PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Witness, you can answer that question in a very
few words. Just answer the question propounded to you by your counsel.
A. This was a research assignment, as I just said, there was no military
or other directive.
DR. TIPP: Witness, you have already described this morning how research
assignments were distributed, and you told us that, in general, the
assignment was made on the application of a scientist for such an
assignment; now what was the case here, did you work on this problem
first and then receive an assignment or was there already an assignment
in existence and did you then begin to work?
A. All this work was done entirely on my own initiative. I also saw to
it that I got the necessary research assignment so that I could have the
necessary funds for the work from the Reich Research Council, and then
from the Medical Chief of the Luftwaffe. That is where I obtained my
assignment.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, before we adjourn may I inquire from counsel how
long the examination will continue, and how long other defense counsels
will take in their examination of the witness Haagen?
DR. TIPP: I have already said I will need roughly a day and a half. We
have already eliminated some of the questions; I don’t know if I can
finish this afternoon, but I shall not need so much time tomorrow
morning. I cannot tell you how much time my other colleagues will need.
MR. HARDY: Do I understand Dr. Tipp is going to take the rest of the
day, in spite of the fact that we sit until 5 o’clock?
DR. TIPP: I shall use all of today. Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Does any other defense counsel desire to examine
this witness while he is on the stand?
DR. TIPP: Dr. Nelte just tells me that he will need a quarter of an
hour, and my colleague Krauss for Rostock, fifteen minutes.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I cannot say definitely now how long I shall
need because I do not know how many of the questions I intend to put to
the witness will be made unnecessary by Dr. Tipp’s examination.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The Tribunal is only asking for an estimate.
DR. FRITZ: One hour.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Counsel, during the noon recess will you instruct
your witness to answer your questions directly and simply without
expostulating on matters about which, while scientific and important,
the Tribunal has already been advised. Kindly instruct him and explain
to him how to answer these questions.
* * * * *
DR. TIPP: Professor, before the recess you said that you began your work
in the field of typhus on your own initiative, and that in the course of
this work you obtained research assignments from the Medical Inspector
of the Luftwaffe as well as the Reich Research Counsel; now I ask you,
in your applications made before the various assignments were issued,
were any details given about the work which you planned to carry out or
the work which you had already carried out?
WITNESS HAAGEN: No details were given, of course, merely the problem as
such was dealt with.
Q. You have already described to the Tribunal your work on this problem;
it was to find a vaccine produced from live virus, a virus no longer
pathogenic to human beings which, however, contained the qualities of
the virus.
A. Yes. That is true. Our work was limited to the development of a live
vaccine, and this work was based on the great experiences of foreign
scientists, especially the French scientist Blanc; the technical side
was always carried out in animal experiments.
Q. Now, Witness, did you succeed in finding a vaccine of the type
described?
A. Yes. We did succeed in developing such a vaccine from a so-called
murine typhus virus strain, that is, from rat typhus. The weakening was
brought about through animal experiments, through cultivation in chicken
eggs, and thirdly through a conservation process.
Q. Was this vaccine then tested for its effectiveness and if so, how?
A. Yes. The vaccine was tested for its effectiveness. First, of course,
by animal experiments for its immunizing qualities. After this quality
had been proved, the first vaccinations were undertaken in order to test
the effectiveness and the tolerance on human beings. This was done on
volunteers.
Q. Where did you get these volunteers, Professor?
A. First of all I served myself, then the members of my institute and a
number of students from the university.
Q. Now, will you please tell us the purpose of these experiments?
A. When one has produced a new vaccine one must test not only its
effectiveness, but also its tolerability. This can only be done on human
beings; animal experiments are not sufficient. At a certain stage it
always becomes necessary to test it on human beings.
Q. In these vaccinations on members of the institute and students, you
tested the tolerability of the vaccine; the immunizing effect of the
vaccine, if I understood you correctly, could not be proved by these
experiments?
A. Yes. The immunizing effect can also be determined. One merely needs
to make the Weil-Felix reaction, which has been mentioned in this trial.
That is, to ascertain whether the blood serum already contains
protective bodies against the typhus germ. This test (I mention this
because mistakes have been made here) is used not only to diagnose the
disease, but also, since it is a definite immunity reaction, to find the
protective bodies after vaccination.
Q. We will come back to that later, Witness. Now when did you achieve
your aim, when did you have a vaccine of the type described, and when
did you develop it far enough to be used?
A. In the spring of 1943.
Q. And when was this vaccine first actually used on a large scale, or
when was it first used at all?
A. The first vaccinations were carried out in May 1943 in the Schirmeck
internment camp, which belonged to the Natzweiler concentration camp.
The vaccinations were performed on persons in special danger.
Q. This morning, Witness, you mentioned the request of a camp doctor of
the Natzweiler concentration camp, and Schirmeck was no doubt under him;
may I ask whether these Schirmeck vaccinations go back to the request of
the camp physician?
A. I do not quite understand your question.
Q. Please tell me whether the vaccinations performed in Schirmeck
originated with the request of the camp physician?
A. Yes. Schirmeck and Natzweiler belong together. My vaccinations there
were in connection with all the work of the camp.
Q. Then you used this vaccine for the first time in May 1943 in
Schirmeck. How many persons did you vaccinate?
A. Twenty-eight persons were vaccinated altogether.
Q. Did you have any influence on the selection of these persons; that
is, did you select these persons, or who selected them?
A. I did not have any direct influence on the selection of these
persons, only to the extent that I told the camp administrator and the
camp doctor that we could only vaccinate people who were in a more or
less good state of health, since if this were not the case it would not
correspond to our German vaccination laws. To that extent I did have
some influence.
The selection was made according to the point of view that persons were
selected who were in special danger of typhus, persons who were in the
so-called “east block” of the camp. New transports were always coming
from the East, lice infected, for the most part, so that one could count
on a considerable typhus danger. In this part of the camp the danger was
greater than in those parts of the camp, housing Germans and Alsatians
who did not come from the East.
Q. You said, Witness, the persons were selected from the group of
prisoners in special danger of contracting typhus. You just mentioned
the east block. Can you tell us what nationality these persons were?
A. As far as I can remember they were of various nationalities. There
were quite a number of them who spoke German and one could converse with
them easily.
Q. Now, Witness, I should like to ask you to describe how these
vaccinations were carried out. Perhaps a preliminary question first. Why
did you vaccinate only 28 persons? Why did you not vaccinate all the
inmates of the camp there?
A. At first I could only produce the vaccine in very small quantities.
My laboratory facilities were very limited. If I had wanted to vaccinate
a whole camp I would have had to have a production workshop. That is why
we only vaccinated a small number of people.
Q. Now, Professor, please describe how the vaccinations were performed.
A. Vaccinations were performed on 28 persons altogether, in several
groups. The first vaccination was of eight persons. They were given one
injection of 0.5 cc. of the vaccine into the breast muscle in the
customary manner. The second group consisted of 20 persons, divided into
two subgroups of ten each. The first group—let’s call this group A—was
also given 0.5 cc. of the vaccine intramuscularly. Subgroup B, the last
ten persons, were first given a vaccination of 0.5 cc. of a dead typhus
vaccine produced in the Robert Koch Institute. Then, eight days later,
there was a second vaccination with a live vaccine, again 0.5 cc.
intramuscularly. I should like to say that the first vaccination with
the dead vaccine, which I have just mentioned, was performed for two
reasons: First of all, in order to be able to see whether this
preliminary examination produced more protective bodies; and, in the
second place, to see whether this preliminary examination with dead
vaccine might reduce the reactions of the living vaccine.
At the same time, I carried out protective vaccinations on persons
outside the camp, on volunteers. They were again performed in such a way
that there were three injections this time: the first, 0.25 cc., the
second, 0.25 cc., and the third injection 0.5 cc. of the live vaccine.
Q. The Court will be especially interested, Witness, in the reactions of
the persons after this vaccination. Can you tell us that?
A. In the first group of eight persons who were given 0.5 cc. of the
living vaccine only once, three had a reaction consisting of a short
fever of over 39 degrees. The rest of the persons, however, had no
reaction.
In the second group, among the ten persons in group A, there were no
noticeable reactions. In the other group there were very negligible
symptoms, in some cases only a headache and depression. Typical symptoms
of typhus, brain symptoms or vessel symptoms, and other symptoms, did
not appear in any case.
The same was true of the third group. Here again there was no reaction.
I must say in this connection that I used a vaccine produced from dead
typhus virus. I must point that out because later, in Natzweiler, I used
the classic epidemic or louse typhus virus vaccine.
Q. Professor, after the vaccination did you watch the well-being of the
persons vaccinated?
A. Yes, of course. After the vaccination I was frequently in the camp. I
looked at the persons who had been vaccinated and was shown their
temperature charts. After four weeks a final blood sample was taken to
perform the Weil-Felix reaction in order to see what degree of immunity
they had developed.
* * * * *
Q. * * * Were there any deaths in the course of these vaccinations at
Schirmeck?
A. No. There were no deaths from the vaccinations at Schirmeck.
Q. Witness, your testimony is in contradiction to the testimony of a
prosecution witness whom we heard here. This was George Hirtz, who
testified here on the 8th of January. His testimony is on page 1310 of
the German and page 1293 of the English record. Hirtz said that at
Schirmeck you injected 20 to 25 persons and during the following days
these people developed a high temperature. The temperature is said to
have started after 36 to 48 hours, and two of these people died. The
witness also said you had vaccinated him, the head of the camp, and the
Kapo in the sick bay. Will you explain the differences between your
testimony and the testimony of Hirtz?
A. It is true that these three people, the camp head, the Kapo [inmate
trusty], and the nurse, that was Hirtz, were vaccinated with the
customary vaccine on the basis of an order to the effect that if there
was any danger of typhus, the camp personnel had to be vaccinated
regularly against this disease. Now, the personnel was in much less
danger than the inmates themselves; so in order to help the camp doctor,
I supplied the vaccine and vaccinated these three persons, but I
reserved the live vaccine for the persons who were in real danger. Those
were the reasons why these seeming distinctions were made.
Q. The witness Hirtz also testified that he did not medically examine
these 20 people before they were vaccinated. Is that correct?
A. When the prisoners came to the camp they were carefully examined by
the camp doctor. This was necessary in the interest of preventing
disease in the camp. Therefore, here I merely had to observe whether
they were free from external symptoms of disease and to determine how
strong they were.
Q. Then if I understand you correctly, you say that the medical
examination was performed by the camp doctor, who made them available to
you for vaccination?
A. Yes, the camp doctor and the head of the camp, together.
Q. Now, Professor, is the statement of the witness Hirtz correct to the
effect that after 36 to 48 hours these persons had a temperature of up
to 40° Centigrade, 104° Fahrenheit?
A. I have already said that aside from the first group there was no
special reaction. Hirtz himself did not know the first group, he says so
himself. In the second group, I have just testified that there were no
temperature reactions or any other reaction.
Q. But you said, Witness—oh, that was the first group.
A. Yes. And even here the reactions were quite the usual ones which
occur in other vaccinations, too.
Q. But Hirtz also says that after the temperature—seven to eight days,
the persons developed some kind of disturbance and they had some
impediment in their speech and in three or four cases they stuttered. Do
you know anything about that?
A. When I visited these persons I did not observe any such symptoms.
None of them complained, and I am sure that if any one found that he had
developed such symptoms he would immediately have gone to the doctor.
Everyone was interested in getting rid of these symptoms. I did not
observe any disturbances or stuttering. If Hirtz had seen them at the
time, I am convinced he would have reported them to me. He was the nurse
for these persons and was responsible for them; I cannot imagine that he
would have served the interests of these prisoners by keeping these
things secret.
Q. You say that you did not observe such symptoms nor did Hirtz report
them to you. Now, Witness, Hirtz also said that after two days two of
these experimental subjects, as he calls them, or vaccinated persons, as
you call them, died. Did you observe this, Witness?
A. I have already said that in the smaller experimental group no one
died, because I am sure I would have noticed it when I visited these
persons who had been vaccinated. I would certainly have ordered an
autopsy in the case of such deaths to determine when the person died.
Not only would I have ordered or carried out this autopsy, but the camp
administration would have ordered it. People might think that these
persons perhaps died of typhus. I must say that after a two-day
incubation period—that was the period between inoculation and death—no
one ever died of typhus. The shortest time for typhus deaths, that is
the incubation period plus length of disease, is ten days to fourteen
days. And these early deaths are supposed to be cases with a high
pathogenic virus originating directly from human beings. For this reason
alone it is quite impossible.
Q. Witness, you said that in such cases you would doubtless have had an
autopsy performed. You said you heard nothing about the deaths, and
that, therefore, there was no autopsy; is that right?
A. Yes. That is correct.
Q. I should like to remind the Tribunal of the testimony of Hirtz. (_Tr.
p. 1298._) He said that he immediately wrapped the bodies in paper and
had them burned in the crematorium at Natzweiler. Not even the
prosecution witness was able to say, or perhaps did not want to say, how
Professor Haagen reacted to these deaths. Now one more question about
this witness Hirtz. Here on the witness stand Hirtz was asked, “Now
Witness, you realized that these experiments performed on the 20 to 25
persons were experiments for the determination of typhus in connection
with typhus disease?” A. “Yes, I had not the slightest doubt about it. I
have fifteen years of practice behind me.” I do not know, Witness, what
this testimony means. Perhaps I am not enough of a specialist to judge,
but I may assume that you can explain what the content of these
statements is.
A. I can only say that I cannot understand Mr. Hirtz’ statement at all.
I have no idea what experiments to determine typhus in connection with
this disease are supposed to be. First of all, there were no experiments
to determine typhus since there was no typhus. And I don’t know any
method for performing experiments on human beings to determine typhus.
If by experiments, one means the removal of blood in the Weil-Felix
reaction, that is something else, but that is not what he is talking
about here. As reason for his expert knowledge the witness states that
he has been a pharmacist for 15 years. That he has such a long practice
behind him and so considers himself an expert in the field of contagious
diseases. I can’t quite understand that either. But I think one can
expect that from a pharmacist—after all, pharmacists do sell vaccines
for public diseases in pharmacies—one would really expect him to know
what vaccine reactions are and what a real disease is. And then in the
first group where a reaction did appear, he didn’t know that group at
all.
Q. You have already said, Witness, something about Mr. Hirtz’ testimony
that the prisoner Atloff told him about what Mr. Hirtz described was the
second experiment. It seems to me that supports your statement that Mr.
Hirtz knew nothing about the first group, that is the eight persons. Can
you tell us anything else, Professor, to explain the contradiction
between your testimony and that of Mr. Hirtz?
A. Hirtz speaks only of one injection, not of two. The vaccinated
persons whom he took care of all had two injections at intervals of
several days. If he had really been interested in the vaccination, he
must have known that two injections were performed. That is one point.
Then he says that the needles were not changed. He seems to have
overlooked something there again; that for every injection a new
injection needle was used which was brought from Strasbourg already
sterilized, and that the technical assistant changed them. Anybody who
knows anything about scientific work knows that in such important work,
one does not use the same needle for several persons, quite aside from
the fact that this would not be in accordance with one of the most
elementary demands of asepsis. Here again he probably didn’t observe
very carefully.
Q. Now, Professor, we are interested in the question of whether in the
camp of Schirmeck, you wanted to produce typhus through artificial
injection of pathogenic virus. Did you perform such experiments at
Schirmeck?
A. No. No such experiments were performed. I don’t know what the purpose
would have been.
Q. Then if I may sum up, Professor, you were introducing a vaccine into
practice after it had already been tested in animal experiments, in
self-experiments, and in experiments on volunteers. But experiments such
as I have just described were not performed at Schirmeck, is that
correct?
A. Yes. That is correct. We were merely introducing a vaccine which was
already being used on a large scale in other countries. Perhaps I may
add that at first I intended to perform further vaccinations in the
Schirmeck camp in order to protect this camp as far as possible, but
that in the course of the next month, I realized that the Natzweiler
camp was entirely different in its whole structure and that there was
much greater danger of typhus in this camp. Therefore, I shifted my
interest from Schirmeck to Natzweiler.
Q. Now before we go on to the work at Natzweiler, Witness, I should like
to clarify the following point with you. Mr. Hirtz testified here that
the prisoners used for vaccination were not volunteers; but you say,
Professor, that your point of view is that experimental subjects should
be volunteers. Can you please clearly answer this question and explain
the points of view which are important in your opinion in vaccinations
particularly?
A. The prisoners whom we vaccinated were not volunteers. I would like to
say the following on that point: As I have already said, I share with
most scientists the point of view that the prerequisite for any
experiment is the self-experiment. This was not merely a theory in my
case. Everyone who knows my work or saw my work knows that I performed a
number of self-experiments and contracted a number of infections. I need
not go into that now, but of course I tested all vaccines on myself. If
we dispensed with the element of voluntariness in this present case, I
must state that according to our rules and laws in Germany, vaccinations
are ordered wherever there is danger of an epidemic. This situation
existed in Schirmeck and Natzweiler. There was a decree for this camp
from the SS-WVHA, and decrees were sent out by the chief doctor of
concentration camps. Our vaccinations were performed within these legal
regulations. In the records of trial, I find again and again the point
of view that I had taken poor, helpless prisoners and treated them with
murderous germs. But if one knows my work well, one can see that, on the
contrary, I was combating these diseases. There can be no question of
any criminal experiments here. I want to object very definitely to being
called a criminal when I was merely fighting diseases.
Q. Well, Professor, you say that in this case you dispensed with
volunteers because it was not an experiment, but rather a vaccination,
and because it is your point of view that for vaccinations it is legally
permissible to make them compulsory—that you were merely carrying out a
legal measure under international law?
A. Yes. This was a vaccination with a vaccine which was already being
used elsewhere in the world within the framework of general vaccinations
carried out on the basis of the existing regulations.
* * * * *
Q. When did you begin your work in Natzweiler proper?
A. It was my intention to begin vaccination in the Natzweiler camp in
the summer of 1943, but then unexpected difficulties arose which I must
go into—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 Strasbourg, was a member of the
SS and a research worker of the Ahnenerbe. As an SS officer he had
discovered through the camp that I wanted to perform vaccinations there.
He then intervened because he thought that 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 been 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 suborganization 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 a limitation
because I could only produce the vaccine 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 temperature 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 an announcement from
the Institute for Military Scientific Research to the effect that my
request would be granted.
Q. Professor, will you please look at Document NO-120, which is
Prosecution Exhibit 297. It is a letter from the Reich Leader SS,
Personal Staff, Institute for Military Scientific Research, dated 30
September 1943. It is signed by Sievers, and it is addressed to the
Director of the Institute for Hygiene of the Reich University,
Strasbourg. Herr 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 prerequisities 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. It wasn’t as simple as that unfortunately—I say “unfortunately”
because precious time was lost and I was interested in protecting the
camp as soon as possible, at least insofar as there was no longer any
danger of typhus. I informed the camp doctor of the contents of this
letter and asked to be allowed to commence the vaccinations. A
considerable time passed, however, and not until November did I receive
notice that we could begin with the vaccinations. The whole affair had
not been helped by Hirt’s intervention, therefore, but had even been
delayed. Then when I received the first hundred prisoners, I looked at
them and found that they were in no condition at all to be vaccinated.
They were in very poor shape. I must say that they were prisoners who
came from Auschwitz on the transport; I think eighteen of the people had
already died. One really had no right to perform a vaccination on such a
group. 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, Prosecution
Exhibit 293? It is a letter from you to Professor Hirt, dated 15 [13]
November 1943. Did 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 who were furnished to me by the SS-WVHA, in order to
determine their suitability for the tests which have been
planned for typhus 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.
Only in this way could I expect results which could be used for purposes
of comparison.
Q. Professor, I have something to put to you from this document which is
perhaps a contradiction—or which may be interpreted as a
contradiction—of your testimony. 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 experiments; it had been tested
in self-experiments, and on a small group of volunteers. I, therefore,
knew that it no longer involved any danger for the 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 still has
to be determined and that can only be determined on a large number of
people. The dose still has to be determined and the result of the
vaccination still has 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 was taken and all other observations were carefully made in
order to get a definite final impression of the effectiveness and
tolerance of the vaccine. We had to do this; it was our duty. It was a
big responsibility to introduce a new vaccine like this, even if one had
already gained experience in a small experiment on oneself and
volunteers. But in this trial the word, “experiment,” has been grossly
misused. In this sense our vaccinations were not “experiments”, 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
sick bed, 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 show the public attitude of an American firm—in
picture magazines which I have seen myself. Antiseptics such as
Listerine, where they speak of human beings on whom tests have been
made, who were used as guinea pigs. For this reason alone I think the
word; “experiment”, is used in different senses.
Q. One term has not yet been cleared in this document, 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 had already been made
and that the results were to be compared with one another, so that one
could have really useful results. The individual values of every
immunologist vary considerably according to the constitution and general
physical condition. That was one of the reasons why I was very careful
to obtain only those persons in good physical condition for vaccination,
since persons in a poor condition react quite differently. Besides, I
must point out that according to the general vaccination regulations,
vaccinations of any type can only be performed on healthy people, and I
wanted to observe this rule strictly.
* * * * *
DR. TIPP: Now, Witness, I turn to the next document, NO-122, Prosecution
Exhibit 298. It is a letter from Rose to you dated 13 December 1943. In
this letter the frequently mentioned Copenhagen vaccine is again
mentioned. Herr Rose writes here that the testing of many vaccines
simultaneously gives a clearer picture of better or worse results of a
method than the testing of one vaccine alone. Furthermore, there is
mention of the experiments in Buchenwald. Let me ask you first of all,
Professor, when you received this letter in December 1943, what did you
know about these Buchenwald experiments?
WITNESS HAAGEN: I only heard the details about these Buchenwald
experiments from the documents in this trial. Moreover, Dr. Ding’s
report at the consulting conference in 1943 must be mentioned. I heard
of Professor Rose’s protest against these human experiments at that
time.
Q. You had no connection then with these Ding experiments?
A. I never worked with Ding and knew of his work only from the report at
this consulting conference.
Q. The prosecution has deduced 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, that I never had a strain of virus which is
pathogenic to human beings, consequently, I could not carry out an
infection such as the prosecution seems to assume. I never thought of
carrying out such subsequent infection with a virus pathogenic to human
beings, because I was working as a scientist with my own material, and
wasn’t testing mixture for other vaccines at all.
As I have already said, on the 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 I
would carry out these primary vaccinations with dead vaccine and I
wanted to use such a vaccine that used a dead virus. In the meantime,
between Schirmeck 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
Copenhagen vaccine, thought he was supporting and helping me. And he
suggested that I include this dead vaccine in my series of vaccines. Let
me say regarding this Copenhagen vaccine that it was a liver vaccine
which is said to be much more effective than the other dead vaccines,
particularly more so than the lung vaccine; and from it, in dead form, a
better protection could be expected. Now, it was my point of view that
if we distributed it over 100 persons again and did not get other
persons, there would not be enough vaccinations to be of value for
comparisons. So, I didn’t see any reason for introducing the Copenhagen
vaccine. I told this to Professor Rose and Professor Rose answered in
the form we have seen in the letter which constitutes this document.
This would have given some basis for comparison 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 so that we could do without it. I heard no more from Professor
Rose about this vaccine and never received the Copenhagen vaccine.
Q. Then you say, Professor, that this was a dead vaccine, namely the
Copenhagen vaccine, and there was also your own dead vaccine which was
to be used for a preliminary vaccination to reduce the reaction to the
live vaccine. However, this plan although originally intended, was never
carried out?
A. Yes. That is so.
Q. Now, Professor, we were talking about your letter to Professor Hirt
of 15 [13] November 1943, in which you ask him to make other prisoners
available. Was this request met later and were you able to carry out
vaccinations in Natzweiler later with your new vaccine?
A. Yes. I received the persons I had requested, and in December of 1943
and January of 1944 we were able to carry out these vaccinations. I
performed them in two groups of 40 persons each with my live attenuated
virus which is no longer pathogenic to human beings, and this I want to
state explicitly.
Q. Professor, please describe these vaccinations briefly 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 temperature 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 Schirmeck vaccinations in May and these
vaccinations, I had turned to the production of a louse typhus vaccine;
this vaccine contained live virus. Before it was used in Natzweiler as a
vaccine, we tested it 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 on 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 value, 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 inoculation, temperature, and headaches; but there
were no manifestations of actual typhus as a result of inoculations.
Q. 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 performed by scarifying the skin in the same way as
you scrape the skin to make a smallpox vaccination. Therefore, 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 that
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 vascular
typhus vaccine, so that we had no misgivings about undertaking this kind
of vaccination.
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 this we can only explain 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. But, Professor, to this statement I shall have to put to you
something which 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 (_Tr. p. 1371_), she
said that you had carried out vaccination experiments on 100 to 150
persons in Natzweiler, and out of these experiments roughly 50 are said
to have died from the control group. Fraeulein Schmidt stated that she
knew this from notes which your technical assistant, Miss Crodel, had
made about the typhus experiments at Natzweiler. Can you please tell the
Tribunal to which notes Fraeulein Schmidt was referring—in other words,
how do you explain her testimony?
A. It is utterly impossible for Fraeulein 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 following the vaccinations.
These notes of Fraeulein Crodel’s which Fraeulein Schmidt saw do not
refer to the vaccinations. That can be seen from the numbers mentioned,
by Fraeulein Schmidt, because I only vaccinated 80 persons at
Natzweiler, not 150 to 200 as the witness stated. The witness apparently
took this number and the concept of a control group from later writings,
which are to be discussed hereafter; but I can imagine to which note she
could have been referring.
Q. Please continue, Witness.
A. The witness states correctly when these notes were made, because she
says the sun was shining on the pages. That must have been in the spring
or summer of 1944. This corresponds with the time when the typhus
epidemic was raging in the camp. Thus I assume that Fraeulein Schmidt
really did see genuine notes of some sort.
Q. Then, Witness, you are saying that these were notes which were made
in the course of an epidemic that took place in Natzweiler, can you tell
us 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 the very considerable figure of roughly 1,200 was reached.
Q. Let me point out in this connection that this epidemic is confirmed
by two prosecution witnesses: Grandjean on 6 January (_Tr. p. 1099_) and
the witness Holl on 3 January 1947 (_Tr. p. 1058_). 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 1,200 to 1,400 cases, as I remember, thus this would
agree with what you have just said, Witness. Now, the most important
question in this connection is, 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 into the camp from outside, either by transports or from
other camps. Let me repeat that the sick people were taken from outside
camps to Schirmeck where they were treated in a special department,
because there was no way of isolating them in the outside camps.
* * * * *
_CROSS-EXAMINATION_
MR. MCHANEY: Let’s pass on to the notebook. Now, what does the notebook
show? What is this notebook?
WITNESS HAAGEN: That is a control book in which the experiments with the
typhus vaccine on the animals were recorded.
Q. Does that notebook concern your typhus experiments?
A. As far as I can see now, it looks as if that was the current
laboratory work which we were carrying out. That is what it looks like,
but I’d have to see all of it first.
Q. Now, Professor, you must be able to tell the Tribunal who wrote this
book.
A. The technical assistant kept it, and from the handwriting, it looks
as if she made these entries; but I can’t interpret every record after
such a long time. I have to study it first. We did not only have
vaccinations, but also scientific work.
Q. But to the best of your memory, you can state that this notebook was
written by Fraeulein Crodel, and it concerns the experiments carried out
by you?
A. The laboratory work, as far as I can see at the moment. I would like
to make that restriction.
MR. MCHANEY: The prosecution asks that Document NO-3852 be marked as
Prosecution Exhibit 521 for identification.
Now, Professor, we have covered the chart of the test on the two mice.
Let’s go to the notebook itself. And in order to follow my questions, I
will ask you to observe the pencil numbers which I have written on this
photostatic copy down at the bottom right-hand corner of each page. Do
you find that?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you turn to page 3?
If the Tribunal, please, it will be necessary to renumber the pages
appearing on your translations. This applies equally to the defense
counsel. When the translation was made, they took some pages off the
reverse side of the photostatic copy, and because of the two pages
appearing for one photostatic copy, they had to be renumbered. Page 5 on
the translations should be marked page 3.
Do you find the entry for 30 April 1943, Professor?
A. 30 April ’43, yes.
Q. And that says, “S, plus, plus, 9, Sch.” That is Schirmeck, isn’t it,
Professor? “Sch.”?
A. No. That means ninth passage. It is supposed to be “pas.”, ninth
passage.
Q. It says “Sch.”, what does “Sch.” mean?
A. It doesn’t look like “Sch.” to me.
Q. What does it look like to you?
A. In German, I think it looks like a “p”, a German “p”.
Q. And you think it should read what?
A. First, I said it is probably “passage—ninth passage”.
Q. All right. Let’s go down to the entry, the next one for 14 May. In
parenthesis “two weeks,” does that mean the vaccine had been stored for
two weeks?
A. Where is that? I can’t find it.