you do not know about it?
A. We do not have coolies in Cuba or in the West Indies.
Q. How large is the mortality in yellow fever?
A. How large? You mean--
Q. What is the mortality rate?
A. That is in epidemics or in the experiments of Walter Reed?
Q. Yellow fever in general.
A. I think it about fifty percent, if I recollect the figure correctly. It varies.
Q. Is it not correct that in the case of all races, with the exception of the Negro, the mortality rate is eighty to ninety percent?
A. I remember that it is quite high.
Q. Is it not correct that the number of experimental subjects in the Reed experiments was more than thirty?
A. I do not remember.
Q. Then there is no point in asking further questions about it if you are not informed about it.
You told the prosecution in regard to pages 187 and 188 from the Philippine Journal, regarding the plague experiments by Strong - you said that the experimental subjects had a temperature of one degree Fahrenheit, and that the harmlessness of the experiment was absolutely no surprise to the author because he could foretell the successful results.
Did I understand you correctly?
A. On the basis of his animal experiments.
Q. For what reason were criminals who had been condemned to death used for these experiments, in view of those facts?
A. I do not know.
Q. May I ask for Exhibit 513, please. The prosecutor, on Friday, read from this exhibit. I want to continue exactly at the same place where he stopped reading:
"Surprising as it may seem, the injection of these large amounts of the living plague organism have not given rise to any severe reactions. A few hours after the inoculation the temperature of the individual usually begins to rise. When the injection has been given in the morning, the fever may, on the evening of the first day, reach 38.9 to 39.4, but rarely has it touched 40 degrees Celsius."
Would you not like to change your testimony after hearing this, namely, that the temperatures were higher than one degree Fahrenheit? For 40 degrees Celsius is 104 degrees Fahrenheit.
A. As I recall, I did not specifically specify one degree. I believe I qualified by saying approximately one degree or so. If I specified only one degree, then I should change my testimony to say approximately one degree or so.
Q. And from this wording, "surprising as it may seem", does not one have to gain the impression that the assumption that the injection of living plague baccilli could not have any unfortunate consequences was not certain by any means at the beginning of the experiment?
A Well, I interpreted the expression "surprisingly as it may seem" as a rhethorical expression for the reader and not necessarily for Dr. Strong.
Q Do you know that the experiments conducted by Strong were criticized?
A I have never heard them criticized.
Q But that is mentioned in the further papers by Strong, in which he discusses these criticisms.
A No, I have not seen that.
Q The experiments by Strong were conducted in 1905, and they were published in 1906. This injection with living plague bacilli was one of the most important advances in the fighting of plague. Can you tell me the reason why it took twenty years before this discovery was introduced into practice?
A No, I cannot. That is true of a number of medical discoveries. For example, sulfanilamide had been made, before it was applied in practice, some ten to twenty years.
Q Yes, but that was for because the chemical-therapeutical qualities of sulfanilamide were not known. After these qualities were known, it did not take twenty years before it was used in practice. But these details about the development of plague vaccines are not known to you personally?
A Not that Colonel Strong was criticized for his work.
Q And also not the difficulties, why it took twenty years before plague vaccines were introduced into medical practice?
A The specific reasons in this case are not known to me, but I do know that in other cases there is quite a lage between the original discovery and its application in practice.
Q So it is not known to you that the criticism regarding the danger of this method and the possibility that the plague bacilli could become virulent again was the reason for waiting twenty years, for further scientific development?
A I am mot familiar with that.
Q Do you know that Strong himself, in further publications, reported about the application of this method with monkeys, which died of the consequences of this injection of the plague vaccine?
A I am familiar with the fact that he used other animals in his studies, but I do not recall the details.
Q Well, I shall go ever to another point.
Moreover, from Volume VII of the Philippine Journal of Science, you submitted pages 290 and 291. That is the paper by Strong regarding beriberi. Did you read that paper yourself?
A Yes, I read the paper, and then I had photostats made of these two pages indicating that volunteers were used.
Q In addition, you also discussed the matter with one of the authors of this paper, did you not?
A That is correct; Dr. Crowell.
Q Did I understand you correctly, that you said in your testimony on Friday that none of the experimental subjects died?
A Yes, I said that to the best of my knowledge none of the experimental subjects died.
Q And since you read the paper yourself, as you just confirmed to me now, may I perhaps, in order to refresh your memory, ask you to turn to page 379 of this paper? I have put a white sheet of paper in that place. Moreover, the tables 4 to 7 of this paper. Perhaps for the benefit of the Tribunal I may read the important lines.
On page 379 it says:
"The patient gradually sank and died at 2 P.M. on the following day."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Rose, from what book are you reading? Will you please read into the record the title of the publication?
DEFENDANT DR. ROSE: The Philippine Journal of Science, Volume VII, Section B, page 379.
BY DEFENDANT DR. ROSE:
Q Further down it says: "Necropsy: One half hour after death."
The tables 4, 5, 6, and 7, which follow page 414, are anatomical presentations regarding this. Will you please convince yourself?
(Volume submitted to witness)
After having looked at this text, would you not like to correct the statement you made that there were no fatalities?
A Yes, there is a fatality. I do not know yet what it was due to, though.
Q I thought you read the paper.
A Yes.
Q Well, now, if you now want to read over all those pages which describe the case history of this man, unfortunately too much of the time that is made available to me for questioning you will be lost. Therefore, I shall now proceed.
Is beriberi a serious disease?
A It depends upon how far it advances.
Q Well, you have read the paper through and therefore you know that the case histories of the 29 patients are described exactly in this paper, and how serious degree of illness these patients had. Do you agree with me that beriberi is a disease which causes serious damage to the heart and to the nervous system?
A Yes, if it is permitted to go to a point where serious damage occurs.
Q Yes, if one lets it proceed to the extent that the patient dies of it, then, after all, it has proceeded pretty far.
The paper says that the experimental subjects could speak neither English nor Spanish, and apparently also not the native dialect which was spoken in Manila, but that one had to speak to them through interpreters in their native dialect. They were apparently illiterates.
Do you consider that persons of that kind are able to judge the significance beriberi experiment?
A I think so, when beriberi is endemic in the region from which they come.
Q Well, you know just as well as I do that beriberi does not occur in the mountain regions of the Philippines.
A No, I am not sure of that.
Q But in any case you agree with me, that beriberi is such an important problem that the experiments by Strong, from an ethical and scientific point of view, were justified to their entire extent?
A I have heard no criticism of those experiments.
Q And you yourself do not criticize them either? You know the paper after all, do you not?
A Yes. I read the paper the latter part of December, so all of the subject matter is not familiar to me now.
Q But in any case, at the time when you were reading it, you did not have any misgivings about it, did you?
A No; I was primarily interested in finding out whether the subjects were volunteers and whether they were offered a reward. That was the part of the paper which I had photostated.
Q Yes, but after all, in order to make a photostat one first has to have read the paper.
A Yes.
Q Now I want to go over to the malaria experiments in the American prisons. Exhibit 516 contains a written statement which was given to the experimental subjects regarding the danger involved in the experiment before they declared their willingness to participate in the experiment. We are apparently concerned with several different experiments. The experimental subjects had it pointed out to them that they would he infected with the Chesson strain of malaria. Can you tell the Court what kind of a malaria strain that is?
A No, I cannot.
Q But if I tell you that this is a very well-known strain of malaria tropiod, can you confirm that?
A I confirm that, but I don't want you to believe that I am an expert on malaria.
Q Will you please tell the Tribunal what the malaria which is caused by plasmodium vivax is called in English?
A Vivax.
Q Is it not called benign tertian?
A Yes, that is right, and it is subject to relapses.
Q That is the scientific name of the type of malaria that is caused by plasmodium falciparum?
A. I do not offhand know.
Q Can you confirm to me that the scientific name is malaria tropica, or malaria perniciosa?
A I do not know.
Q Is malaria tropica considered more dangerous than benign tertian?
A Yes, I am sure of that.
Q The judgment of a Dachau court has been submitted to the Tribunal here. This judgment concerns itself with the malaria experiment of Prof. Schilling. In this judgment it is laid down that 300 to 400 persons during the course of the malaria experiments conducted by Dr. Schilling died or are supposed to have died of the consequences of malaria infection. The prosecution witness Vieweg stated here that Schilling worked only with plasmodium vivax, benign tertian. On the other hand, it is well-known, and you have confirmed that in the American malaria experiments they worked malaria tropica, and we are both in agreement that malaria tropica is considerably more dangerous than malaria tertiana. May I now ask you whether fatalities occurred in the malaria experiments in American penitentiaries?
A If fatalities have occurred, I have not heard of them
Q Did you see the reports about these malaria experiments?
A No, I have not read the reports on the malaria experiments. I just simply know Dr. Arvin, who is supervising the experiments at Stateville.
Q Mr. McHaney, the prosecutor, informed us here that in the American malaria experiment no fatalities occurred. Of course, he did not state where he got this information, and of course he was not under oath either when he made that statement here. But I have to tell you that Prof. Schilling is supposed to have experimented on almost 1,000 experimental subjects. Now does it not even though you are not an expert on malaria, on the basis of your general medical knowledge not appear somewhat peculiar to you that in an experiment with the benign malaria there is supposed to the a fatality rate of 30 to 40% and in experiments with the dangerous form of malaria no fatalities occur?
MR. MC HANEY: I object to the question being put. It necessarily must be a hypothetical question. I don't think it contains all of the necessary hypotheses to give us any probative value from an answer to the question that has been put. If we do not know the condition of the experimental subjects who are used in the two experiments, if we do not know the methods of treatment given to the two different groups of experimental subjects, and I have particular reference to the proof on the use of pyramidon in Schilling's experiments, if we don't know certain other factors concerning the treatment and the care given the patients, I do not see that an answer from the witness to the question put can have any probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
BY DR. ROSE:
Q Were the natives in the Philippines during the years 1905 to 1912 that is, during the time when Strong was carrying on his experiments there with human subjects American citizens, or from the racial point of view and according to their nationality were they regarded as non-American?
A I do not know. My recollection of political history in the Philippines Islands is not certain.
Q But in any case you personally are convinced, are you not, that Prof. Strong conducted his experiments with natives, not because he considered them racially inferior, but that he used them as experimental subjects because the government of the Philippines did not make any other subjects available to him, and he personally in the knowledge that his experiments would serve medical research and thus all of humanity, was not very much interested in the nationality of the experimental subjects.
AAll I know is that they were prisoners condemned to death, and, according to Dr. Crowell, volunteers.
Q You submitted a document to the Tribunal which was given the Exhibit No. 518, regarding Veintimillas typhus investigations. You said that the experimental subjects were volunteers. May I ask you how you know that? I know the paper very well, and in the paper itself it is not stated.
A I am not sure that I said they were volunteers. It states that for this purpose we selected 48 persons from 30 to 40 years of age and on whom no previous typhus infection was suspected, according to anamnesic or historical analysis.
Q But do you have any other sources or information than the paper itself? Did you speak with Veintimillas himself?
A I fell quite sure that I did not testify that volunteers were used in this article.
Q Then I must have misunderstood you. At least over the microphone that is what I heard, and I made a note of it.
A That may have been implied, the way they were being submitted, and the questions came in, but I know that volunteers were not specifically states in this particular article, and in the same way they were not specifically stated in the plague experiments of Col. Strong.
And when I found the word "volunteer" was not specifically included in the experiment of Col Strong I called up Dr. Crowell and discussed the matter with him. I could not do that in the case of this article. And I wanted to point out that on page 343 it is stated: "It was obvious that typhus fever in men could be produced by such inoculum, and as we considered it unnecessary to expose human beings to the risk of a certain infection, we therefore relied on guinea pigs for control cases.
Q I am familiar with that. Are you a expert in the field of testing typhus vaccines?
A No, I am not an expert in the field of typhus.
Q But perhaps you know just because of this fact which you just pointed out, namely, on the basis of the fact that no human controls are available, the entire experiment conducted by Veintimmilas and of the typhus experts is not considered to have any probative value?
A No, I do not know that.
Q But you do know, don't you, that the reaction of an animal to an infection does not prove anything in regard to what the same infectious material would cause in human beings?
A I do not know that to be true.
Q But you submitted this paper, this article by Veintimillas and in this paper the experiment by Franciscassa is mentioned. He conducted a similar experiment and he used human controls, that is, infected and non-immunized persons. Are you familiar with that experiment?
A I am not familiar with that experiment.
Q But it is mentioned in this papers? Did you overlook it?
A I did not look up the references cited in this paper.
Q But this fact, that he used controls who had not been vaccinated, is mentioned in this paper by Veintimillas, over and above that, do you know that Blanc and Baltazzard conducted a number of vaccine tests of that type, in which the persons who were vaccinated were infected with virulent bacilli, as well as other control subjects?