We have seen in the troops, that in many units 50% to 60% of the men contracted hepatitis which, of course, greatly diminished the effectiveness of the troops. We have also seen that the disease is carried home and that after recovery the germ remained a considerable period of time in the body, so that when the disease is overcome, the individual is a carrier of the disease and can become dangerous. It was very important to determine the method of transmission of hepatitis. I have already said that certain conclusions could be drawn from our work. For example, that the virus is found in the intestines show that the possibility of transmission through feces and sputum existed. For this reason alone there was a great need to find not only the cause of the disease, but also to clarify the method of transmission.
Q. So far you have told us, Professor, that your work covered the causes of the disease and also the method of transmission. On this latter point, the prosecution has alleged that you and Dr. Dohme in the concentration camps Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler carried out experiments, first to discover the causes of jaundice and second to determine the method of transmission and thirdly to test a vaccine. The prosecution has alleged that experimental subjects in these two camps were infected with epidemic jaundice; what have you to say about that?
A. I can only say that no such experiments were performed by me or at my institution either in Natzweiler or Sachsenhausen.
Q. Fitness, to prove their assertion, the Prosecution has submitted essentially only one document. This is an affidavit by Dr. Rudolf Brandt. It is in document book 8 on page ** 1 of the text. I should like to quote number five on page 2. It is document No. 371, Exhibit 186.
I shall quote No. 5:
"Dr. Eugene Haagen, Oberstabsarzt and consultant in hygiene for the Luftwaffe, had also been doing research work at the Natzweiler Concentration Camp in an effort to discover an effective inoculation against epidemic jaundice.
As I recall, Dr. Dohman collaborated with Haagen in 1944, at the Concentration Camp Naztweiler and experiments on involuntary human beings were conducted which resulted in deaths."
Witness, will you please comment on this statement of Dr. Brandt?
A I have the document here with this statement and testimony of Dr. Brandt. I must say that from the beginning to the end this statement is untrue. Neither I nor Dr. Dohmen, nor both of us together, ever performed any human experiments with hepatitis epidemica; I never performed any such transmission experiments.
Q Witness, the Tribunal remembers that when Dr, Brandt was examined as a witness he withdrew his affidavit on this point. He said that he had no knowledge of his own on the subject, that he was merely expressing assumptions and conclusions.
A next question, Professor, Did you collaborate with Dr. Dohmen in the field of hepatitis epidemica?
A No; there was never any collaboration with Dr. Dohmen in this field.
Q But Dr. Dohmen was in Strasbourg once. What was the reason for this visit?
A Dr. Dohmen is an old student of mine. In 1934 he worked in the Reich Health Office and I acquainted him with the methods of virus research. In Hamburg he continued to work on virus diseases, and it is no doubt primarily on the basis of his own experience as a military doctor during the war that he became interested in the cause of hepatitis epidemica. He worked at the Robert Koch Institute in this field. I need not go into that work any further.
In the years 1942-1943 he delivered lectures on various occasions I believe at the Vienna. Medical Society and also at the meetings of the consulting physicians of the Wehrmacht, which have been mentioned here. I noticed various differences, and I was interested in clarifying these differences. On the occasion of a preliminary discussion in Hohenlychen at the meeting of the consulting physicians in May of 1944, I repeatedly expressed my opinion to other colleagues, my regret that I had not been able to consult with Dr. Dohmen on this important subject, that we had been working in what I might call splendid isolation. It seemed to me that he had made considerable advances in the field of investigating the causes, but experience and precaution made it seem advisable to me to compare our findings.
Thereupon I issued an invitation to Dr. Dohmen to come to Strasbourg so that in the laboratory there we could discuss and clarify the debatable points.
Q Professor, will you please look at document NO-299, Exhibit 190? It is in Document Book VIII, on page 8. It is a letter from you dated 12 June 1944 to Generalarzt Professor Dr. Schreiber, Academy of Military Medicine, Berlin. You write that through this letter you are renewing your invitation to Stabsarzt Dr. Dohmen. I assume that this is the invitation you were just mentioning; is that right?
A I have this letter here. Professor Schreiber was the decisive personality in epidemic research at that time. I sent the invitation to Dr. Dohmen in writing through him. I was repeating an invitation which I had already given orally.
Q Now, before I go on to Dr. Dohmen's visit, I have two more questions on this Document NO-299. You write in the second paragraph that Professor Schreiber should give you several thousand mice, or obtain them for you. Can you please tell us why you needed so many mice!
A I have already said before, when I was speaking of Professor Schroeder's and Dr. Becker-Freyseng's visit, that our animal experiment work required large numbers of animals, Our own breeding material was not adequate; I had to look around to see where I could get animals, in this case for hepatitis, in order to transfer the material from the patients and to breed the isolated virus by animal passage, to keep the virus strains alive.
Q Now another point on this document. In the last paragraph you inquire whether hepatitis research will be carried on in the future out of funds of the Reich Research Council or whether you are to ask for further funds from the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe. Did you later obtain money from the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe for hepatitis research?
A No, I never obtained funds from the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. The research work was carried out on the basis of an assignment and with funds supplied by the Reich Research Council.
Q Now, to go back to Dr. Dohmen's visit, did Dr. Dohmen actually come to visit you in Strasbourg?
A Yes, Dr. Dohmen came about the middle of July, 1944, for a few days. We discussed our animal experiment work and other laboratory work.
Q On this occasion did you visit the concentration camp Natzweiler together with Dr. Dohmen, witness?
A No. I am sure that Dr. Dohmen was never in Natzweiler. I was never there with him, and if he had been there alone I am sure I would have heard of it.
Q Professor, on this occasion, or perhaps later, did Dr. Dohmen say that he had carried out experiments in the field of epidemic jaundice in the concentration camp Sachsenhausen?
A I can not remember Dr. Dohmen speaking to me of the planning of execution of such a human experiment in Sachsenhausen.
Q Then I should like to show you a prosecution document, again from Document Book VIII, on page 3. It is Document NO-010, Prosecution Exhibit 187. It is a letter from the Reichsarzt SS and Police, signed by Dr. Grawitz, dated 1 July 1942. I do not intend to read this letter, but it says that in order to promote virus research it is necessary to transfer the virus to human beings and that Dohmen is to carry out these things in the concentration camp Sachsenhausen.
Do you know anything about this letter or this incident?
A I have this letter before me. I do not know this document and I do not know anything about the whole incident.
Q You just said, witness, that hepatitis epidemica is not a dangerous disease, but Grawitz, in this document, says that eight persons condemned to death are to be used as experimental subjects because it is to be expected that there will be cases of death. You have already expressed your opinion on this point, but I want you to comment on this assertion of Dr. Grawitz'.
A This assertion of Dr. Grawitz' merely proves quite clearly that there could not have been any expert involved in the matter, and not Dr. Dohmen either, because any doctor who ever worked with hepatitis knows that the contagion is not so great that, on the basis of experiments on eight persons, one can obtain a valuable result. And as I said before, I never heard of any deaths from hepatitis, so that as far as mortality is concerned I must call it a non-dangerous disease.
Q You have already said, Professor, that when Dohmen visited you in Strasbourg you did not visit the concentration camp Natzweiler and certainly did not perform any human experiments. I understood you correctly, did I not?
A Yes, that is true. I shall repeat that there was no visit together with Dohmen to Natzweiler, and that no human experiments were performed there.
Q.- I must correct myself on Document No. 010. I said the letter was dated the first of July 1942, but it is really the first of June, 1943. Now to go back to the human experiments. The Tribunal will remember the witness Edith Schmidt testified for the Prosecution here. She testified on the 9th of January 1947, Page 1378 of the English record. She said that in the field of hepatitis epidemica only laboratory work was carried out, but no human experiments. According to this testimony no human experiments were performed, at least not by you. And you knew nothing about other people performing such experiments. But the prosecution said that such experiments were planned, and submitted a number of documents. First of all, will you please tell us your own knowledge of the planning of human experiments in this connection.
A.- First I should like to repeat that I personally know nothing of any human experiments with hepatitis epidemica in Germany. I know, however, that experimental transmission of hepatitis to human beings was performed in England as well as in America. It is true that after the animal experiments were completed it has to be tested on human beings, how the transfer of hepatitis epidemica really occurs. As far as I remember, this work was first discussed in the hepatitis meeting at Breslau in 1944. This meeting was in June, 1944, under Generalarzt Prof. Dr. Schreiber. I have already said that he was in charge of epidemic research in the Reich Research Council. In this respect I should like to say he was the leading man in this field. At this meeting the hepatitis working in practice consisted of the internist Prof. Kalk, then Pathologist, Prof. Buechler in Freiburg, the surgeon, Prof. Zugschwert in Strasbourg, and myself. This collaboration of four medical officers of the Luftwaffe was purely a coincidence. The 5th colleague in what I have heard was a conspiracy of the Luftwaffe was Prof. Stein in Strasbourg, who was an Oberstarzt in the army and a consulting internist in the army. Following this hepatitis meeting, a correspondence went on between Gutzeit, who was the consulting internist of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Army at the time and who, as a clinician, was in a leading position in hepatitis research, between Gutzeit and myself.
Q.- Witness, will you please look at Document 8 Page 11, Prosecution Document NO-124, Exhibit 193. It is a letter with the head "consulting internist to the Chief of the Army Medical Service, 24 June, 1944." It is signed by Oberstarzt Gutzeit. The letter is addressed to you. I assume that you are thinking of this letter when you think of correspondence between Gutzeit and yourself. Is that so?
A.- This letter of the 24th of June 1944 from the consulting internist of the Army Medical Inspector I have before me. This is the letter I mean. Gutzeit refers to his statement at the hepatitis meeting in Breslau and he had said that the final proof of the nature of the germ, the various types of virus which had been found, was not final, and that for this purpose one had first to transfer the virus, since only in this may could the etiology and the method of transmission be clarified. He also said that he would make the preparations for such human experiments. At the time he did not know any details specifically about the nature of the experimental subject.
Q.- Well, Professor when you received this letter you probably wondered what experimental subjects Mr. Gutzeit was thinking of. Can you tell us what kind of experimental subjects you think Mr. Gutzeit had in mind?
A. I knew that Prof. Gutzeit had an opportunity to obtain the soldiers or students or members of his clinic for these experiments. I do not know whether Prof. Gutzeit actually carried out experiments of this nature. In any case, Dr. Dohmen, when he visited me in Strasbourg in July 1944 told me nothing about it.
Q.- Now, witness, about your own planning after -
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me it would be profitable if you would confine the examination of this witness more nearly to the charges against these defendants, or some of them.
We have heard a great deal about other people. I don't know what the witness is about to testify to, but so far there has been comparatively little concerning these defendants. Can't you bring out such matters that we desire directly concerning the issues before the Tribunal?
DR. TIPP: Mr, President, that is because the Prosecution has not explained on what the charges against Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng arc based. I do not know which documents are intended to be used against Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng. If Mr. Hardy will explain the individual documents that pertain to the charge against my client, I will be glad to limit my examination to that extent. It is not my fault. It is because the Prosecution has not clarified this point. I am now coming to the Kalk-Haagen letters which were submitted. It was not said what they were intended to prove, and, which is more important, against whom they were intended to be proof. Perhaps Mr. Hardy can help me on that point. Otherwise, I might omit some document which could possibly affect one of my clients.
THE PRESIDENT: I am of the opinion that there is some truth in what counsel says. Can the Prosecutor clarify any of these matters?
MR. HARDY: I have no comment in this respect, Your Honor. I think the record and the document speak for themselves. I might request, Your Honor, that I might be permitted to see the notes that Dr. Haagen is testifying from?
THE PRESIDENT: For what purpose? What is your reason for that request, counsel?
MR. HARDY: Because I have a feeling that the notes he is testifying from could contain questions and answers exactly the same as the notes I see before me on this podium, and I would like to compare them, merely for my own satisfaction, to compare them to see if these answers were all made out before hand.
DR. TIPP: It is a matter of course, Mr. President that such a com plicated scientific subject I could not present without very careful preparation.
Defense witnesses as well as Prosecution witnesses have made notes beforehand. Actually how it is done, I think, is the business of the defense counsel. I don't think that Mr, Hardy has the right to see the notes. He can merely object to the witness reading, and he has not done so.
THE PRESIDENT: If Counsel for the Prosecution is of the opinion that these notes which the witness is using from the stand were prepared by somebody else or counsel, he may cross examine him on that matter.
MR. HARDY: I wish to call to the attention of the Tribunal that these notes were obviously prepared by defense counsel. They contain the questions and proposed answers to each question and they are numbered up into the hundreds. If the Tribunal desires to look at them, they can see for themselves precisely just what I am referring to. I have no desire to cross examine on them, but they are more than notes which we use in American law to refresh the recollection of a witness. They arc precise and contain a sufficient amount in them so that the answer on the notes could be the answer to the question. And if the Tribunal looks them over closely we could dispense with the entire testimony of Haagen and introduce these notes, if Haagen will maintain that each answer therein will be the answer he will give from the stand. It will save two days of time. The notes will go in as a document or an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I was wondering why this testimony could not be given in the form of an affidavit. The Tribunal will now be in recess for a. few minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please take their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel nay proceed.
DR. SAWLIK (Counsel for Defendant Hoven): Mr. President, I request the Tribunal to rule that the Defendant Hoven may remain absent from this afternoon's session, in order to prepare his defense.
THE PRESIDENT; Upon request of counsel for the defendant Hoven, the defendant Hoven nay be excused from attendance before the Tribunal this afternoon, in order that he may consult with his counsel and prepare his defense.
DR. HOFFMANN(Counsel for Defendant Pokorny): Mr. President, I ask that the defendant Pokorny be excused from tomorrow's session, for the sane reason.
THE PRESIDENT: On request of counsel for the defendant Pokorny, the defendant Pokorny may be excused from attendance before the Tribunal during tomorrow's session, in order that defendant may consult with his counsel in preparation for his defense.
Counsel nay proceed.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I do not believe that the Tribunal has ruled on my objection to the use of these notes on the part of the witness, Haagen.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I emphatically object to this application by the prosecutor. You will recall that the witnesses for the prosecution had a large number of notes before them, as, for instance Professor Ivy, and had to have them before them. The defense made no objections to the way in which the prosecution handled its witnesses and I think there is no rule that the prosecution would allow the witness to have notes before him.
THE PRESIDENT: I will address a question to the witness. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, did you prepare the answers to the questions which you were consulting in answering the questions asked you, or did someone else prepare those notes?
A. The answers could have been prepared by no one else because I, alone, know about these things. Primarily these are scientific and medical problems of a specialized nature.....
Q. Witness, just answer the question: Did you prepare those answers or did someone else prepare them?
A. They were all prepared by myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection is overruled. Counsel may proceed.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, then it is my understanding that the Prosecution does not have the right to see the notes from which the defendant is testifying?
THE PRESIDENT: Not at this time. On cross-examination counsel may propound questions which may require the notes to be shown to the Prosecution.
MR. HARDY: Would it be possible to give the interpreters a copy of the questions and answers? The interpretation might be considerably lessened and made easier if they used such answers and questions.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, that would mean that I would be obliged to stick to the questions and answers as they are down here.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is necessary. We will proceed as we have been doing heretofore.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Witness, after this interruption we shall continue in our discussion of the last mentioned document. No, I will turn to a new document. Please take a look at NO-125, Exhibit 194 of the Prosecution, which is a letter from you to Prof. Dr. Gutzeit. In the first paragraph, regarding the fact that Herr Dohmen will come, I quote: "We shall then review all common Hepatitis questions and perhaps also set up the experiments together." I assume that the Prosecution immediate ly construed the word "experiments" as a criminal human being experiment and I want to know what experiments you were thinking of here.
A. This letter of 26 June 1944 I have before me in which, in the first paragraph, experiments are mentioned. What was meant here was animal experiments and microscopic examinations, but under no circumstances experiments on human beings. In connection with Dr. Dohmen's visit to me there was no thought of any such experiments. That can be seen from the next sentence, where I write: "I cannot at present definitely answer your inquiry about human experiments."
Q. Witness, you write further in the same document, that you have already arranged with Herr Kalk, that you should undertake that type of experiment with your material. Now, when you use this word "material", what do you mean? Did you mean human material--experimental subjects, in other words?
A. Our materials were the virus for Hepatitis which we isulated. This phraseology has nothing to do with human experimental material.
Q. Witness, can you say from this document how you would imagine that these transmission experiments would take place, of which there is mention here?
A. After we had isolated the virus and had some notion of how the transmission was to take place, it was, of course, necessary to close the circle and to undertake to clarify the transmission to human beings. On various occasions Professor Kald and I had discussed the progress of the work and since both of us, he as a clinician and I as an epidomologist, were interested in clarifying this important question, we also discussed it. However, as I said, this was only a discussion, without our arriving at any specific plans. We were agreed that we should carry out such experiments but that only volunteers would come into question as experimental subjects and they would be persons of some intelligence, so that they could observe and set down in writing their own subjective reactions.
We were thinking, primarily, of students from the Wehrmacht, namely from the Wehrmacht Student companies. Moreover, clinical examination and observation was absolutely necessary and this again could only be carried out in a clinic, or a hospital. Thus, as I have said, we were thinking of students as the persons who most appropriately met all these necessary pre-requisites.
Q. Now, witness, the next document in the same document book, page 14, Exhibit 195 of the Prosecution, Document NO-126. It is a letter from you to Kalk, of the 27th of June 1944. It is addressed to Oberstarzt Prof. Dr. Kalk with the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services, Saalow. You said this morning that your collaboration with Kalk, Buechler and Zugschwert, had no connection with the belonging to the Luftwaffe; but from the address of this letter the Prosecution will indubitably conclude, since it reads "With the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services" that you turned to Mr. Kalk because he was a member of this office. Can you please explain this?
A. It is a simple matter to explain. This letter has nothing to do with Kalk's official position as consulting specialist for internal diseases. Kalk had been bonded out in Berlin, and since I was in Strassburg I did not know where he lived but I did know that he had an office with the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services and that by addressing the letter to him there I would stand the best chance of contacting him. That is why I wrote to that address.
Q. Now, witness, in this letter you write: "I must proceed as soon as possible with the experiments on human beings. These experiments, of course, should be carried out in Strassburg or in its vicinity." Here the Prosecution exceptionally explained this sentence, on 9 June 1946, on page 786 of the transcript, and said that this reference to the vicinity of Strassburg refers of course to the concentration camp Natzweiler. Now let me ask you-did you actually intend to carry out these experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp?
A. Such work as the prosecution understands under human experiments I never carried out in a concentration camp and may I go into this at greater length when we are discussing typhus. As I have already said, we were thinking primarily of volunteers, and for the location where this clinical observation was to be carried out, we thought of the clinics or hospitals in Strassburg or those in Freiburg or in Heidelberg, all of which were immediately accessible. This also had the advantage that in all these 3 places there were student companies of the Wehrmacht.
Q. In the next sentence you say: "Could you, in your official position, take the necessary steps to obtain the required experimental subjects? " Now why did you turn specifically to Professor Kalk in this?
A. Kalk, as a consulting specialist for internal diseases for the Medical Services of the Luftwaffe, was in touch with the chief physicians of all Luftwaffe and other military hospitals so that the question of accommodating the volunteer experimental subjects could be most easily solved by him.
It was my view that the use of students from student companies would, as a basic principle, first have to be approved by the Chief of the Medical Service and since Kalk was living near him, it is obvious that I requested him to obtain this approval. Let me also point out that the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe had no fundamental misgivings about using volunteer students for our work, as can be seen from a subsequent decree, which permits protective vaccination with a new vaccine against influenza and which specifies that volunteer students could be used for such experiments.
Q. Professor, you know the general conditions which according to the prevailing principles of medical ethics regarding human experiments should precede experiments on human beings. Were these prerequisites met in your Hepatitis experiments, in your opinion, namely, were experiments on animals carried out before they were carried out on human beings?
A. Counsel, I suppose that I may regard this as a rather general question, since we did not carry out such preliminary experiments in the matter of Hepatitis; I spoke about these prerequisites already in another court; they would have been wet here too; first the conclusion of animal experiments until all possibilities were exhausted, then laboratory experiments, so far as these could be carried out, and finally, of course, also experiments on ourselves would have been carried out. In all such work, not only in testing vaccines but also in examining means of contagion, ets., we followed this basic principle; I may point out that I infected myself with various typed of virus, for example, with a virus which produces an inflammation of the brain, and I feel seriously ill as a consequence. Also, I tested an influenza virus on myself and received an inflammation of the lung. Then there were the vaccines we tested on ourselves influenza and new smallpox vaccines and also the typhus vaccines.
I am mentioning all this briefly so that you can see what a matter of course it was with us that experiments on ourselves should be carried out. I am of course not trying to set up some general postulate that every physician or research scientist should follow the same policy.
Q. Then professor, this was a matter of planning and considerations. May I ask whether this plan was ever put into effect as far as you were concerned?
A. I have already said several times that this was simply a matter of planning and discussion or considerations, and that such contagion experiments were not carried out ny us. I can only answer this question in the negative. All research in this field was interrupted by the effects of the war.
Q. In the field of Hepatitis did you receive a research assignment from the Medical Inspectorate, witness?
A. I did not receive a research assignment from the Medical Inspectorate but let me point out Document 137, Exhibit No.189, No. 5, where a research assignment from the Reich Research Council is mentioned.
Q You said already that your collaboration with Kalk, Buechner and Zuckschwert was independent of your membership in the Luftwaffe. Let me ask you in addition whether this joint work was ordered in any way, directed or supervised by the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe?
A No, there was no direction or supervision by the chief of the Medical Inspectorate. This was a purely research assignment that was entirely independent of our other official or military duties.
Q Did you ever discuss with Professor Schroeder these plans or the prerequisites that you have just described?
A I really can't recall details any more. It is possible that we had such discussions but, as I said, after three or four years I cannot recall the details.
Q Did you talk these matters over with Dr. Becker-Freyseng?
AAt most I discussed acquiring of animals for experiments which greatly interested Becker-Freyseng because of his work with the chief of the Medical Inspectorate.
Q I understood you to say, witness, that in July 1944 you once spoke with Becker-Freyseng, and I assume that the possibility you have just mentioned also refers to that conversation.
A Yes, that is correct; Becker-Freyseng and I had only one real conversation; namely, on the occasion of his, visit to Strassbourg in July 1944.
Q I turn now to the next point; namely, the yellow fever experiments. This charge in the indictment has been withdrawn already in regard to Becker-Freyseng by the prosecution, but Schroeder is accused of having taken a part in the yellow-fever experiments that are said to have taken place in the Buchenwald at Natzweiler concentration camps. This charge is based by the prosecution on the fact mentioned in the indictment that Schroeder must have known of these experiments because of his position in the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. Without going into the experiments, may I ask you to describe your papers and work in the field of yellow fever very briefly.
A In the field of yellow fever I worked in two different periods; the first time in 1931 to 1933 in the yellow fever laboratory in the International Health Department of the Rockefeller Institute in New York whither I had been called as a special associate to breed yellow fever virus; as I have said for the first time I succeeded in breeding this culture and on the basis of this a vaccine against yellow fever was developed which is used everywhere in the world now and which undoubtedly has already saved the lives of innumerable persons.
During the war the Robert-Koch Institute of which I was then a member received from the navy an assignment to manufacture yellow fever vaccine -- that must have been in the year 1941 -- and the president of the institute passed this assignment on to my laboratory; namely, the assignment to produce vaccine. The vaccine was manufactured according to the standard method. I need not go into that.
Q Professor, where did you get the virus that was used to manufacture this vaccine?
A I had taken the material with mo from the Rockefeller Institute in New York when I loft and had kept the virus alive throughout these years because scientific work in this field was enormously valuable. This was an already mutated and attenuated virus which was no longer pathogenic for human beings but was still very pathogenic for animals and for this reason it was characterized by us as highly virulent. I am saying this as an aside to clarify the question of pathogenic and virulent again. The navy, before introducing this vaccine, wished to have its tolerability tested as far as human beings were concerned and there were negotiations on the subject with the president of the Robert-Koch Institute and for the navy, with Flottenarzt Grawitz; and the latter negotiated with the National Health Office and a sanatorium was made available by the Health Office where the vaccinations took place.
Q Witness, what was the name of the sanitorium?
A In Berlin, named Wittenau.
Q I may remind the Tribunal that the witness Edith Schmidt mentioned these vaccinations in Wittenau when she testified here. She said that experiments on human brings were carried out with the yellow fever vaccine at the insane asylum Wittenau.
A We used about ten persons. We received the serums from the asylum to test this immunizing vaccine and first of all we used the so-called mouse test which first makes sure whether the immunication is complete so that experiments of that type on human beings need not then be carried out. This is a process used throughout the world.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it doesn't seem to me that all this testimony on the background of virus, yellow jaundice and yellow fever is necessary. The question here is whether or not experiments were conducted, as alleged in the indictment, for yellow fever research; were there ever any human being experiments conducted; if so, were they conducted on concentration camp inmates without their consent; were any plans made for such conduct of experiments; wore the plans carried out; if so, did the research orders issue from the Medical Inspectorate or from the Reich Air Ministry; or where did they issue from? It seems to me five or six questions along that line would cover the entire field. This Tribunal has heard, considerable evidence concerning the effect of various fevers and so forth. The witness is here to testify as to whether or not those experiments were conducted and whether or not they originated from the office of Schroeder or Becker-Freyseng. I don't see the necessity for covering all these other incidental or immaterial matters.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness testified that the experiments were carried out in Berlin. We will await the next question by defense counsel.
DR. TIPP: If the prosecution has its witnesses testify that human being experiments were carried out without making clear who was responsible for them, I then think Mr. Hardy should not be surprised if I try to clarify this question now.