A. No; I have already mentioned the influenza vaccination this morning and the vaccination against typhus.
Q. Was this work finished with your vaccinations in Schirmeek?
A. This was the first ster; I wanted to develop yet a vaccine against epidemic typhus itself, that is, with louse typhus virus, In the course of the summer of 1943, this work was performed.
Q. Then, if I understand you correctly, you said that at the end of May 1943 the end of the first part of your work was reached and that you continued your work. Will you please briefly describe your work after May 1943.
A. As I have already said, we wanted to try to develop a living typhus vaccine against louse typhus, and in the course of the summer of 1943, we did so.
Q. Lot me interrupt you a moment, witness. I should like to stick to the chronology of the document, if possible. You are speaking of the summer of 1943. I assume that you mean July and august. From the meantime, however, we have a document of the 15th of June 1943. Perhaps we can discuss it at this point and discover how this letter came to be written. That is Document NC-305, Exhibit 295, on Page 73 of the English Document Book XII. It is a letter from you dated 5 June 1945 to Oberstarzt Professor Dr. Rose. Will you please toll us how this letter came to be written? You write, "In supplementation of our telephone conversation" perhaps you will tell the Tribunal what proceeded this letter.
A. This is a letter referring to the establishment of a plant for producing vaccine. Professor Rose visited me in Kay 1943 and. we discussed two Questions, first of all the possible establishment of such a manufacturing plant, and also my taking over a position as consulting hygienist. That was the pre-history of this document.
Q. You speak of the.establishment of a production plant for vaccine. My next question refers to that. I quote from this document, NO305, the last sentence, "My calculation is not right therefore, but, as Mr. Giroud indicates, thirty to forty persons are still required monthly for the manufacturing of 100,000 doses." You said this refers to the establishment of a production plant for vaccine but this formulation, thirty to forty persons needed for the reduction of 100,000 doses monthly, but the prosecution drew the conclusion that thirty to forty experimental subjects were needed. Can you please explain that?
A. This report is a correction of the telephone conversation between Professor Rose and myself. I gave him the number of persons needed as personnel for the production plant. This statement had not been quite right; thus I corrected myself in this letter. I said that to produce 100,000 doses per month one would need a personnel of thirty to forty persons. I took these figures from a letter from Professor Giroud who told me upon my inquiry how much personnel he needed in producing vaccine.
Q. Then this has nothing to do with the experimental subjects, witness.
A. No, it has nothing to do with any experimental subjects.
Q. Now, will you please look at Document NO-306, Exhibit 296, page 74 in the English Document Book 12. It is a letter from Professor Rose to you, dated 9 June 1943. Mr. Rose writes that based on your original papers which he enclosed he had worked out a proposal for the inspector for setting up a production plant for vaccine. Do you mean the one that Rose and you had agreed upon? Or what connection does this letter have with any human experiment allegedly carried out by you?
A. This letter, too, has nothing to do with any experiments on human beings. Professor Rose merely said that he made an application for the establishment of a vaccine-producing plant, enclosing various documents. This second paragraph is an inquiry by Professor Rose whether he had heard anything from Department I and refers to my appointment as consulting hygienist with Air Fleet "Center", which later became Air Fleet "Reich". The next sentence, "It will take some until 2-F comes out with a new research order," and so forth, was referring to the approval of money for the assignment on typhus research. I think I have explained the letter now.
Q. You said that the camp doctor of Natzweiler asked you for help and that you declared yourself willing to help in cleaning up the camp, especially in vaccination. So far, you have spoken of your work at Schirmek. When did you begin your work in Natzweiler proper?
A. It was my intention in the summer of 1943 to begin vaccination in the Natzweiler camp, but then unexpected difficulties arose which I must go into, because I think they are of significance for this trial. Professor Hirt, whose name I believe has been mentioned here repeatedly, the director of the Anatomical Institute in Strassbourg, was a member of the SS and researcher of the Ahnenerbe. As SS officer he had learned through the camp that I wanted to perform vaccinations there. He then intervened because he thought if persons outside the SS or the WVHA wanted to work in the camp in some form or other we had to have approval for this, quite aside from the fact that I had beep asked to perform these vaccinations, etc. Professor Hirt told the camp doctor and myself that he was ready to get this approval and asked me to make a request to this effect to the Institute for Military Scientific Research. I had no connection with the SS or any sub-organization of the SS, nor did I know the inner organization of the SS. The application was made in the summer of 1943, I cannot remember the wording of the application exactly, but Hirt sent it on to the agency in question. I only know that the application said that I had asked for permission to vaccinate a certain number of camp inmates.
One had to make the limitation because I could produce the vaccine only in small quantities since the technical conditions did not yet exist at the institute for large-scale production. In this letter to Hirt I pointed out that there was no danger in vaccination with the new vaccine but that we had to expect a more or less strong reaction, especially a fever reaction in accordance with the variances in the individuals. I also pointed out that the people to be vaccinated had to be in good physical condition, so that they should be in more or less the same physical condition as our soldiers. I said this in order to conform with the general vaccination regulations. After some time I received from the Institute for Military Scientific Research an announcement that my request would be granted.
Q. Professor, on page 75 of the document book will you please look at Document NO-120, which is Exhibit 297. It is a letter from the Reichsfuehrer SS, Personal Staff, Institute for Military Scientific Research, dated 30 September 1943. It is signed by Mr. Sievers, and it is addressed to the Director of the Institute for Hygiene of the Reich University, Strassbourg. Mr. Sievers writes:
"I confirm receipt of your request of 16 August 1943. I shall be glad to help you and have accordingly contacted the proper source to have the desired personnel placed at your disposal."
Is this the letter you meant, witness, when you said that you were given approval in principle to carry out these vaccinations?
A. Yes, this letter created the basic prerequisites for performing the vaccinations. If we disregard the fact that for epidemiological reasons the vaccinations were justified and even necessary, this letter I believe gives us a justification to perform them.
Q. Now, were you able to carry out the vaccinations?
A. No, that wasn't as simple as that unfortunately - I say "unfortunately" because precious time was lost and 1 was interested in protecting the camp as soon as possible, at least to the extent that there was no longer any danger of typhus. I informed the camp doctor of the con tents of this letter and asked that I be allowed to commence the vaccinations, but a considerable time passed and not until November did I receive notice that we could begin with the vaccinations.
Through Hirt.'s intervention, therefore, the whole affair had not been helped; it had even been delayed. Then, when I received the first hundred prisoners. I looked at them and I found that they were in such a condition that they were quite out of the question for vaccination. They were in very poor condition. I must say that they were prisoners that came from Auschwitz on the transport; I think eighteen of the people had already died. In such a group one really had no right to perform a vaccination. I did not do so and refused for medical reasons.
Q.- And what did you do then, witness?
A.- I informed Hirt of this. I wrote to him frankly that these people were out of the question for vaccination and I asked for men in good physical condition.
Q.- Professor, will you please look at Document NO-121, Exhibit 293? It is in the English document book on page 78, and in the German on page 81. It is a letter from you to Professor Hirt, dated 15 November 1943. Do you mean this letter when you say that you wrote to Hirt? I shall read briefly:
"On the 13th of November, 1943, an inspection was made of the prisoners that were furnished to me by the SS-WVHA, in order to determine their suitability for the tests which have been planned for the spotted fever vaccines."
Is this the letter?
A.- Yes, this is the letter of 13 November 1943. I may point out in this letter that I asked for a hundred prisoners in good physical condition, as only in this way could I expect results which can be used for purposes of comparison.
Q.- Professor, I have something to put to you from this document which is perhaps in contradiction -- or which may be interpreted to be in contradiction -- to your testimony hitherto: You say that you wanted to vaccinate these people and the first sentence of the document seems to indicate that. You write, "their suitability for the typhus vaccinations." Further down, however, in the document you speak of testing a new vaccine. Again, further down, material which can be compared." One might conclude that these are not vaccinations but experiments. Is this not in contradiction of your testimony?
A.- No, that is not in contradiction of my statements. It is apparently necessary for me to supplement my statements by saying the following: As I said, in the Natzweiler Camp I wanted to vaccinate a fairly large number of prisoners. The vaccine was ready as far as the laboratory was concerned; it had been tested in animal experiment; it had been tested in self-experiments, and on a small group of volunteers.
I therefore know that it aid not involve any longer danger for persons vaccinated and that the use of this living vaccine did not bring about any manifest disease. But when a new vaccine is used for the first time in practice it is to a certain degree an experiment, since the tolerance has still to be determined and that can be determined only on a large number of people. The dose still has to be determined, and the result of the vaccination still had to be checked on a large number of people. So I admit it is no doubt true that the use of a new vaccine for the first time in practice on a large number of people could still be considered an experiment. I should like to add that in the first large-scale application the titer values and blood were examined, of course, temperature taken and all other observations were carefully made, in order to get definite final impression of the effectiveness and tolerance of the vaccine. We had to do that; it was out duty. It was a big responsibility to introduce a new vaccine like this, even if one had already experience in a small experiment on one self and volunteers. But there in this trial the word, "experiment," has been grossly misused. In this sense our vaccinations were not an "experiment," They were tests and not experiments with any uncertain goal or purpose. One can hardly speak of criminal experiments here. And in every medical journal in the world, on almost every page, we find experiments at the sickbed, and I don't, think anyone has any objection to this word. And as far as human experiments are concerned, I should like to refer to advertisements which snow the public attitude of an American firm, in picture magazines which I have seen myself: antiseptics like Listerine, where they speak of human beings on whom tests have been made as guinea pigs. For this reason alone I think the word, "experiment," is used in different senses.
Q.- One term has not been cleared up yet in this document, and that is the last words, "comparable material," Can you please explain what that means?
What did you mean by "comparable material"?
A.- That means that the investigations indicated have already been made and that the results were to be compared with one another, so that one can have really useful median results. The individual values of every immunologist varies considerably according to the constitution and general physical condition. That was one of the reason why I was very careful to get only persons in good physical condition for vaccination, since persons in poor condition react quite differently. Besides, I must point out that according to the general vaccination regulations, vaccination of any type can only be performed on healthy people, and I wanted to observe this rule strictly.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I am now coming to another subject. I should like to suggest recessing now. I think this would be a good point.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; the Tribunal will be in recess.
(A short recess was taken.)
MARSHAL: Persons in the Court room will please find their seats.
THE Tribunal is again in session.
THE PUBIDENT: Counsel nay proceed.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q: Professor, one concluding question in this matter. You said that you intended to carry out vaccinations in Natzweiler Concentration Camp in order be immunize the camp against typhus. You further stated that these intended vaccinations were experiments in so far as they were to test the tolerability of the vaccine, is that so?
A: Yes. That is correct.
Q: Another question - in this document 121 which we discussed last it is said that the first group of inmates that were to be made available to you for vaccination were selected from other camps, and further below you said, that prisoners were sent to you. One could draw the conclusion that these were therefore purely experiments and were not quite in accord to do with the immunizing character of the camp. Perhaps you *** could make this clear to us.
A: Regarding these first protective vaccinations the same is true as I said before, namely, that I had no place to produce the vaccines, but could only produce small amounts of vaccine there. Those were the reasons why I began vaccinations with 100 persons in Natzweiler. Regarding the choice of the selection of the persons to be vaccinated I said already that I had no immediate influence on that. I could, only do this for purely medical reasons and that is why I when the first prisoners refused, to carry out any vaccinations at all.
Q: Now the fact that the prisoners first to be vaccinated came from other camps is not to be attributed to your influence. If I understand you correctly that was a measure taken by the competent SS office over which you had no influence?
A: Correct. I had no influence over where the persons to be vaccinated came from.
Q: Then you don't know why prisoners from outside were put at your disposal to be vaccinated?
A: - No, I don't.
Q: Now, witness, I turn to the next document on page 80 of document book 12. This is document No. 122, exhibit 298, correction, page 79. It is a letter from Rose to you of 13 December 1943. In this letter the frequently mentioned Copenhagen vaccine is mentioned. Herr Rose writes here that the testing of many vaccines simultaneously gives a clearer picture of better or worse results of a method that the testing of one vaccine alone. Farther there is mention of the experiments in Buchenwald. Let me ask you first of all, Professor, what did you know in December 1943 when you received this letter about the so Buchenwald experiments?
A: I heard the details about these Buchenwald experiments only from this trial from the documents. Moreover, the report on the part of Dr. Ding at the consulting conference in 1943 must be mentioned and I heard of Professor Rose's protest against these human experiments at that time.
Q: You then had no connection with these Ding experiments?
A: I never worked with Ding and know of his work only from the report at this consulting conference.
Q: The Prosecution has drawn the deducting, regarding these Buchenwald experiments that the efficacy of the vaccine was tested by subsequent infection with pathogenic virus. Will you please say what you have to about that?
A: This attitude on the part of the Prosecution ignores the fact as I said several times, I never had a strain of virus which is pathogenic for human beings, consequently I could not carry out such infection as the Prosecution seems to assume. Such subsequent infection with humanly pathogenic virus I never thought of carrying out because I was working as a scientist with my own material and wasn't testing mixture for other vaccines at all.
A. As I have already said, on occasion of Aherinesliev, I vaccinated some of the inmates there, with an attenuated virus in order to minimize the reactions to the vaccine. I thought that in the next vaccination that I should carry out these primary vaccinations with dead vaccines and I wanted to use such a vaccine that used a dead virus and I wanted to use a dead jolls for that. In the meantime between Schirmek vaccines and the new vaccinations in Natzweiler, I had carried my work to the point where I no longer needed a dead vaccine. But the previous history was this; Professor Rose, by sending me this Kopenhagen vaccine thought he was supporting me and giving me assistance. And he suggested that I include this dead vaccine in my series of vaccines. Let me say, regarding this Kopenhagen vaccine that it was a liver vaccine which is said to be much more effective than the other dead vaccines, particularly than the lung vaccine; and it is said to be much more effective, as I have said and from it, in dead form a better protection could be expected. Now, it was my point of view that if via should distribute over 100 persons again and would not get other persons there would not be enough persons vaccinated to be of value for comparisons. So, I didn't see any reason for introducing the Kopenhagen vaccine. I told this to Professor Rose and Professor Rose answered in the form as we have seen in the letter which constitutes this document. This would have given some basis for comparisons between the two vaccines, However, I didn't use it because I was no longer interested in it since in the meantime we had succeeded somewhat in attenuating our own virus that we could do without it, I heard no more from Professor Rose about this vaccine and never received the Kopenhagen vaccine.
Q. Then you say, Professor, that this was a dead vaccine, namely the Kopenhagen vaccine, and there was also your own dead vaccine which was to be used for a preliminary vaccination to reduce the reactions to the living vaccine. However, this plan, although originally intended was never carried out?
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. Now, Professor, we stopped with your letter to Professor Hirt of 15 November , '43, in which you ask him to make other prisoners available. Was this request met later and could you carry out vaccinations in Natzweiler later with your new vaccine?
A. Yes, I received the person I had requested and in December of 1943 and January of 1944, we could carry out these vaccinations. I did these vaccinations in two groups of 40 persons each with my living attenuated virus which is no longer humanly pathogenic, and this I want to state explicitly.
Q. Professor, please describe these vaccinations breifly to the Tribunal.
A. First, a group of 40 persons was vaccinated. The first vaccination was done with one cc. intramuscularly. One was a vaccine made of Murine typhus virus vaccine. In no case did local reactions of fever or other symptoms occur. The second vaccination took place a week later. This was again one cc. of vaccine introduced intramuscularly. This was no longer pathogenic to human beings. To complete the story I have to say that between the Schirmek vaccinations in May and these vaccinations, I had truned to the production of a louse typhus vaccine; and this vaccine contained living virus. Before it was used in Natzweiler as a vaccine , it was tested on ourselves that is with some collaborators, to ascertain the tolerability and effects. We were roughly ten persons, members of the institute and also students. Only then did we use the vaccine with the prisoners in Natzweiler. Four weeks after the last vaccination, there were the usual serological examinations. The Weil-Felix reaction was used. The average titer, let me say, was better than in the vaccinations with the rat virus. It was, namely, 2,000. I need not go into these details. The general reactions were normal reactions to innoculation, fever and headaches; but there were no manifestations of actually typhus as a result of innoculations.
Q. You said that you carried out these vaccinations on the first group through intramuscular injections, if I understood you correctly, but you are speaking of a first group so I assume there must have been a second group. How did you carry out the vaccination of the second group?
A. It occurred to me that instead of injecting the vaccine, the vaccination could be carried out by scarifying the skin in the same way that you scrape the skin when you make a, small pox vaccination. Therefore, same as with the first group, with the same living virus vaccine, I vaccinated 40 additional persons with scarification of the skin. Let me point out the experiments on myself and on my assistants were carried out in the same way, with scarification of the skin. The reactions were comparatively mild, corresponding roughly to the reactions to a vascular typhus vaccine reactions so that we had no misgivings about undertaking this kind of fascination.
Q. You described the reactions of yourself and the volunteers as very slight. Now, the reactions of the prisoners were stronger, were they not?
A. Yes, they were stronger again. And then we can only explain that by believing that the general state of health among the prisoners was lower than, among my associates, but there was no such thing as a natural manifestation of typhus or any fatalities.
Q. Professor, this work was done as you saw around December of '43 and January of '44. We have a document from this time which I should like to discuss with you at this time. This is Document No. 138, Exhibit 300. It is in Document Book 12 on Page 81. This is a correspondence between the Reich Research Council and yourself. First of all I am interested in here in your letter to the President of the Reich Research Council of 12 January 1944, Particularly number two which concerns itself with typhus. You refer here to vaccinations that you carried out, and you say, and I quote, "The effects could be tested on 8 persons so far...." What effects are you talking about here?
A. This report to the Reich Research Council refers to vaccinations that I performed in Schirmek, and I am mentioning here the one group of 8 persons of May, 1943? that were vaccinated with murine typhus vaccine. This letter then, was written roughly at the same time as my vaccinations in Natzweiler with the louse vaccine. I was referring to this work when I said that experiments were underway to ascertain whether with an epidemic provazeki similar results could be obtained.
Q I can assume, Professor, from the contents of this document that the effects you are referring to are the Weil-Felix reactions, is that so?
A Yes, that is so.
Q In the last sentence of this, vaccine the concept of the antiinfections effectiveness of the dry vaccine is mentioned; it is to be tested on human beings; we shall return to that concept later. You have already said that there were no fatalities and no manifestations of typhus as a result of these qualifications, is that so?
A Yes, I can repeat that. There were no manifestations of typhus and there were no fatalities.
Q But, Professor, to this statement I shall have to put to you something that was said before this Tribunal, and which is quite different from what you have just said. I am referring to the testimony of the witness, Edith Schmidt. On 9 January 1947, on page 1371 of the transcript she said that you had carried out vaccination experiments on 100 to 150 persons in Natzweiler, and of these experiments of the control group roughly 50 are said to have died. Miss Schmidt stated that she knew this, from notes that your technical assistant Miss Crodel had made about the typhus experiments at Natzweiler. Can you please tell the Tribunal what notes Miss Schmidt was referring to; in other words how do you explain her testimony?
A It is utterly impossible for Fraulein Schmidt to have seen records of notes of my vaccinations in Natzweiler in which fatalities occurred, because as I have already said no one died showing the vaccinations. These notes of Fraulein Crodel's that Fraulein Schmidts saw do not refer to the vaccinations. That can be seen from the numbers that Fraulein Schmidt mentioned, because I only vaccinated 80 persons at Natzweiler, not 150 to 200 as the witness stated. This number and the concept of a control group the witness apparently took from later writings, which is to be discussed hereafter, but I can imagine what notes she could have been referring to.
Q Please do that witness :
A The witness states correctly when these notes were made, because she says the sun was shining on the pages. That must nave been in the spring or summer of 1944. This corresponds with was time when the typhus epidemic was raging in the camp. Thus I am. assuming that Fraulein Schmidt really did see genuine notes of some sort.
Q Then witness you ere saying that these were notes that were made in the course of an epidemic that took place in Natzweiler, can you tell us the time when this epidemic broke out?
A So far as I can state from memory the epidemic broke out in February or March of 1944. Gradually the number of cases became very large, and in the summer it represented the very considerable number of roughly 1200.
Q Let me point out in this connection that this epidemic is confirmed by two prosecution witnesses, Grandjean on 7 January, page 1099 of the transcript, and the witness Holl on 3 January 1947, page 1058 of the English transcript. Both witnesses stated that in the spring of 1944 and also in the summer following there was a severe typhus epidemic in Natzweiler. The witness Grandjean gave the number as 1200 to 1400 cases, as I remember, thus this would agree with what you have just said, witness. Now, the most important question in this connection, did the outbreak of this epidemic have any connection with your vaccinations, what I mean is were your vaccinations the cause of this epidemic?
A No, there was no connection between the epidemic and our vaccinations. Our vaccinations had already been concluded in January 1944, and the first typhus cases occurred in February or March, and they were brought to the camp from outside, either by transports or from other camps. Let me repeat that the sick people were taken from outside camps to Schirmek where they were treated in a special department, because there was no way of isolating them in the outside camps.
Q Let me point out the testimony of Grandjean about 6 January, page 1115, who says the same. He said he was a nurse in the typhus department of Natzweiler, and the sick persons whom he had to tend to came from the various commandoes and from that camp itself.
Now, witness, you said that the notes that Fraulein Schmidt mentioned could be in some way related to this epidemic, perhaps you could explain that to the Tribunal at greater length.
A In order to be sure of a diagnosis that typhus really existed in a certain case one carried out the Weil-Felix reaction test, and took blood tests which were sent to the competent medical clinic to be analyzed. This clinic was in my hygenic institute in Strasbourg, Thus in the course cf time we received a large number of blood samples of persons who were suspected of having typhus and were actually sick with typhus. This was a perfectly usual diagnostic examination, such as is usually carried cut when typhus is expected, in order to clarify the diagnosis. It is apparent that I was interested in these cases to got a complete picture of the serobogical behavior of typhus patients. In my institute a doctors' thesis had been written on this subject, and for this reason the notes of these cases, if Miss Schmidt really saw the genuine notes, were supplied with notes so that we should not have to wait for further material. In this way it is of course quite possible that Fraulein Schmidt did add up 50 deaths.
Q You say then that the cases Frl. Schmidt mentioned were not deaths that occurred in the course of these vaccinations, but were deaths in the course cf cases of typhus that occurred during the epidemic in the camp?
A Yes, that is so. That can be seen from the fact of the time relation between the deaths of the epidemic and the alledged deaths of the vaccinations. The epidemic was in the summer. ** Miss Schmidt states that correctly, and I must assume that the notes she saw were the records of the serological tests, and which she falsely construed.
Q Fraulein Schmidt said a lot about your work and yourself, Professor; we shall have to go into her testimony at considerable length; first, about herself, witness, she said that from 1 February on she was active under you in the hygienic institute, and gave the serological bacteriological courses to the students, is that so?
A Yes, it is. Miss Schmidt from 1942 or 1942 on she was a technical assistant. She was an assistant instructor of courses, and made the preparations for the practical students courses and assisted in the teaching of the courses themselves. Miss Schmidt, however, was not used in other technical work because she didn't have the necessary training, particularly not in the field of typhus, and for this reason she could not have had sufficient knowledge to be able to evaluate these duties.
Q Then the witness simply prepared the students courses, but had nothing to do with the research work, is that so?
A Yes.
Q Professor, the witness said that she was the only assistant in the institute who was not vaccinated against typhus, is that so?
A No, in the institute only that personnel was vaccinated against typhus that actually worked in the typhus laboratory. Miss Schmidt was not vaccinated because she was not used in this work. However, despite the fact that she was not vaccinated not realizing the danger she was running and the danger she might be causing for others, she entered the laboratory, although she was not permitted to do so. No one who knows typhus would do so.
Q. Was this prohibition something unusual; was this something that can be traced back to the desire to maintain secrecy?
A. No, that was not the reason. This was purely a precautionary measure. When working with the germs of dangerous diseases you have to be most careful and laboratories of this sort in all clinics are run with the same precautions. No one is to enter laboratories who does not work there. This had nothing to do with maintaining secrecy.
Q. The witness tried to make her testimony sound particularly weighty by saying she was the only Alsatian in the institute. She probably intended that would indicate that she was the only one that could tell the real truth about the work. Is this statement of hers correct?
A. That testimony is already refuted by the effect that on this witness stand there was another Alsatian, Fraulein Eyer, from my institute. There were at least ten out of the nineteen assistants Alsatians whom I could name now. In other words that testimony of Fraulein Schmidt is not correct.
Q. Now, Professor, further regarding Fraulein Schmidt's testimony. When asked by the prosecution whether you did breed a virulent typhus virus in your laboratory, she replied, "Yes, and this was done with guinea pigs." She also stated that you, witness, had taken these guinea pigs to Natzweiler in order to infect the prisoners with them. What truth is there in that?
A. This statement is also completely wrong. It is correct to that extent only that we did keep infected guinea pigs in the laboratory with typhus virus because, as every specialist knows, the guinea pigs are, so to speak, the virus reservoir from which we could draw our virus whenever we wanted it, but this does not mean that the virus in these guinea pigs was pathogenic various. On the contrary, let me put that again that the more often a virus comes through an animal the more deputed it becomes.
Q. When you say pathogenic, you mean pathogenic to human beings?
A. Yes, I always do when I use that term. Let me repeat again, we did not have any virus pathogenic to human beings. Miss Schmidt said we took the infected guinea pigs to Natzweiler to infect the prisoners. For the reason I have just given that is practically impossible; moreover, you cannot artificially infect human beings with typhus in the way that Miss Schmidt seems to imagine and let guinea pigs run around and spread the germs. That is not the way you get typhus. That is not so. If a person is artificially infected with typhus, and this we know from literature, then it must be done from the fresh blood of another human being who has just gotten the disease and this must be transmitted to the healthy person who is to be infected. As we know from literature, that is the most certain way of infecting a person artificially with typhus. Every other way of infecting is uncertain and is therefore not to be used in any sort of experimentation. However, Fraulein Schmidt is correct in saying we took guinea pigs to Natzweiler; however, these were nice healthy guinea pigs and they were taken there because the prisoners were breeding guinea pigs in Natzweiler and also breeding mice, because that gave them a great deal of pleasure, I offer for collaboration of this the statement of Attendant Kauten.
Q. Then you are saying, witness, that Miss Schmidt had nothing to do with your actual research work, that she was not active in the typhus laboratory and that she was never alone or with you in Natzweiler. In this case, where do you think Miss Schmidt received all the knowledge she alleges to have and to which she testified here?
A. This knowledge she got from us or from me directly during our intermissions for tea at the institute. All the workers got together and the work was talked of without any effort to keep secrecy. Miss Schmidt was frequently at these intermissions for tea and heard all this there or later and reported on it later in this trial. The picture that she drew up is altogether incorrect, however.
Q. Something else that Miss Schmidt said seems important to me. Witness, she was asked if she knew of the Blanc vaccine from the Pasteur Institute in Tunis.