Q. And since when have you been reinstated and active again?
A. Since 1945.
Q. As a full professor?
A. Yes, as full professor for internal medicine at the University of
Frankfurt.
Q. Now, Professor, a few questions regarding your own research work. You
have dealt particularly with hunger and thirst treatment in the case of
kidney diseases. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So that you have personal medical and scientific experience regarding
the observation of human beings when they undergo hunger and thirst
treatment?
A. Yes.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, before continuing with the examination of this
expert witness, I should like to permit myself to make a suggestion.
There are two types of possibilities for the examination of Professor
Vollhardt regarding questions which interest us here. One possibility,
the one which I myself consider the correct one, is that Professor
Vollhardt should give us a continuous expert opinion regarding the
entire complex of questions which are of interest here, and that at the
end I would then permit myself to put a few concluding questions to the
expert here as, of course, any defense counsel and prosecutor is
entitled to do, too. The other possibility would be that I put a number
of individual questions to the expert which would deal with the subject
chronologically and technically from a medical point of view. But, that
would distort the context and would not give as clear a picture of the
situation as would the first possibility. I should like therefore, Mr.
President, for you to make a decision whether the expert is to give an
opinion in the form of a lecture first.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: If counsel would propound to the witness a
hypothetical question covering the basic facts which here are at issue,
and if the witness would answer that hypothetical question without
further question from counsel and make his response brief and to the
point, and without enlarging too much upon the fact that salt water is
not fit to drink and is injurious, which the Tribunal very well knows,
we might proceed as suggested by counsel. The hypothetical question
should cover the facts here at issue, that experiments were tried upon a
group of people, a control group, a noncontrol group, and others, then
the witness may answer that question without further interruption by
counsel if his answer is, as I said, brief and not enlarging too much on
generalities.
DR. MARX: Very well, Mr. President.
Q. Now, Professor, have you sufficient insight into the planning and
carrying out of the so-called sea-water experiments to give an expert
opinion on that subject?
WITNESS VOLLHARDT: Yes.
Q. What documentary evidence did you have?
A. I had the original records prepared by Beiglboeck.
Q. I shall first of all deal with the character and type of the
experiments. Are there differences between the character of these
sea-water experiments and experiments with artificial infection with
malaria and cholera and if there are differences, what are they?
A. You can’t compare the two at all, because in the case of the
sea-water experiments you have things so perfectly under control and can
interrupt so instantaneously, and because the experiments take such a
short time that the danger of injury could be excluded with absolute
certainty. In the case of artificial infection you cannot do that.
Q. You are saying that in the case of sea-water experiments, providing
they are interrupted in time, danger to health and body can be avoided
with certainty or bordering on certainty.
A. Not the latter. I said with absolute certainty.
Q. I shall now come to the planning of these experiments. I suppose you
know of the meeting of 25 May 1944, which was decisive for the planning
of the experiments. Did the presence of Professors Eppinger and Heubner
guarantee the purely scientific and medically proper treatment of the
problem?
A. Undoubtedly it did. Professor Heubner is a leading scientist and an
extremely critical person, and Professor Eppinger was one of the leading
clinicians in the world and a most outstanding expert, and I assume both
of these gentlemen had reasons for allowing these experiments to be
carried out, presumably in order to strengthen the medical men,
vis-a-vis, the technicians. Secondly, Eppinger’s idea apparently was
that under such stringent experimental conditions, the kidney would
suffer to an unusual degree and that Berkatit, which contains vitamins,
might assist the work of the kidney.
Q. Professor, what is your opinion about the individual experimental
groups?
A. I think that scientifically speaking the planning was excellent and I
have no objection to the entire plan. It was good to add a
hunger-and-thirst group because we know by experience that thirst can be
borne less well than hunger, and if people are suffering from hunger and
thirst too, they do not suffer from hunger, but do suffer from thirst;
and that resembles what shipwrecked persons would be subjected to
because they only suffer from thirst. It was excellent that Wofatit was
to be introduced into the experiments too, although it was expected from
the beginning that this wonderful discovery would show its value. It
turned out that groups given sea-water treated according to the Schaefer
method reacted similarly to a group that was subjected to a reasonable
hunger treatment and did not suffer any great discomfort. In the hunger
treatment of 12, or, we should say 8 days, because the people still ate
during the first 4 days, that is a minor affair, and we carry that out
innumerable times for medical reasons. There exists a sanitarium where
people are made to go without food for 4 weeks, and as long as they get
water in the shape of fruit juice, they still carry on well and often
with enthusiasm. Group 2 was Schaefer’s group, groups 3 and 4 were the
groups that received 500 cc. of sea-water, once without and once with
Wofatit. Group 3 was the one which drank 1,000 cc. of sea-water. That
one could only use volunteers for this group is an obvious fact, since
the cooperation of the experimental subject is indispensable; without
his good will such an experimental arrangement is impossible. That
sufficient volunteers could be found for a case was a matter of course,
since a period of 10 days of excellent food before and after the
experiment was before them, and since one could assure them with the
best of confidence that there would not and could not be any danger.
Q. We will come to that, Professor. You have just started to speak about
food, nourishment. What is your opinion about the food before, during,
and after the actual experiments?
A. Well, before the experiments it was splendid. During the experiments
it was meager, corresponding to that of shipwrecked persons and
afterwards quite excellent. In my opinion during such brief experiments
nourishment doesn’t play any part.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, might I inquire whether the
witness is now testifying to facts as he has ascertained them from
studying graphs and charts made by Professor Beiglboeck or is he
testifying from hearsay that food was given to these inmates, or what is
the basis of his knowledge that he is eliciting here?
A. I was giving my testimony based on the records which I have studied.
MR. HARDY: Thank you.
A. But I don’t attach any importance to the meager food served during
the experiments because that is an insignificant point which as I have
said we have allotted to others many times.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Witness, when you referred to this examination of
the records, state briefly just what records you examined.
A. The original records.
* * * * *
DR. MARX: Professor, how do you judge the individual examinations
carried out by Professor Beiglboeck? Were they adequate for the solution
of the practical question whether Berkatit was sufficiently useful and
preferable to thirst treatment, and was it sufficient to judge the daily
condition of the experimental subjects so that the right time to
interrupt the experiments could be ascertained?
Did you get my question?
A. Yes. I got it. I thought that the arrangement of these experiments
was splendid from the scientific point of view, and Beiglboeck
apparently devoted himself with tremendous industry and great
responsibility to carrying out of these experiments which he had been
ordered to do.
Q. Would it be right to say that a personality such as Beiglboeck, as a
professor of internal medicine and chief medical officer at a clinic for
many years on the basis of daily examinations and through his personal
consideration and examination of the experimental subject, would be in a
position to recognize any threat to the health of the person before such
a threat could actually become serious?
A. That was a matter of course. Beiglboeck is an excellent internal
medical man and the great care with which he carried out these
experiments shows that he was fully conscious of his responsibility.
Only, it’s hard to imagine that, during such brief experiments, serious
damage could have occurred at all.
* * * * *
Q. Professor, a little earlier you briefly dealt with the question of
starving, of hunger or of thirst for the purpose of treatment, and I now
want to ask you whether the administration of hunger and thirst cures of
several days is a medically recognized fact, and also how long would you
consider that hunger and thirst with complete refusal of food and liquid
could take place without putting someone’s health in jeopardy?
A. It depends who it is. Initially, I recommended hunger and thirst
treatment in the case of acute inflammation of the kidneys, but there
people have a great deal of water in their system and the water is
absorbed during such a cure. Astonishing as it may seem, a cure is
effected very rapidly. In such cases, three, five, seven, and even more
days of hunger are employed. In other cases, where no water surplus is
in existence, we would only apply 6 days of hunger treatment. During the
time when I had to be interested in these particular experiments, there
were four women in my clinic, all of whom were there because of high
blood pressure. They were aged 50, 51, 53, and 63 years. One had a blood
pressure of 210/100, and 6 days later it had been reduced to 170/100.
The third had a blood pressure of 280/160 and 6 days later it dropped to
180/100. The loss of weight amounted to 3 or 4 kilograms and the
patients naturally, during those days, suffered from thirst and felt
weak at the end of the sixth day, but they were so happy about the
improved condition that they considered the unpleasantness of the recent
days as being worth forgetting.
Q. Is it correct that when water is withdrawn, nourishment should also
be withdrawn?
A. It’s easier to suffer thirst when you are also hungry because the
supply of nourishment makes claims upon the kidneys and, if you exclude
salt in the nourishment, the water loses further humidity. Thus,
appetite disappears when you are thirsty. Therefore, it is definitely
better to be hungry and thirsty simultaneously.
Q. Professor, is it right to observe the individual doses in order to
prevent diarrhea, and, if individual quantities of less than 300 cc. are
admitted, can you prevent diarrhea?
A. In the case of sea and bitter water you only suffer from diarrhea if
you drink a large quantity at once. If you distribute it over a day you
suffer from constipation.
Q. Yes, but you didn’t quite answer my question. I inquired about the
individual doses.
A. Yes, well, I’m trying to say that if you spread it out over a day,
giving smaller individual doses instead of giving it all at once, then
there isn’t any danger of diarrhea.
Q. Can you describe sea-water as poisonous at all?
A. Absolutely not. There is a trend towards treatment with sea-water
which is increasing, and people drink half a liter of sea-water every
day for weeks. There can’t be any question of any poisonous quality. In
fact, people say they feel splendid. The only difference is that in the
case of such cures fresh water is administered, too, in the manner of
tea, coffee, and soup, so that the dehydrating effect of the sea-water
is counteracted.
Q. Professor, I wonder if you would speak a little more slowly and make
a pause after individual answers in order to enable the interpreters to
follow.
Has there been an experiment during which a dose of 500 to 1,000 cc. of
sea-water daily was taken and is it to be described as dangerous,
providing the experiment is discontinued as soon as there is a threat of
danger to health?
A. There can’t be any question of there being any danger to health
during the first few days. The only question is, how long can the body
stand up to this continued deprivation of humidity? Sea-water has a
three-percent salt water content. Generally speaking, at least so far,
we have assumed that the kidneys cannot deal with such a salt
concentration. This means that salt will remain in the system,
collecting water from the tissues. In the beginning, this is of no
importance, but after 6 or 7 or 8 days, this becomes unpleasant and it
is to be expected that after the twelfth day there is some danger. There
have been cases of sea rescue when even 17 or more days afterwards
recovery was achieved, but I would say that I would never dare to
continue such an experiment beyond the twelfth day, and in this case
with which we are concerned, all experiments were discontinued after the
sixth day, so that danger to health during that period was out of the
question.
Q. Could the aim of these experiments have been achieved with a
semipermeable membrane?
A. I don’t understand how one can imagine this. What we are concerned
with is the question of how long the human body can survive without
water and under the excess quantity of salt. Now, that is subject to the
water content of the body and it depends first of all, upon whether
water is only used by the intermediary tissues or whether the cell
liquid too is being used up. In the latter case, there is a danger which
becomes apparent through excess potassium quantities, and this was also
continuously observed and checked during such experiments, and there
were no excess potassium quantities such as can be expected after 6
days.
Q. Nor would it be right to say that these experiments were not planned
scientifically and medically, is that correct?
A. Absolutely not.
Q. Could they have been planned differently?
A. I couldn’t imagine how.
Q. Were these experiments in the interests of active warfare, or in the
interests of the care of shipwrecked sailors or soldiers?
A. The latter.
Q. In other words, for aviators and sailors who were shipwrecked or
might be shipwrecked?
A. Towards the end of the war there was an increase in the number of
pilots shot down as well as of shipwrecked personnel, and it was,
therefore, the duty of the hygiene department concerned to consider the
question of how one could best deal with such cases of shipwrecked
personnel; that was the reason for this conference. Previously Schaefer,
as we heard yesterday, had recommended that no liquid should be taken.
When, together with I. G. Farben, he succeeded in eliminating salt and
bitter salt from sea-water through Wofatit, the problem was really
solved scientifically. There were, however, considerable technical
difficulties, and it isn’t exactly simple to equip each flier with so
much Wofatit in addition to everything else he has to carry in order to
protect him against the danger of shipwreck. That is no doubt why
Eppinger and Heubner were in favor of the experiment, and it was
unfortunate that Mr. Berka appeared with Berkatit at the same time, and
impressed the technicians because his method was more simple and
cheaper.
Q. Professor, was there any reason to expect symptoms of injury which
might appear later than 10 days after the end of the experiment?
A. It was entirely out of the question, even after the seventh day.
Later injury is out of the question, because the duration of the
experiments is too short.
Q. To what do you attribute the loss of weight during such experiments?
A. That is almost entirely the loss of water. As I have already told
you, the excess salt supply in the body deprived the body of water. The
body must have a supply of water if it is to supply salt. In other
words, if the body is not receiving any other water than sea-water, an
attack on the water held by the body must take place, and therefore loss
of weight is bound to occur which, however, can be made up very quickly.
Q. What would you say was to be expected in the way of the loss of
substance of the body and how much loss of water?
A. I would say the bulk is the loss of water, but to split this up is
something I consider impossible to do with certainty. You might possibly
compare just how much was lost during the time applied by Schaefer when
there was considerable hunger and how much was lost in the case of
Berka.
Q. Does the speed with which the loss of water takes place play an
important part?
A. Yes, of course, a tremendous part. The colored nostras is a
well-known example, during which disease the most tremendous loss of
water and salt takes place during 24 hours. I knew a case where 10
liters of water and 150 grams of salt had to be added intravenously
through the veins, the skin, and through the stomach in order to save
the life of a person suffering from such an acute loss of water. If, on
the other hand, this is spread out over a period of days and if you do
not have to expect such a dangerous loss of salt, then the body can
stand up to it for a much longer period. I might perhaps add that the
loss of salt is just as dangerous as excess quantities of salt, and also
in the event of the loss of salt which is always connected with loss of
water, considerable losses of weight are suffered. It is well known that
an expedition on the mountain Monte Rose lost 5 kilograms of salt and
water in weight, and that the weight could not be replaced in spite of
the addition of water when salt was also added.
Q. Professor, according to the documents at your disposal were these
experiments sufficiently well prepared?
A. It was my impression that they were extremely well prepared, and I
was particularly impressed by the fact that Beiglboeck had sufficiently
examined the participants carefully and had considered the use of three
of them to be unsuitable since he found a defect of the lungs.