A: Yes, I think he was a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe.
Q: To whom was he subordinated?
A: I can't tell you.
Q: Don't know?
A: No, I don't know.
Q: What about Graefe?
A: Graefe was assigned to me in the Hygiene Institute, and then from 1942 on he was also an assistant in the Institute.
Q: He was a member of the Luftwaffe, wasn't he?
A: Yes, he was a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe, although he was detailed to me by the Luftwaffe.
Q: To when was he subordinated?
A: Militarily he was subordinated to Luftgau Physician #7.
Q: Technically to you?
A: Scientifically or technically subordinate to me, yes.
Q: Who was Krediett?
A: That was a Dutch prisoner doctor in Natzweiler.
Q: He knows all about your experiments, doesn't he?
A: Yes, he assisted in them.
Q: Where is he?
A: I can't tell you. I assume he is in Holland.
Q: Who was Paulsen?
A: A Norwegian internist. The chief internist in the Natzweiler hospital. He was in inmate ???????
Q: He was an innate, wasn't he?
A: Yes.
Q: He also knows all about your experiments, doesn't he?
A: Yes, he does.
Q: And if he said you infected the experimental subjects with virulent virus he, at least, was in a position to know, wasn't he?
A: Yes he was. He certainly was because we talked over the whole thing.
Q: And what about Meyer? Who was Meyer?
A: He was the administrative inspector and was in my institute in Strasbourg.
Q: Meyer was in the Hygiene Institute?
A: In the Medicinal Research Institute - that was part of the institute, or rather, I was also in charge of that particular institute, and of this Medicinal Research Institute which I just mentioned, Meyer was an administrative inspector.
Q: Who was Henri Pierre?
A: Henri Pierre? I think this is the first time I am hearing that name.
Q: He is a very slight young man, rather thin. Worked in Strasbourg. You don't remember him?
A: Where did he work? I can' t remember the name. I can't associate the name with a person.
Q: Do you remember a man, working at Strasbourg, by the name of Bong?
A: I can't tell you for sure. That's not an unusual name, but I don't seem to remember it.
Q: Would it refresh your recollection if I told you how worked in the Anatomical Institute?
A: That wouldn't help me because I didn't know the personnel, of the Anatomical Institute.
Q: Did you know Schuh?
A: Yes.
Q: Where did Schuh work?
A: He was an assistant in the Medicinal Research Institute.
Q: And you were his boss?
A: His immediate boss was Professor Trenz, the Director and Obermedizinalrat of that institute.
Q: But you were in charge of that superior of Schuh's, is that right?
A: No, I was the scientific director of both institutes, but I had nothing to say about the personnel of that other institute.
Q: I believe you have already testified that you don't remember Wagner.
A. You mean the draftsman Wagner?
Q: Do you remember him?
A: I know the name fron the documents involved in this trial, but I can't remember him. I wasn't acquainted with the personnel of this anotomical Institute.
Q: How, Fraulein Schmidt - she worked with you, didn't show?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember an inmate by the name, of Nales?
A: No, I don't remember him.
Q: Don't remember Nales. He remembers you.
Do you remember an inmate by the name of Broers? A Dutchman, a doctor? He was in Natzweiler.
A: I only know the name, Dr. Kredit is the only doctor I know.
Q: Don't know a certain Dr. Boegaarts, an inmate at Natzweiler?
A: He was the chief surgeion in the hospital at Natzweiler.
Q: That's right. He performed the autopsies.
A: I never saw any autopsies of his. I can't tell you. I don't know.
Q: We'll come to that in a moment. How far was the Hygiene Institute from the Anatonical Institute?
A: Five to eight minutes by foot.
Q: Were you on pretty good terms with Hirt?
A: I made his acquaintance when I went to Strasbourg, and, as colleagues, we had touch with one another.
Q: And Bickenbach?
A: I had no contacts with him.
Q: Well, you know Bickenbach, didn't you, Professor?
A: Sure, I knew him, but we saw each other very infrequently.
Q: What was Bickenbach's job at Strasbourg?
A: He was director of the Internal Polyclinic at the University.
Q: Did you ever bump into him in Natzweiler?
A: No. I never hit in Natzweiler.
Q: Suppose you tell the Tribunal what you know about Hirt's gas experiments, Professor?
A: I only know what I have read here in these documents in this trial.
Q: You were in Strasbourg from October, 1941. Hirt carried out his experiments from November, 1942, until the late summer of 1944 in Natzweiler. You want to tell the Tribunal you don't know anything about his experiments with Lost gas, is that right, Professor?
A: I have already said that I knew nothing about Hirt's work and experiments.
Q: Did it come as a great surprise to you, and I suppose it did when you read these document and learned that Hirt was carrying out experiments in Natzweiler with Lost gas? Is that right.
A: I just found it our from these documents. Now I know.
Q: Did you also want to testify to the Tribunal that you know nothing about your colleague Bickenbach's experiments with Lost and Phosgene gas?
A: It was only in connection with this trial that I, for the first time, heard of those experiments. I was asked about that some time ago.
Q: And I suppose that it's pointless for me to ask you to tell the Tribunal what you know about the Jewish skeleton collection which rested in the basement of the Anatomical Institute, eight minutes away from August, 1943, until the Allies entered in November 1944? Did you know anything about that?
A: I know that only from these documents and from the reports in the papers last year, regarding it.
Q: Did that come as something of a shock to you?
A: When I read it, you mean? In November 1945, I was asked about these matters here in Nurnberg and that was the first time I heard anything about them, so I wasn't too surprised later after I found out further details here.
Q: You mean you weren't surprised really when you found out about that? You find it quite believable that Hirt and Bickenbach were capable of doing these things, is that right?
A: I didn't intend to say that. I wasn't surprised because I already know. During my interrogations here in Nurnberg these things had been brought to my attention. It was a matter course that I was surprised that such things had been done.
Q: Would the Tribunal like to adjourn at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is main in session.
BY HR. MCHANEY:
Q Document No. 3450, the Statement of Expenditures in connection with the Influenza Research Assignment by Haagen will be marked for identification as Prosecution Exhibit No. 519.
Professor, you testified that you know nothing about Hirt's gas experiments or Bickenbach's gas experiments; is that right?
A That is correct.
Q Did you ever carry out any gas experiments?
A I have never carried out any such experiments.
Q The affiant Schuh in Document No. 885, Prosecution Exhibit 314, which you have already read, states in paragraph 7 that he learned from Meyer that Haagen together with Professor Hirt made some trials of combat gas - Lost - in Natzweiler on Jewish prisoners; do you deny that?
A Yes, I have to deny it because such trials were never made by me.
Q Then you know nothing about any such trials, whether made by you or other persons?
A I did not know anything about such trials.
Q You don't know that Hirt was interested in gas at all; is that right?
AAt that time I did not know it.
Q Did. you have any information about the work of Hirt at Strasbourg?
A I knew very little about what Hirt did in his institute.
Q You did not hold any faculty meetings in Strasbourg?
A Yes, we had those in the same manner as in any university.
Q It was my understanding that at other universities they discuss one another's work and pretty generally are advised on the work of their colleagues; that was not true at Strasbourg?
A I do not believe that each individual professor speaks about his work with his colleagues; that is not only the case in Strasbourg but at all universities and I assume that Professor Hirt had reasons why he did not speak about his work.
Q Well, I can appreciate that. He probably would not have spoken about his gas experiments on inmates at Natzweiler to an ordinary person, but on the other hand it occurred to me that it might be possible, if not probable that a man who himself went to Hirt to have concentration camp inmates made available to him for experiments might know something about Hirt's experiments on concentration camp inmates too, but you say that is not so?
A I am sorry, but I have to say again that Hirt had not told me anything about his work.
Q You may have noticed that the affiant Wagner in Document No. 881, Prosecution Exhibit 280, says in paragraph 2:
"For Professor Haagen, I had to make a chart of about 2 x 1 meters, on which were listed the various combat gasses with their chemical formulas, and which gave indication on the dangers that men could encounter. I have deducted that experiments had been made on human beings."
Do you know anything about that?
DR. TIPP: May I ask that the Document be also shown to the witness and that it be put to him. That has always been done and I know Professor Haagen does not have the document in front of him right now.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems that the document should possibly be submitted to the witness.
MR. MCHANEY: I can submit it to him in English, I understand he reads English. I do not have it in German. I understand he has been shown the document by Wagner as I understand that he is here. You read English, don't you, Professor?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I do.
BY MR. MCHANEY:
Q You will find this under paragraph 8. Did you read the paragraph?
A Yes, I have seen it. Wagner writes here that he drew up a chart for me and that he was told to draw up a 2 x 1 meter chart where various combat gasses with their formulas were given and also indications of the danger which human beings would encounter. He concluded from that the experiments on human beings had been made.
I personally do not know anything about a chart or a table of that kind.
I can not recall that I ever gave Wagner an assignment of that nature and in my lecture I never spoke about gas, combat gasses, so that I can not imagine today that I should ever have given an assignment for a chart of that kind. I mentioned before that I did not know Wagner.
Q: Then you deny Wagner's statement is true, is that right?
A: Well, I cannot remember ever having ordered a chart of that kind.
Q: If you ordered a chart which concerned gas warfare and experiments on human beings, you would remember it, wouldn't you, Professor?
A: I certainly would remember it, of course.
Q: So you must testify that Wagner was not telling the truth in his affidavit, mustn't you?
A: Certainly, certainly, because I knew nothing of that chart.
Q: I just want to make the record clear about your position. I don't want to have the record show that you might have forgotten this. Wagner know you as distinguished from Hirt. He wouldn't confuse you with Hirt?.
A: But one would have to assume that I should remember a man like Wagner if I had given him an assignment.
Q: I was asking whether Wagner could possibly have made any mistake as between you and Hirth. That is not very likely, is it?
A: I don't know, but I have seen from other passages of the transcript that I was carried there as an assistant of Hirt's, so it is possible that there may be a mistake of that kind.
Q: Well, Professor, I don't want to argue with you about these Lost gas experiments, but on the other hand I want you to be advised so that you can make statements now that Mr. Mollis, whm you say you do not remember, that he was an inmate in Natzweller, and it says he was assigned to you as an assistant in 1944. Pardon me, that is incorrect. I am speaking of another witness now. He says that you supervised autopsies of persons who had been killed in these poison gas experiments in Natzweller in the early part of 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Whom are you referring to, counsel? Whom does "he" refer to?
MR. McHANEY: Mollis, Your Honors. Pardon me. Now let me get this straight. Let's go to the witness Boegars first.
DR. TIPP: May it please the Tribunal. Mr. McHancy refer's apparently to a statement made by the witness. In the witness' testimony, I cannot remember that a testimony of this kind had been introduced in this trial up to now. So far it has been the custom that such documents could only be used in the cross examination if they had been submitted previously. Perhaps Mr. McHaney will be kind enough to submit the document to us before he discusses it with the witness.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the presccution is rather in the middle. I suppose that if we call witnesses, which we certainly intend to do, to testify about Haagen's activities in Natzweiler, and they testify about his Lost gas activities, there that then the defense counsel will complain that Haagen should be recalled and be given an opportunity to answer that. Now I am anticipating that certain witnesses whom we have interviewed will testify concerning Lost gas experiments with which this witness was allegedly connected. Now if he wants to say that is impossible, that he never had anything to do with Lost gas experiments, we can go on.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel merely requested that the document which the prosecution was referring to be exhibited to him. That is as far as his request went.
MR. McHANEY: We have no document, Your Honor, of any probative value whatever. We have a little memorandum here made by a person who interviewed these witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal was not aware of what memorandum you had.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, may I also emphasize the following: Mr. Hardy asserts here that Haagen had made experiments with Lost gas and he wants to question him on that. He could do that if Haagen were a defendant here, but Haagen, as far as I remember, is a witness specifically, a witness for schroeder and Becker-Freyseng.
Up to now the prosecution has never asserted -- it is not to be found in the Indictment or in the presentation of evidence -- that Becker-Freyseng and Schroeder participated in Lost gas experiments. I do not know, therefore, against whom the prosecution wants to submit this evidence on Lost gas experiments. In my opinion, a witness can only be heard on matters for which he can be a witness and which are included in the Indictment. That is not the case here. The Lost gas experiments, at any rate, have not been presented as evidence against Schroeder and BeckerFreyseng. Therefore, one cannot speak of a responsibility for experiments which allegedly the witness carried on.I do not know where this is going to lead to. If the prosecution wants to extend that parts of the Indictment against Becker-Freyseng, maybe he can hear Haagen as a witness on this point; but at any rate there must be an assertion by the prosecution first, otherwise we will experience the same thing as in the case of the Wittenau experiments, which have also been mentioned by the witness here. When Mr. Hardy was asked by Judge Sobring whether he includes these experiments in the Indictment, he said, No, that wasn't so. The same applies, in my opinion, to the Lost experiments. They are not a subject in the Indictment -- at any rate, not against Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng -- and I do not know in fact what intentions Mr. McHaney has: what he wants to prove by questioning the witness on that point as far as this trial and these defendants are concerned.
MR.McHANEY: I have two very valid, purposes in directing these questions to the witness. In the first place, I think that if I can contradict and show that he did participate in the Lost gas experiments, at might have some affect on his credibility with respect to the typhus experiments; in the second place, if we can show that the Luftwaffe through Haagen, and as we have already shown through the Stabsarzt Wimmer, participated in these Lost gas experiments, we will certainly use them for any purpose against any of the defendants in the dock which are permitted by the Indictment.
We would certainly use it for whatever it's worth.
THE PRESIDENT: On cross examination, counsel may test the credibility of the witness. In this case, of course, if questions propounded by the prosecution to the witness, if answering those questions would tend to incriminate the witness in any way, the witness can refuse to answer. But the cross examination has not gone beyond the field of proper cross examination. Counsel may proceed. Counsel in propounding certain of these questions should put them in the hypothetical form; say, if the witness says this about a certain matter, calling it to his attention if that would be correct or incorrect. Counsel may proceed.
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Witness, did you or did you not witness the prerformance of any autopsies on experimental subjects killed during the course of gas experiments at Natzweiler?
A: I never witnesses that.
Q: You do remember the name Georges Boegarts as being an inmate surgeon at Natzweiler, is that right?
A: Yes, I remember.
Q: You know nothing of any autopsies performed by Boegarts, is that right?
A: Of these autopsies, I knew nothing.
Q: Amd you were not interested in the fact that the lungs of the victims were so swollen that the anterior triangle of the heart, which is usually not covered by the lungs, was completely covered and obliterated by the swollen lungs in this case? You know n thing about that?
A: No, I know nothing about that.
Q: You spoke of typhus epidemics in Auschwitz. What information do you have about any such epidemics?
A: Information of that kind we received, for instance, through inmates who came from Auschwitz and had already fallen ill from typhus when they arrived at Natzweiler.
Q: When did you speak to these inmates?
A: On the occasion of my visit to the camps, I spoke to the inmate physicians and they told me that inmate prisoners had arrived from Auschwitz and other camps already ill.
Q: Do you remember the month this was?
A: Well, the first case of typhus in my recollection was in February or March 1944.
Q: So your information is based upon what the inmate doctors told you about what happened in Auschwitz?
A: I saw the patients.
Q: The was the camp commander in Natzweiler in 1943?
A: In 1943? that was Hauptsturmfuehrer Kramer who was camp commandant.
Q: How long did he remain there?
A: The exact date I could not tell you. I assume that was spring '44. It must have been spring '44 when a new camp commandant was assigned.
Q: What was his name?
A: His name was Hartgenstein.
Q: Who was the camp commander at Schirmeck?
A: That was Hauptsturmfuehrer Buck.
Q: And how long did he stay there, to your knowledge?
A: That I could not tell you with any certainty how long he stayed there; at any rate, when vaccinations against typhus and against influenza wore made -- that was in 1943 -- at that time he was camp commander. For how long and whether he was still there in '44, I could not tell you.
Q. Who was the camp doctor at Schirmek?
A.- In Schirmek itself there was, to the best of my knowledge, no camp physician but the medical care was administered by the camp physicians of Natzweiler.
Q.- Who was the camp physician at Natzweiler?
A.- There were three, in sequence, I met three of them. One was a Dr. Krieger, then Dr. Platzer and the third was a Dr. Rode. Those were the 3 physicians I met.
Q.- Did all these gentlemen impress you as good, honest men?
A.- Well, I did not notice anything in particular when I was there.
Q.- What sort of a man did Kramer impress you as being?
A.- Well, I did not come to know Kramer very intimately. We only had conversations on the combatting of typhus so I should not like to pass any judgment on Kramer because my knowledge of his character is too slight -- too limited.
Q.- Was it Kramer who invited you to go to Schirmek?
A.- It was Kramer, yes, who came to me.
Q.- And when was that, to the best of your recollection?
A.- In the course of the year 1943.
Q.- And he told you that he was afraid of a typhus epidemic?
A.- I think that was on the initiative of the camp physician. The camp physician had explained the situation to Kramer. I do not know the background but at any rate both gentlemen came to see me and asked me for my support.
Q.- And you were admitted to Schirmek on the order of Kramer?
A.- To Schirmek? On order? Well, one could not speak of giving an order. Hauptsturmfuehrer Buck just let me in.
Q.- Was there any contact with Berlin in connection with your work in the camp?
A.- No, no. I personally had no contact with Berlin.
Q.- Well, you testified about the WVHA yesterday. It occurs to me that you have a pretty good working knowledge of the concentration camp system.
Did you ever have any contact with the W.V.H.A.?
A.- I had no immediate contact. The correspondence wont via Hirt.
Q.- And where did Hirt pass it on? It went to the defendant Sievers then?
A.- I think so. He intended to go to Sievers. Sievers gave me the information later that I would get the approval to carry on with vaccinations.
Q.- And Sievers sent it to Pohl of the W.V.H.A. - is that right?
A.- Well, these connections within the SS I do not know. I am not informed about them.
Q.- Did you ever have any contact with Lolling, in Amtsgruppe D of the W.V.H.A.? Dr. Lolling was the chief doctor.
A.- I met Dr. Lolling once, in the summer of 1944, on the occasion of the epidemic at Natzweiler. That is...
Q.- Was it customary, so far as you know, for camp commanders, like Kramer, to go out in the surrounding villages and towns and solicit the aid of people there in connection with the problems in the camp?
A.- I do not know how I am to understand that question.
Q.- We will pass that. You say the typhus vaccine you tested in Schirmek in 1943 was a murine typhus vaccine?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And that, as we laymen understand it, murine typhus is rat typhus - that is right, isn't it?
A.- Yes, rat typhus, yes.
Q.- And that is not quite so dangerous as the so-called louse typhus or the Rickettsia prowazeki virus, is it?
A.- Well, I believe that it is very difficult to determine or decide that; both are varieties of typhus, the rat typhus as well as the louse typhus. There are others but whether rat typhus is milder I do not know. There are statements to that effect in medical literature but there are also very serious vases of rat typhus so I think that it is quite difficult to decide or determine that.
Both are varieties of typhus.
Q.- And this murine typhus vaccine had an attenuated avirulent virus, did it not?
A.- That vaccine contains, if it is living, an attenuated virus, virulent virus, which is no longer pathogenic to human beings.
Q.- Do I understand that you regard the word avirulent virus as designating a dead virus or merely a weakened live virus?
A.- Any dead virus is avirulent and every live virus which still has any effect, is virulent.
Q.- So that it would be incorrect to speak of an attenuated avirulent virus - is that right?
A- It is not logic but some laymen, non-specialists, put them on the sane level, that is, avirulent and dead virus. At any rate, it is correct, if one speaks of a live virus to consider it virulent and then to make the distinction to determine whether it is pathogenic to human beings or not.
Q.- Well, maybe I misunderstood, but I thought that the defendant Rose spoke for 3 or A days and used the term "attenuated avirulent virus" and I certainly did not understand him to be using the word avirulent as designating a dead vaccine. Perhaps we can check the record and establish that. Did you read the record of Rose's testimony?
A.- Yes, I have read the record of his testimony but I should like to have it put to me again if it should become subject to discussion.
Q.- Well, it is not necessarily an important point but did you notice, when you were reading, that Rose used the phrase"attenuated avirulent virus"?
A.- Yes, I read that.
Q.- Do you feel that the defendant Rose made a grievous mistake there?
A.- Well, it is an inaccuracy, but even today we find studies were the term "avirulent" is used in the same meaning as harmless - not dangerous.
Q.- Of course, it makes your documents look a little bit micer if we follow your definition, doesn't it, that a virulent virus does not necessarily mean anything except a living virus and it might be attenuated or might be regarded by Rose and the rest of us up to now as an attenuated avirulent virus ?
A.- Well, maybe I can explain that again. As long as the virus is alive and active it is virulent; but wo have to examine its effect in connection with the species where it causes a disease. A virulent virus may be highly pathogenic for animals but not for human beings. Then we have a virus which is not pathogenic to human beings but virulent and we find that designation also in other countries.
Q.- Now, you state that before you went to Schirmek you tested this murine virulent vaccine on yourself and members of your institute, is that right?
A.- I did not try it out on myself. I tried out the prowazeki virus on myself; I stated that yesterday. There were other members of the institute who were innoculated with that vaccine. I innoculated myself with prowazeki virus and, unfortunately, it is only possible to carry out one vaccination if one wants to obtain results, because 2 vaccinations, of course, would have disturbing effects on each other because the first vaccination is supposed to create immunization. But I had vaccinated a number of volunteers - 5 or & volunteers.
Q.- With this murine virulent vaccine?
A.- With that murine virulent vaccine.
Q.- How many people?
A.- There were 8 altogether, I believe, 8 persons.
Q.- Well, did that satisfy... What was the purpose of this vaccination of these 8 people? Were you testing merely for compatibility?
A.- That was the test for compatability which always previously had been made.
Q.- Did you make a Weil-Felix reaction test?
A.- The Weil-Felix reaction test was also made.
Q.- Well, was there...Did you go to Schirmek then to innoculate these other persons - vaccinate them with any view in mind of studying further this typhus vaccine, or were you satisfied that it was all right as a result of your 8 experiments or vaccinations on persons in your institute?
A.- Well, it was sufficient, in order to gain an impression on the compatability, if one vaccinated 8 persons for that purpose it was entirely sufficient, and practice afterwards proved it.
Q.- Well, did you expect to get any valuable scientific data as a result of the vaccinations on the inmates at Schirmek?
A.- Well, that question could be answered in the affirmative, but a large amount of experience was available already in other places experiences with these vaccines. I have yesterday already spoken about vaccinations with these vaccines. Such experiences had already been gained by French researchers.
Q. Well, we can say than that the real purpose of your going to Schirmeck was simply to accomodate the came commander Kramer, who was worrying about a possible typhus epidemic?
A The camp commander certainly worried but I myself was worrying a great deal more because every typhus epidemic in a camp constitues a danger to the civilian population in the vicinity of the camp.
Q That is the reason you went to Schirmeck?
A That is the reason I went to Schirmeck.
Q Now, how did you determine the efficacy of this murine typhus vaccine?
A By applying the Weil-Felix reaction test.
Q And you did that, both on your voluntoers and the persons at ??? Schirmeck, is that right?
A It was done in the case of all these vaccinated, regularly.
Q Well, did that give you a reliable and definite result of the effectiveness of this murine typhus vaccine?
A That is not quite so easy to say, what it will give us we will gain an idea of the effect of this living virus compared to the effect of a dead murine virus. The aggenbinations tita which we obtain with the dead virus are limited and serological examinations of the sera of people vaccinated have shown that the murine live vaccine leads to much better results. The tita values in the sera of those who arc vaccinated with life virus are much higher than those who have been vaccinated with dead virus.
Q Well did you in any way test this murine vaccine as to its antiinfectious effect other than by running the Weil-Felix reaction test?
A No, that we also further examined in animal experiments whether that vaccine had an anti-infectious effect. That can easily been seen in animal experiments.
Q What other anti-infectious experiments could you have carried out on this murine vaccine?
A Well, I believe that is a hypothetical question which I can only answer with a hypothetical answer. The first possibility, of course, is the one which was used, was apllied, by the french researches who vaccinated these persons first and then subjected them to artificial infection, a regular artificial infection. We find statements in medical literature to prove that.
The second possibility is to wait until an epidemic breaks out. If the persons vaccinated remain healthy, while during a large epidemic many people fall ill in the immediate vivinity, one can conclude that there is a good anti-infectious protection.
The third possibility is the one which I have described yesterday already, that of comparative serological examination. I don't know whether you were here yesterday when it was mentioned. I would be quite willing to explain it once more. Do you want me to do that?
Q Well, I am not sure. Is this something different from the Weil-Felix reaction?
A It is the Weil-Felix reaction which is carried out, before and after a subsequent vaccination.
Q But you did or did not do that in connection with the murine vaccine?
A I mentioned already that is a hypothetical question which I can only answer hypothetically. I did not do that.
Q Why not?
A In these cases it did not seem necessary.
Q In other words, the third type of test which you put is the vaccination plus post vaccination. You explained the words "subsequent infection" in some of the documents later on in November and December 1943?
A Yes.
Q You explain the words "subsequent infection" by stating that in fact it was a post or second vaccination.
A It was a third vaccination. The subjects were vaccinated twice.