A No, I know nothing at all about any Copenhagen typhus vaccine, nor do I know anything about tests carried out in concentration camps. I can hardly imagine that Professor Rose had much to do with typhus vaccine. In professional circles Professor Rose was not connected with questions of typhus vaccines. A small circle of other names were used in that connection and I can mention Otto, Eyer, Gildemeister, Haagen, Wohlrab, all of whom I knew were doing that type of work; perhaps I know a number of other gentlement from the industry and people who were assisting the people whom I just mentioned.
Q According to your knowledge of matters, do you think that the assertion is probable that Professor Rose instigated vaccines being tested in concentration camps?
AAfter the experience during that meeting which I just described, I must consider this as highly improbable. It would have constituted the exact opposite of what he stated during that meeting. For that reason I was so surprised that Professor Rose is indicted here. When I read that in a newspaper I said to friends of mine that I could not understand that in the least -- that I could not understand why Professor Rose was indicted-- for he is the only person who in my experience, had courage, at a time when Himmlor reigned, to appear in public in the manner I described,
Q Did you hear about other experiments on human beings which were discussed at that very same meeting? I am now speaking of a lecture held by Professor Gebhardt and Professor Fischer about sulfanilamides. That was presumably done at the surgical section of that meeting.
A No, I did not participate in the surgical session, and during conversations I heard nothing at all of any such experiments.
Q Did you participate in the 4th meeting of the consulting physicians in the year of 1944, at Hohenlychen?
A Yes, I was also present during the rth meeting of consulting physicians because I had to hold a lecture there too. The subject was to deal with the clinical treatment of the sand fly fever.
Q Do you know what Professor Rose discussed during that meeting?
A He held a very interesting lecture in the hygiene section about the application of DDT preparations in the combatting of epidemics. In addition, he held a lecture during the general meeting, about damages to health connected with the air war. This lecture, too, demonstrated a great skill in that field which was rather surprising because one assumed that Professor Rose was a little distant to that subject.
Q During that meeting of 1944 was there any mention made of experiments on human beings?
AAccording to my knowledge, no. In the year of 1943 I heard about typhus experiments for the only time and it was my opinion that this was just a single event.
Q You were saying before, Professor, that in the year 1943, you hold a lecture about the clinical treatment of yellow fever. Yellow fever is also a subject of this trial. Did you, during the war, hear anything about experiments on human beings with yellow fever?
A No.
Q During the very same morning you discussed yellow fever, Professor Haagen also held a lecture about yellow fever vaccines. During that lecture of Professor Haagen, was there any mention made of experiments on human beings?
A No. I naturally heard that lecture. Professor Haagen gave us a general survey about the development of protective vaccination against yellow fever and he subsequently reported on the faccine which he had produced. As far as I remember, he said that he had carried out a number of vaccinations with the vaccine that he had produced, in order to designate the serum during the mouse protection test.
He said that on this occasion he had found similar results as they are generally known in literature. His lecture brought nothing new of general importance. It was merely a summary of the current state of research, which was also the case during my lecture. Both lectures were only designed for general orientation for the purposes of those people who only knew a little about yellow fever. In Germany there had been no previous opportunity to study yellow fever personally.
Q You, yourself, however, did you study yellow fever and were active in that field, weren't you?
A Yes. During my stay abroad in the years 1938 and 1339, I directed my attention in particular to that interesting illness and worked on yellow fever questions in Antwerp, London, and Rio de Janiero.
Q What living German people have gained a reputation in international yellow fever literature?
A Only professor Haagen. He was the first one to breed the yellow fever strain. He succeeded in doing that in New York, while he was working there with a Rockefeller Foundation. Then there is Professor Hoffmann, of Cuba, but he has been living in America now for decades.
Q So Professor Rose does not apply to that group, does he?
A No. I never heard his name or never read his name in connection with yellow fever.
Q You were saying before that Professor Haagen had made reports about blood tests after yellow fever vaccinations. What kind of blood tests were they, Professor?
A We are here concerned with the mouse protection tests which I already mentioned.
Q. What kind of a test is that?
AA vaccinated person or anyone who had survived the illness is used and blood is drawn from his person, from that a serum is created. This serum is mixed with yellow fever virus, and this mixture, after half an hour, is injected into the brain of a mouse, or rather is injected into the brain of a number of mice. If the serum contains enough protection against yellow fever than the mouse concerned will survive that injection. If on the other hand it does not than the mouse will die after a period of a few days. It is probably not necessary to describe this in great detail.
Q. Are you yourself vaccinated against yellow fever?
A No, in the year 1938 I had a yellow fever infection which occurred at the laboratory. Fortunately, the illness took a good course, and I managed to survive it, and for that reason it was no longer necessary for me to be vaccinated again.
Q. Could you describe to the Tribunal the substance of the yellow fever vaccine; as I understood you before, you were speaking of a living vaccine?
A Yes, as in the case of all vaccines against virus diseases, the yellow fever vaccine is based on the giving of a living weakened yellow fever virus to a person, attenuated virus. This attenuation can be attained in many different ways. For that reason a number of different vaccines are in use in different countries. From my knowledge I am best acquainted with the method which was developed with the Rockerfeller Foundation. This method proved itself in America already before the War in millions of cases. In that method the virus is bred with the chicken egg, and then the vaccine is gained through careful working on the chicken embryo. In France the breeding is carried on by using the brain of living mice. This vaccination with living vaccines is based on the fact that every person Vaccinated is going through a very light but genuine yellow fever disease. This is true also in the case of vaccine against smallpox, where the vaccination has to be considered the same as though the person were going through a light but genuine disease of smallpox.
Q I shall now have the Decument Book 12 of the Prosecution shown to you, and you will find Document NO-265, which is the Prosecution Exhibit 287, the so-called Ding Diary, which can be found on pages 36 to 56. Professor, will you please look at page 42 of this book, and you will find entries concerning yellow fever vaccines. Do you know anything about this matter?
A No, I know nothing about this matter?
Q Did you know at all Professor, that yellow fever vaccines were produced in Germany?
A Yes, I know that as a result of Professor Haagen's lecture.
Q What can you, on the basis of your general knowledge of the yellow fever question imagine about the tests that are described in this document; let us assume that these entries are in accordance with the facts?
A Well, it is always necessary to test a vaccine, and reading here, -- that living virus is underlined, -- I am just saying here that living virus is underlined. This does not quite follow that only one single test is being suggested, for the question of whether a vaccine is alive or dead depends on whether that vaccine is durable and durability cannot be ascertained by one single injection. The damages which would occur when injection such a vaccine cannot be determined exactly when using the method as is suggested here. At the most, the direct primary damage could be ascertained, but that is something that could hardly be expected. Of course, the effectiveness could be ascertained, with reference to the protection against yellow fever which the vaccine offered, but I can only make very general assumptions after reading this short document.
Q Professor, would you please turn to Page 109 in the same Document Book which is before you; you will find the numbers in the right-hand corner. There you will find the Document of the Prosecution N0-304. which is Prosecution Exhibit 315. It is a letter by Professor Haagen to the Inspector of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe in Berlin, and it bears the date of 22 October 1942. On the next two pages you find directions for use of the yellow fever vaccine of the University of Strassbourg. Would you please look at that Document, and give us your opinion as to whether yellow fever vaccination constitutes danger. According to the direction of use, it is here said in detail that any infections which might arise would have to be reported immediately; that is at the end of that Document.
A Two different types of damages must be distinguished in the case of yellow fever vaccinations. There can be very direct reactions, which at the most last a half a day and have a rather light course. However, when using the American method of yellow fever fascinations and using the English method, one has found in various countries that rather undesirable incidents had occurred. A rather high percentage of people vaccinated in the case of certain vaccines did not fall ill of yellow fever, but of jaundice. This is called the so-called serum hepatitis. As I have learned from American periodicals, this happened to a large extent during this war in the case of American soldiers. It was found out that the reason was the virus of this hepatitis accidentally had gotten into the strain of the yellow fever virus and that is quite possible for certain technical reasons. I read in an American periodical that they succeeded in changing their technique so that this incident can be avoided with certainty. According to these experiences, it was correct that all infections would have to be reported, immediately.
Q Thank you, and now one last question; Professor, could you tell the Tribunal what reputation Professor Rose held as a scientist and as a human being?
A Professor Rose, on the basis of his numerous and valuable contri butions in the field of tropical medicine has a wide and good reputation.
His work has always excelled in its exactitude in professional circles. He was furthermore known as a man who could exercise valuable and objective criticism and was often feared as such. He exercised this criticism during discussions by putting forward purely material points of view. That too becomes easily apparent when considering the incident which happened during Ding's lecture in the year of 1943, where in spite of the personal danger which may well have resulted for him, he protested against the experiments on human beings, which were reported during that meeting. It was he who spoke in the same sense as we, the German scientifical field, who were present during that meeting, and he therefore maintained the good, old tradition of the German medical profession.
Q Thank you, Professor, I have no further question to put to the witness for the moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to be propounded to this witness by any Defense Counsel?
BY DR. FLEMMING: (Counsel for the Defendant Mrugowsky.)
Q Professor, you have just spoken about yellow fever; is yellow fever found in Africa?
A Yes.
Q To what extent does the zone in Africa extend toward the north where tropical yellow fever prevails?
A In the east it goes as far as Sudan and in the west up to the territory of Dakar.
Q The territory around Dakar belongs to the territory which is endangered by typhus?
A Dakar is an old yellow fever net.
Q Is it correct that in the home of yellow fever, this disease is especially feared because of its danger, and that such persons suffer particularly heavily as a result of this disease who are new arrivals in such territories?
A From a lay-man's point of view, that is correct; scientifically, however, it is not quite true.
Q On the basis of your tropical medical activities, do you know that in the year of 1943 an advance of the German African Corps was planned on from Tunis to Dakar?
A No, I did not know that, but from the fact that yellow fever vaccine was produced, I could perhaps assume that this may be the case.
Q In that case, you knew at that time yellow fever vaccine was produced in Germany, and you concluded therefore that such an advance was in effect planned?
A Yes, but that advance could also have been directed to the Sudan area.
Q In the case of any such advance of the troops into a yellow fever endangered territory, would a vaccination of the soldiers become a necessity?
A Undoubtedly.
Q Professor, during your direct examination, you mentioned that in the case of the Americans and English yellow fever vaccines, in the form in which it was produced earlier, many, cases of Jaundice occurred; were such or similar complications known when using the vaccine, according to the procedure of say for instance Peltier, which was produced from mice brains?
A I can only say something based on Peltier's work and the work of his collaborators, and in these cases no such incidents occurred.
Q Do you know according to what procedure these protective vaccines were produced in Germany; was the Peltier's procedure used?
A I have just learned from the Document book, where mention is made that the Peltier procedure was applied.
Q The prosecution asserts that inmates were injected with yellow fever in a concentration camp; according to our material however we were only concerned, with protective vaccinations, using the Peltier method. Would an artificial infection of human beings after such a protective vaccination have been necessary?
A Do you mean would it have become necessary in order to prove the effectiveness of the vaccine?
Q Yes.
A No, it would not have been necessary because in the case of yellow fever one can find out the immunity by using the mice test without infection.
Q Mr. President, I am being told that an error occurred during the translation. I asked the witness whether it was correct that in the case of vaccinations, jaundice had occurred in the case of these English and American vaccinations, that is hepatitis. The translation is yellow fever and such yellow fever cannot occur after this protective vaccination.
A No, that never did occur.
Q I now return to the case of artificial infection of yellow fever do you know whether in Germany there actually could have been diseases of tropical fever or at any rate, do you know whether any virus strain, which could act pathogen to a human being, was available in any laboratory in Germany?
A I know nothing about that, and I think this is highly impossible that a virulent yellow fever strain was available in Germany during the war.
Q Did I understand you correctly before, when you said that, when using the Peltier vaccine in vaccinating human beings, it is out of the question that any serious damages to health or even fatalities could occur?
AAccording to Peltier publication and the publications of his collaborators, any such incident was never observed.
Q You have seen the entry in the so-called Ding Diary regarding yellow fever; is it your opinion that in the case of the protective vaccinations used only on small groups of persons was applied according to the Peltier method; we were concerned with a not permissible experiment or rather a matter where the consequences would have been damag ing to the health or perhaps even life to the people involved?
A This experiment, as you say, could have been carried out on volunteer persons.
Q I wanted to ask you whether there was any danger to life, or any serious danger to health?
AAs this experiment was already examined by using animal experiments, then according to medical convictions there was no appreciable danger anymore.
Q In a letter of the Behring works at Marburg, addressed to the Defendant Mrugowsky, which was submitted by the Prosecution, it is stated that the yellow fever vaccine was to be tested in Buchenwald on human beings in order to find out its harmlessness. The Prosecution interprets that in such a manner that there must therefore have been a danger to health when carrying out these vaccinations, but according to the answer which you just gave, one can conclude that this word "harmlessness" contained in the letter of the Behring Works is to be synonymous for a test of its tolerance, because it is a fact that any vaccines emanating from the Behring Works were tested very carefully by using animals before any such vaccines were sent away from the Behring Works and that is generally known in medical circles?
A I assume that the word "harmlessness" is here to be understood in the same sense as tolerance.
Q Thank you I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours)
AFTERNOON SESSION The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 17 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
Professor DR. FELIX HOERING * Resumed
THE PRESIDENT: Any further examination of the witness by defense counsel?
BY DR. TIPP (For the Defendants Schroeder and BeckerFreyseng):
Q. Witness, this morning you mentioned a lecture which Professor Haagen delivered in 1943 at the Consulting Conference on Yellow Fever Vaccine. Did I understand you to say that neither directly nor indirectly was there any mention in this lecture of human being experiments which Professor Haagen carried out in this connection?
A. Yes you understood me correctly, that there was no mention of it in the lecture.
Q. Witness, do you know Professor Haagen well?
A. I met him only at this conference.
Q. But as an export you are familiar with his scientific reputation?
A. His scientific reputation as an expert in virus matters was generally known.
Q. And Haagen was generally considered an expert in this field of virus?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let me ask you Professor, virus research presupposes detailed knowledge of all questions?
A. Yes, that is so. It requires many years in that field before one can be called an authority in that field.
Q. And the normal doctor with the regular physicians training would not have that special knowledge?
A. No, no more than he would have special knowledge about bacteriology in general.
Q. Therefore, it would have been quite impossible for a normally trained doctor to supervise specialized work in this field?
A. Only an expert could have done so.
Q. Thank you. Now, witness, I should like to discuss two documents with you. I show you Document Book 12 on Typhus Experimentation. May I ask you to turn once again to page 109. This is the same document that Dr. Fritz put to you this morning--page 109, written in pencil. This is the document NO-304, Exhibit 315, a letter by Or. Haagen to tne Inspectorate of the Medical Service. The letter is very brief-perhaps you could glance through it briefly, professor. Can you, is an expert, see in this letter anything indicating whether or not Haagen in this yellow fever vaccine production carried out any experiments on human beings, or what can you deduce from the letter?
A. There is mention here of animal cages bat no mention of human being experiments.
Q. Then you can deduce nothing from this letter about human being experiments. Now the next page of this document "Direction for use of the Yellow Fever Vaccine of the Hygienic Institute of Strasbourg University. This document was out in by the prosecution in connection with human being experiments which Haagen is alleged to have carried out. I don't know just what conclusions the prosecution draws from this document, but the connection in which it was submitted seems to indicate that the prosecution sees in this document proof of the experiments on human beings. Will you please tell us, professor, just what this document is.
A. These are the directions for use such as accompany any vaccines which are not generally known to physicians so that the physician will know how to carry out the vaccination.
Regarding those on whom the vaccinations was carried out, there is no mention in the document.
Q. I draw your attention to the last sentence of the last paragraph, I quote: "Any serious reactions especially manifestations of jaundice, Etc., with mention of operation number must be reported immediately to the Medical Inspectorate of the Air Force through official channels." Now, to whom is this directive directed?
A. This morning I mentioned the incidents that had arisen, through of serum hepatitis, and the mentioning of jaundice indicates that it was considered possible that that could arise here also. The persons here mentioned are those to be vaccinated.
Q. What I mean is who should apply to the Health Inspectorate of the Wehrmacht-that could only be a troop doctor?
A. Yes, that is so.
Q. Then I can summarise your testimony as follows: Those are directions for use for troop doctors when they vaccinate against yellow fever.
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you. Now, in the same document book please turn to page 120. This is document NO 130, prosecution exhibit 319. Let me quote from it briefly: "Oberstab-sartz Professor Dr. Haagen, consulting physician to the Air Fleet Physician Reich, Strasbourg, 4th August 1944. Suoject--'' That doesn't interest us. Heading, "Report on the successes with TAB Chol. vaccine." This document is not signed but it is clear that it originated with Dr. Haagen.
This letter also was submitted in connection with human being, experiments and I assume that the prosecution feels that this is a report on experiments on human beings which either Haagen himself or some other persons carried out with this TAB Chol, vaccine. The letter is three pages long. I shall not ask you to read the whole letter now and I shall spare the Tribunal the nuisance of reading it, but I shall cite a few sentences that are pertinent in the first third of the first page.
It begins as follows:
"The following TAB Chol. vaccines were used."
And then follows the numbers:
"It appears that no strong reactions were produced by Nos. 03, 05, 10 and 13. One unit reported 1-2 days absence from work as a result of 05, which would seem to indicate a stronger general reaction."
And in the last paragraph on this page:
"Nos. 06, 07, 08 resulted throughout in such strong reactions that their usability is questionable. No. 06: in one unit a loss of 1 day 5-7% on account of fever; in one unit 90% fever up to 38.5 C, and loss of 1-2 days; in one unit 90% very strong local and general reactions, fever 38.5 C, loss of 1-2 days. Only one unit reported good endurance, without particularly strong or numerous reactions."
Now I believe that is sufficient. From these few citations, witness, can you perhaps tell the Tribunal what this report is Haagen is describing, what actually is here being described?
A. This is a report on the tolerance for a newly manufactured type of vaccine against typhoid fever, not, typhus, paratyphus and cholera. Whenever a new vaccine is manufactured such reports must be colleged and to judge from the short citations that you read it must be one of there regular reports such as are always published when a newly manufactured vaccine is first used.
Q. You mean to say then, witness, that this is a collective report that is compiled from various single reports, is that correct?
A. That can be seen from the text where it is pointed out that individual units reported such and such. These reports were apparently collected and compiled and transmitted by the consulting physician.
Q. From whom did these individual reports come?
Q. They must have come from the troop physicians of the individual troop units.
Q. In other words, witness, this is not a report on experiments of human beings, but a report on vaccinations carried out on German soldiers with a new vaccine?
A. Not with a new vaccine, but with a newly manufactured batch of an old vaccine which was already in us.
Q. But it only submitted reports on vaccination within the framework of the German Wehrmacht?
A. Yes.
Thank you, I have no further questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: For Karl Brandt:
Q. Witness, you were in foreign countries for quite a while in training and in research, is that not so?
A. Yes.
Q. Consequently, you are in a position to express an opinion regarding the permissibility of experiments on human beings, and at any rate you must have formed some picture of that in connection with this trial?
A. I do not consider myself a first rate expert in this field because that requires particularly trained and experienced doctors and I am too young for that, and I have, of course, concerned myself with this question, particularly in connection with this trial, also.
Q. And your experiences in foreign countries have substantiated in general whatever opinions you hold and prove that such opinions are held elsewhere in the world?
A. I know from literature, particularly from foreign literature, a little about what is customary in this respect.
Q. Witness, do you consider experiments on human beings permissible or for research purposes without the voluntary permission of the subject?
A. Since I had a feeling that this question might of put to me I made a few notes on the subject. First of all, I should like to remark in this connection that this is a matter concerning professional medical ethics. In this very generally phrased question I can only emphasize a few sides of it. I should like first of all to emphasize it is the highest principle of the medical profession to serve life in a sense set forth in the Hippocratic oath, and a second important principle is the "nil nocere", to do no harm.
Q. First of all as to the question of the subject's consent, if the subject does not consent to be experimented on, is the experiment permissible?
A. In anticipation of my answer I should like to say something about the concept of experiments so that we will understand one another. For this concept is by no means clear precisely and to me there is always the danger that I may be misunderstood, because in the case of desperate illness one occasionally could take recourse to a means in order to heal the person which is not-
THE PRESIDENT: Did or did not the question which you propounded to the witness cover the case in which the patient himself was desperately ill and something might be necessary to be done on behalf of the patient himself, was that covered by your question?
INTERPRETER: He didn't hear the beginning of your question because the switch was wrong. Counsel did not hear the question because the switch was wrong.
THE PRESIDENT: Was there included in your question to the witness an instance of a person who was himself desperately ill and possibly something by way of a new line or a new thought in medicine or surgery might have to be followed in order to benefit that patient himself. Was that concept included in your question?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, I believe we do not have to go into that question.
Q. Witness, I ask you not to deliver a lecture on the subject. Perhaps later you will have an opportunity to go into it at greater length but not please answer the question as briefly as possible. Later you can go into it, as I said, at greater length.
Now please answer my question: Do you consider voluntary consent a necessary prerequisite for experiments on human beings?
A. Yes, but I should like to emphasize that despite the voluntary aspect, the subject not trained in medicine cannot anticipate all of the consequences and the responsibility lies basically with the physician.
Q. Then you would say the person has to consent?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you hold that to be necessary even if the experiment is painless?
A. Yes, if it is a scientific experiment, certainly.
Q. Do you consider the consent of the parents necessary if it is a matter of children on whom it can be expected that it would very shortly die?
A. In this case the consent of the parent is necessary.
Q. Do you know from the history of medicine that for research purposes that experiments are carried out on insane persons or incurably ill persons and on children who cannot be expected to live?
A. I know no such cases. I know only that where such things were done they could contribute to the healing of the patient.
Q I do not want to have this word experiment brought into association with the idea of healing. I want to keep those two concepts separate. Now I shall bring a few cases to your attention from Document Book III, which is Document KB 48 on page 106. There are quotations from a book from the 19th century entitled "A Doctor's Confessions" by W. Weressajew, a Russian doctor. The following cases are mentioned on page 137 in the text. This is page 107.
"Wetheim inoculated four paralytics and one idiot, the 32 year old SCH, with the cultures. In the case of the idiot SCH, a 'fairly purulent secretion was still found two months after the inoculation'."
Then follows the identification of where this occurred or where the citation is from: "The Gonococcus Weisser on the Culturing Plate and in pure Culture. Berlin. Clinical Weekly 1892."
It goes on to state: "The method Wertheim was tested by other scientists. Gebhard successfully inoculated human beings with these Wertheim cultures."
MR. HARDY: The Tribunal has ruled that presentation and discussion of any evidence relative to experiments which are not at issue in this case shall be delayed until later on during the trial and at such time all evidence of this nature will be at one time offered and then the Tribunal, at that time, will rule on its admissibility. Hence, consistent with the ruling of the Tribunal, I object to Dr. Servatius at this time offering any evidence of this nature or discussing it in as much as the Tribunal has saw fit to delay it until a future date.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I am not asking you to admit this as a document in evidence now, but I am using it in the course of interrogating this witness to find out what his point of view is.
The purpose of this trial was outlined by General Taylor at the beginning as that of ascertaining in general that Barbaric methods were here being used for the first time in the case of the defendants in the dock and that offenses against principles of law of all countries of the world. In this Document Book of mine I have shown a few short but pregnant excerpts to prove the contrary.