We developed a living vaccine, not on the basis of our own experiences and research, but we made use of experiences of others. I should like to mention primarily the work of the French Typhus Research, Blanc, Baltasar, and assistants, Legrer, and Lecolle, When vaccinating a vaccine must be used that gives anti-infectious protection, and in general in the case of virus diseases successful vaccination is also achieved only with living virus. Let me mention the; examples of smallpox, influenza and yellow fever. In all these cases these are vaccines made from a living virus, but it is true that this virus has been mutated, that it is no longer pathogenic for human beings. It's pathogenic characteristics have been suppressed and have disappeared, but the virus retains its anti-infectious efficacy, This change is accomplished in two ways, either by passing the virus through an animal, -- this usually effects changes in the virus attenuating it, and sometimes affects mutation in the virus attenuating it, and sometime's affects mutation in the virus. I 'donit have to go into that, that would take up too much time.
Q. If I understand you correctly, witness, you roll as a scientist was to develop a vaccine from living virus, in other words from a nonpathogenic virus, but nevertheless had the anti-genic effect, namely the effect of protecting the vaccinated person against getting the disease later by infection, is that so?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Now, witness, nobody is reproaching you for having produced vaccines, but it is said you tested the effectiveness of your vaccines in a concentration camp. The prosecution call d these virulent, and you say that they were non-pathogenic. At any rate that is the Way I understood the reproach of the Prosecution, but first before we go into this, witness, will you please tell the court how did it ever happen that you in this matter came into contact with the concentration camp Natzweiler?
A. The development of typhus throughout the war was that typhus was not a purely war epidemic, but because of the many transports, military, civilian and prisoner of war, and others typhus had been brought into Germany, too, especially in the overcrowded camps, and lack of sanitary installations, there was considerable danger from typhus, particularly where people assembled who came from the east. I have only to say that in the Auschwitz camp, for example, but also in many other prisoner camps in the east there had already been extensive epidemics. Typhus pressed further and further into Germany. Dr. Rose has already told you how many cases of typhus there were, and this shows what constituted the great danger. Every closed community like a camp is a great source of danger in itself, of the danger of typhus, not only the danger of an epidemic within the camp, but also an epidemic that spreads to the. surrounding civilian population. Most of the concentration camp inmates were used to work outside the camp in factories, and those came into contact with the civilian population, so you can easily sen the danger of contagion. Nov, in brief, the camp commander, and the camp doctor in the course of the spring of 1943 turned to me to ask me whether they could have my assistance in combating this danger.
Q. Witness, a preparatory question, first, did you have any connection with the SS, with the concentration camp, as such?
A. I had no connection with the SS or with the concentration camps or with any office in charge of them.
Q. How come the camp commander and the camp physician of the Natzweiler concentration camp turned specifically to you.
A. As director of the Eugenic Institute I had a rather large sphere of activity in Alsace, and of course it was known in the concentration camps, too that my offices were an Strassbourg. For this reason the camp turned to me for the help it wanted in many matters, including the obtaining vaccines and help in disinfection of the camp, and so forth, matters which perhaps we shall turn to later.
Q. You say then that the camp turned to you because you were the hygienist in the Alsatian district around Strassbourg?
A. That is correct.
Q. You said also that the camp commander or doctor asked for your assistance?
A. Yes, thru was an obvious thing for him to do, because I was right there in Strassbourg.
Q. You said further that it was roughly in the spring of 1943 that these requests for assistance were made to you; was there an. epidemic in the camp already, at that time, or why did they think they needed your help?
A. At that time there was no epidemic in the camp, but the general epidemeological situation was such that an outbreak of typhus was expected at any moment, especially since transports were continually coming from the east which were infected with lice, and people who ware already infected, with typhus, and other camps in the neighborhood who had already had their first cases of typhus.
Q. Professor, what mean's did you have available to help these camps physicians; please limit yourself; first of all your vaccines?
A. I have already said that there are various vaccines available made from dead virus, and also those male from living and attenuated virus. Getting virus at that time was vary difficult. The superior officers simply could not make the effective vaccines available, and in order to carry out any plans all sorts of decrees and orders existed in Germany for the planning of systematic vaccination should the danger of typhus arise.
Q. Now, witness, you have described your work in the field of vaccine production, namely that of producing a living apathogenic virus, did you begin this developing and working on your own initiative, or did some other agency refer the problem to you?
A. Living typhus virus was being manufactured in foreign countries at that time in groat quantity, particularly in France where they had had a groat deal of experience with such living virus. I have already mentioned Blanc, Baltasar, Lecolle and Legrer, and during the war protective vaccines were carried out with such living virus in North africa. There had already boon millions of such vaccinations, and of course this permitted experience to be gathered. The fact that the French, who saw this groat danger also saw the necessity of such largo scale vaccines, and they had also had a few fatalities. As I said, we had to use a virus strain for those vaccinetious which was it is true was alive and still pathogenic for animals. In ether words, a virulent virus which the pathogenic effect of which on human beings was suppressed to a large extent and that is the essence of all living vaccine manufacture, and it must occupy the central position in our considerations here. You bring about such mutation only by passing the virus through animals, and every specialist knows when the virus is passed through animals it is attenuated there more than by being cultured or bred, for instance, in chicken yolks or by being preserved in a vaccuum, or at very low temperatures and only somewhat attenuated in strain.
Q. witness, you still haven't answered my question fully whether you carried out his work on your own initiative or on the basis of an order, directive or assignment that came to you from elsewhere?
A. In developing this living typhus vaccine -
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you can answer that question in a very few words. Just answer the question propounded to you by your counsel.
A. (continued) This was a research assignment, as I just said, there was no military directive or directive.
Q. Witness, you have already described how research assignments wore distributed this morning, and told us that in general the assignment was made on the application of a scientist for such an assignment; now what was the case hero, did you work on this problem first and then receive an assignment or was there already an assignment in existence and then you began to work?
A. Oh, I see. All this work was done entirely on my own initiative, and then I saw to it that I got the necessary research assignment so that I could have the necessary funds for the work from the Reich Research Council, and then from the Radical Chief of the Luftwaffe. That is where I had my assignment from.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, before we adjourn may I inquire from the counsel how long the examination will continue, and how long other defense counsels will take in their examination of the witness Haagen.
DR. TIPP: I have already said I will need roughly a day and a half. We have already eliminated some of the questions, I don't know if I can finish this afternoon, but I shall not need so much time tomorrow morning. What time my other colleagues will need I cannot toll you.
MR. HARDY: Do I understand Dr. Tipp is going to take the rest of the day, in spite of the fact that we sit until 5 o'clock?
DR. TIPP: I shall use all of this day, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other defense counsel desire to examine this witness while he is on the stand?
DR. TIPP: Dr. Nelte just tells me that he will need a quarter of an hour and my colleague Krauss for Rostock fifteen minutes.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I cannot say definitely now how long I shall need because I do not know how many of the questions I intend to put to the witness will be made unnecessary by Dr. Tipp's examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is only asking for an estimate.
DR. FRITZ: One hour.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, during the noon recess will you instruct your witness to answer your questions directly and simply without expostulating on matters while scientific and important the Tribunal has already been advised. Kindly instruct him and to explain him to answer those questions.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 (Thereupon the noon recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION.
(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 18 June 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
EUGEN HAAGEN - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Professor, before the recess you said that you began your worm in the field of typhus on your own initiative and that in the curse of this work y u attained research assignments from the Medical Inspector of the Luftwaffe as well as the Reichs Research Counsel; now could I ask you if in your applications made before the various assignments were issued, wore any details given about the work which you planned to carry out or the work which you already had carried out?
A. No details were given, of course, merely the problem as such was dealt with.
Q. You have already described to the Tribunal your work on this problem, it was to find a vaccine produced from living virus, a virus no longer path genic for human beings which however contained the qualities of the virus.
A. Yes that is true. Our work was limited to the development of a living vaccine and this work was based on the great experiences of foreign offices, especially the French scientific Blanc; the technical side was always carried out in animal experiments.
Q. Now, witness, Did you succeed in finding a vaccine of the type described?
A. Yes we did succeed from a so-called murine typhus virus strain, from rat typhus we developed such a vaccine. The weakling was brought about through animal experiments through cultivation in chicken eggs and thirdly through conservation procedure.
Q. Was this vaccine then tested for its effectiveness and if so, how?
A. Yes, the vaccine was tested for its effectiveness, first, of course, by animal experiments for its immunizing qualities. After this quality had been proven the first vaccinations were undertaken in order to test the effectiveness and the tolerance on human beings. This was done on volunteers.
Q. Where did you get these volunteers, Professor?
A. First of all I served myself, then the members of my institute and a number of students of the University.
Q. Now will you please tell the purpose of these experiments?
A. When one has produced a new vaccine one must test not only its effectiveness, but also its tolerability, That can be done only on human beings, animal experiments are not sufficient. At a certain stage it always becomes necessary to try it on human beings.
Q. In these vaccinations on members of the institute and students, you tested the tolerability of the vaccine; the immunizing effect of the vaccine, if I understood you correct, could not be proven by these experiments?
A. Yes, the immunizing effect can also be determined. One needs merely to make the Weil-Felix reaction, which has been mentioned in this trial, to make sure in the body serum there are protective oodles against the typhus germ. T is test, I mention this because mistakes have been made here, is used not only to diagnose the disease, but also to check its immunity reaction to find the protective bodies after vaccination.
Q. We will come back to that later, witness. Now when did you achieve your aim, when did you have a vaccine of the type described and when did you develop it so far that it could be used?
A. In the spring of 1943.
Q. And when was this vaccine first used actually on a large scale or when was it first used at all?
A. The first vaccinations were carried out in May of 1943 in the Schirmeck internment camp, which belonged to the Natzweiler concentration camp. The vaccinations were performed on persons in special danger.
Q. This morning, witness, you mentioned the request of a camp doctor of the Natzweiler Concentration Camp and Schirmeck was no doubt under him; may I ask whether these Schirmeck vaccinations go back to the request of the camp physician?
A. I do not quite understand your question.
A. Please tell mo whether the vaccinations performed in Schirmeck originated with the request of the camp physician?
A. Yes, Schirmeck and Natzweiler belong together. My vaccinations there were in connection with all the work of the camp.
Q.- Then you used this vaccine for the first time in May of 1943 in Schirmek. How many persons did you vaccinate?
A.- Twenty-eight persons were vaccinated altogether.
Q.- Did. you have any influence on the selection of these persons; that is, were these persons selected by you, or who selected them?
A.- I did not have any direct influence on the selection of these persons, only to that extent that I told the camp administrator and the camp doctor that we could only vaccinate people who were in a more or less good condition of health, since if this were not the case it would not- correspond, to our German vaccination laws. To that extent I did have some influence.
The selection was made according to the point of view that persons in special danger of typhus were selected, persons who were in the socalled east block of the camp. New transports were always coming from the East, lice infected, for the most part, so that one could court on a considerable typhus danger. In this mart of the camp the danger was greater than in the parts of the camp where there were Germans and Alsatians who did not come from the East.
Q.- You said, witness, the persons were selected from the group of prisoners in special danger of contracting typhus. You just mentioned the east block. Can you tell us what nationality these persons were?
A.- As far as I can remember they were of various nationalities, There were a quite number of them who spoke German, so that one could talk to them well.
Q.- Now, witness, I should like to ask you to describe how these vaccinations were carried out. Perhaps a preliminary question first. Why did you vaccinate only 28 persons? Why did you not vaccinate all the inmates of the cans there?
A.- At first I could produce the vaccine only in very small quantities. My laboratory facilities were very limited. If I had wanted to vaccinate a whole camp I would have had to have a production workshop.
That is the reason why we vaccinated only a small number of people.
Q,- Now, Professor, please describe how the vaccinations were performed.
A.- Vaccinations were performed on 28 persons altogether, in several groups. The first vaccination was of eight persons. They were given one injection of 0.5 CC of the vaccine into the breast muscle in the customary manner.
The second group consisted of 20 persons, divided into two sub-groups of ten each. The first group -- Let's call this Group A -- was also given 0.5 CC of the vaccine intramuscularly.
Sub-group B, the Last ten persons, were first given a vaccination of 0.5 CC of a killed typhus vaccine produced in the Robert Koch Institute. Then, eight days later, there was a second vaccination with a living vaccine, a aim 0.5, intramuscularly. I should like to say that the first vaccination with the killed vaccine, which I have just mentioned, was performed for two reasons: first of all, in order to be able to compare and see whether this preliminary examination produced more antibodies; and, in the second place, whether this preliminary examination with killed vaccine might cause any reactions or might reduce the reactions of the living vaccine.
At the same time, I carried out protective vaccinations on persons outside of the camp, on volunteers. They were again performed in such a way that there were three injections this time: the first, 6.25, the second 0.25, and the third injection 0.5 CC, of the living vaccine.
Q.- The court will be especially interested, witness, in the reactions of the persons after this vaccination. Can you tell us that?
A.- In the first group of eight persons who were given 0.5 CC of the living vaccine only once, three had a reaction that was a short fever of over 39 degrees. The rest of the persons, however, had no reaction.
In the second group, among the ten persons in Group A there were no noticeable reactions. In the other group there were very negligible symptoms, in some cases only a headache and dejection.
Typical symptoms of typhus, brain symptoms or vessel symptoms, and other symptoms, did not appear in any case.
The same was true of the third group. Here again there was no reaction.
I must say in this connection that I used a vaccine produced from rat typhus virus, I must point that out because later, in Natzweiler, I used the classic epidemic or louse typhus virus vaccine.
Q.- Professor, after the vaccination did you watch the well being of the persons vaccinated?
A*- Yes, of course. After the vaccination I was in the camp frequently, I looked at the persons who had been vaccinated and was taken at their fever charts. After four weeks a final blood sample was taken to perform the Weil-Felix reaction and to see by it what degree of immunity they had developed.
Q.- Professor, you have already mentioned the Weil-Felix reaction, May I assume there the test for immunization was performed by the WeilFelix reaction?
A.- Yes, The immunity test was performed with this serological reactions, the Weil-Felix reaction. I believe it has already been discussed here, so that I need not describe it again.
Q.- Perhaps you will tell us briefly, Professor, what is determined in the Weil-Felix reaction expressed in figures.
A.- You hear the term "titer value".....
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I missed one point. He spoke of three groups. I didn't get the third group; I had an interruption there and didn't hear what the third group was. Could he repeat that please?
THE WITNESS: The third group was eight persons who were vaccinated in three periods, the first injection being 0.25 CC, the second 0.25 CC, and the third 0.5 CC of the living vaccine.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q.- And that was the group of volunteers?
A.- Yes, that was the group of volunteers.
Q.- Very well, witness.
You were interrupted when you were speaking of the titer values. Will you please explain what that is?
A.- In the serological determination of immunity, a certain amount of the vacteria are brought together with a certain serum. The serum is diluted, and the highest dilution which is reached we call the final titer, and that is used. If a dilution of one to five hundred gives a reaction that is an agglutination, that is the titer.
I believe that is enough.
Q.- You said that after the vaccinations you determined the immunity of the various persons from the blood serum, I assume that was done by determining the titer values. I don't believe that the Court is interested in the individual figures, professor, I should merely like to know what was determined about the Immunizing effect through this test.
A.- The practical result is that with this living vaccine one can achieve a higher degree of immunity, according to the serological reaction, at least, than with the killed typhus vaccine. If I may give some figures -
Q.- I don't think that is necessary, witness.
If I am at all informed in this fiole, witness, these titer values can be determined when a person has survived a real case of typhus. Now, can these Liter values, after vaccination, be compared with the titer values in the blood of a patient after he has survived the disease?
A-. Yes, that is possible, I have already said that the reaction is an immunity reaction which can also be determined after disease, but I must say that the test must be performed very soon after the survival of the disease, because the amount of antibodies in the blood is soon reduced. If we want to get the comparative values, then we must make the test very soon after the disease or very soon after the vaccination. Then we can find that, as a rule, persons who have recovered from the disease have a very high titer, of 10,000 or 12,000, perhaps; but those vaccinated with killed vaccines have a titer of only 100. The first results with the living vaccine gave a higher value, up to 2,000.
Q. Then the r suits were very favorable, witness?
A. The results were quite favorable, yes.
Q. But were they entirely satisfactory, or were you still working on the development of the vaccine?
A. These vaccinations with rat typhus vaccine. The ideal would be to vaccinate lice and typhus with a vaccine produced from lice infected with typhus. We must expect that even though the diseases are closely related, there are certain differences, referring to the degree of etiogenic quality. The aim was to produce a louse vaccine.
Q. After this scientific interruption It us go back to the facts, witness. In the course of these vaccinations at Schirmeek were there any deaths?
A. No, there were no deaths in the vaccinations at Schirmeek.
Q. Witness, your testimony is in contradiction to the testimony of a prosecution witness whom we heard here. This is George Hirz, who testified here on the 8th of January. His testimony is on Page 1310 of the German and 1293 of the English record. Hirz said that at Schirmeek you injected 20 to 25 persons and the following days these had a high fever. The fever is said to have began after 36 to 48 hours and two of these people died.
The witness also said who had vaccinated him, the head of the camp and the Captain the hospital. Will you explain the differences between your testimony and the testimony of Hirz?
A. It is true that these three people, the camp head and the deputy camp head and the nurse, that was Hirz, were vaccinated with the customary vaccine on the basis of an order that camp personnel, where there was any danger of typhus, had to be vaccinated regularly against this disease. Now, the personnel was in much less danger than the inmates themselves; so in order to help the camp doctor, I supplied the vaccine and vaccinated these three persons, but I reserved the living vaccine for he persons who were in real danger. Those were the reasons why there were these alleged distinctions made.
Q. When the prisoners came to the camp they were given a careful examination by the camp doctor. In the interests of preventing disease in the camp, that was necessary. Therefore,here I merely had t o observe that they were free of external symptoms of disease and to determine how strong they were.
Q. Then if I understand you correctly, you say that the medical. examination was performed by the camp doctor, who made them available to you for vaccination?
A. Yes, the camp doctor and the head of the camp, together.
Q. Now, Professor, is the statement of the witness Hirz correct that after 36 to 48 hours these persons had a fever of up to 40 degrees Centigrade, 104 degrees Fahrenheidt?
A. I have already said that aside from the first group there was no special reaction, Hirz himself did not know the first group, he says himself. In the second group I just testified there were no fever reactions or any other reaction.
Q. But you said, witness--oh, that was the first group.
A. Yes. And even here the reactions were quite customary such as occur in other vaccinations, too.
Q. But Hirz also says that at the end of the fever, seven to eight days, the persons became disturbed and their speech was interfered with, and in three or four cases they stammered. Do you know anything about that?
A. When I visited these persons I did not observe any such symptoms. None of them complained, and I am sure that if any one observed those symptoms on himself he would immediately go to the doctor. Everyone was interested in doing away with these symptoms, I did not observe any disturbances or stammering. If Hirz had seen them at the time, I am convinced he would have reported them to me. He was a nurse for these persons and was responsible for them; I cannot imagine that he would have fulfilled the interest of these prisoners by keeping these things secret.
Q. You say that neither you observed such symptoms nor did Hirz report them to you. Now, witness, Hirz also said that after two days two of these experimental subjects, as he calls them, or vaccinated persons, as you call them, died. Did you observe this, witness?
A. I have already said that in the smaller experimental group no one died, because I am sure I would have noticed it and I visited there. When I looked at these persons who had been vaccinated I would ordered an autopsy in the case of such deaths to determine what the persons died of. Not only I would have ordered or carried out this autopsy, but the camp administration would have ordered it. One could get the idea that these people perhaps died of typhus. I must say that after a two day incubation period no one has ever died of typhus. The shortest time for deaths, that is the shortest incubation period plus length of disease was ten days to fourteen days. And these early deaths are supposed to be cases with a high pathogenic incidence directly from human beings. For this reason alone it is quite impossible.
Q. Witness, you said that in such cases you would doubtless have had an autopsy performed.
You said you heard nothing abut the deaths, and that therefore there was no autopsy; is that right?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. I should like to remind the Court of the testimony of Hirz on Page 1298 of the English record, 1316 of the German record, who said that he immediately wrapped the bodies in paper and had them burned in the crematorium at Natzweiler. Not even the Prosecution witness was able to say, or perhaps did not want to say, how Prof. Haagen reacted to these deaths. Now one more question about this witness Hirz,. Here on the witness stand Hirz was asked, "Now witness, you realized that these experiments performed on the 29 to 25 persons were experiments for the determination of typhus in connection with the typhus disease? A. Yes, I had not the slightest doubt about it. I have fifteen years of practice behind me." I do not know, witness, what this testimony means. Perhaps I am not enough of a specialist to judge, but I may assume that you can explain what the contents of these statements is.
A. As to Mr. Hirz's statement, I can only say that I cannot understand it at all. I have no idea what experiments to determine typhus in connection with this disease are supposed to by. First of all, there ware no experiments to determine typhus since there was no typhus. And I don't know any method for performing experiments on human beings to determine typhus. If by experiments, one means the removal of blood in the Weil-Felix reaction- that is something else, but that is not what he is talking about here. The witness gives as reason for his expert knowledge, that he had been a pharmacist for 15 years. That he has such a long practice behind him and considers himself an expert then in the field of contagious diseases I don't quite understand that either. But I think one can expect that from a pharmacist--after all, pharmacists do sell vaccines for public diseases in pharmacies, one would really expect him to know what vaccine reactions are and what a real disease is. And then in the first group whore a reaction did appear, he didn't know that group at all.
Q. You have already said, witness, something about Mr. Nirz's testimony that the prisoner Atloff told him that what Mr. Hirz describes was the second experiment. It seems to me that supports your statement that Mr.Hirz knew nothing about the first group, that is the eight persons. Can you tel us anything else, Professor, to explain the contradiction between your testimony and that of Mr. Hirz?
A. Hirz speaks only of one injection definitely, not of two. The vaccinated persons whom he took care of all had two injections at intervals of several days. If he had really been interested about the vaccination, he must have known that two injections were performed. That is one point. Then he says that the needles were not changed. He seem to have overlooked something there again: that for every injection a new injection needle was used which was brought from Strassbourg already sterilized, and that the technical assistant changed them, whoever knows anything abut scientific work knows that in such important work one does not use the same needle for several persons, quite aside from the fact that this is one of the most elimentary demands of asopsis.
Here again he probably didn't observe very carefully.
Q. Now, professor, the question interests us whether in the camp of Schirmeek, through artificial injection of pathogene virus you wanted to produce typhus* Did you perform such experiments at Schirmeck?
A. No, no such experiments were performed. I don't know what the purpose would have been.
Q. The if I may sum up, professor, you were introducing a vaccine into practice after it had already been tested in animal experiments in self-experiments and in experiments on volunteers. But experiments as 1 have just described were rot performed at Schirmeek, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct. We were merely introducing a vaccine which was already being used on a large scale in other countries. perhaps I may add that at first I intended to perform further vaccinations in the Schirmeek cap in order to protect this camp as far as possible, but that in the course of the next month, I realized that the Natzweiler camp was entirely different in its whole structure and that there was much greater danger of typhus in this camp. Therefore I shiftted my interest from Schirmeek to Natzweiler.
Q. Now before we go on to the work at Natzweiler, witness, I should like to clarify the following point with you. Mr. Hirz testified here that the prisoners used for vaccination were not volunteers; but you say, Professor, that your point of view is that experimental subjects should be volunteers. Can you please clearly answer this question and explain the points of view which are important in your opinion in vaccinations particularly?
A. The prisoners whom we vaccinated were not volunteers. I would like to say the following on that point:
As I have already said, I share with most scientists the point of view that the prerequisite for any experiment is the self-experiment. This was not merely a theory in my case. Every one who knows my work or saw my work knows that I performed a number of self-experiments and contracted a number of infections. I need not go into that now, but of course I tested all vaccines on myself. In this present case, if we dispensed with the clement of voluntariness, I must state that according to our rules and laws in Germany, vaccinations are ordered wherever there is danger of an epidemic. This situation existed in Schirmeek and Natzweiler. There was a decree for this camp from the SS-WVHA, and decrees were sent out by the chief doctor of concentration camps. Our vaccinations were performed within these legal regulations. In the records of the trial, I find again and again the point of view that I had taken poor, helpless prisoners and treated them with murderous germs. But if one knows my work well, one can see that on the contrary I was combating those diseases. There can be no question of any criminal experiments here. I want to object very definitely to being called a criminal when I was merely fighting diseases.
Q. Well, Professor, you say that in this case you dispensed with having volunteers because it was not an experiment, but rather a vaccination, and because it is your point of view that for vaccinations it is legally permissible to make them compulsory, that you were merely carrying out a legal measure under international law?
A. Yes, this was a vaccination with a vaccine which was already being used elsewhere in the world within the framework of general vaccinations carried out on the basis of the existing regulations.
Q. Professor, aside from the vaccinations against influenza which wore touched upon this morning and the vaccinations against typhus which we have just been discussing, did you do any further work at Schirmeek?