A. Yes, after reading what I have in my hand, now it is quite possible that I listened to this lecture. At the same time, it is a proof that I have not as good a memory as you assumed, because I already had this Document in my hands once before here in Nurnberg; you once gave it to me and I forgot about it.
Q. Now, did Holzloehner describe clinical observations in that death resulting from cold human beings in this lecture which you heard?
A. I cannot tell you that.
Q. Does it not say so in your own report here?
A. It says here that Holzloehner belonged to the Luftwaffe and as far as I was informed later, Holzloehner had gained large experiences from his service at the Atlantic Coast. I am sure that was something that was mentioned during his lecture. He had an emergency sea station near the Atlantic Coast and near that there was a hospital where he treated these frozen people who had been rescued from the sea. There was no cause to suspect anything special behind this.
Q. Was it apparent to you that he carried out experiments on human beings?
A. No.
Q. Well, General, we have heard some testimony here about the talk Holzloehner gave in Nurnberg two months before this and as I recall, there was some indignation in this meeting in October, 1942, because all these gentlemen realized what had happened; are you telling me that no rumor of this seeped up from Nurnberg to Berlin in two months, so when the same man gave the same talk, you gentlemen were in complete ignorance about the fact that these experiments had been carried out on living human beings in a concentration camp?
A. How far any discussions or any particular impressions were noted in Nurnberg, I cannot say. At any rate, I never heard anything about any discussions or any decline.
I could well imagine that if I would hold a lecture anywhere and if afterward I gained the impression that there was some kind of unclarification, or some one might call too much attention, and if two months later, I was holding the same lecture at another place, I would naturally change my lecture and I would draw my conclusions from what I had learned previously. I am sure that this well might have been the case here. At any rate, after reading this excerpt, if a few pages are missing here and if somebody does not look at the pages exactly, he must assume that the man noted down here as Handloser spoke immediately after the lecture of Holzloehner. I believe that the report of the meeting itself will show you that between the lecture of Holzloehner and the discussion, there were a few other lectures and you will have to admit that considering the fact that we were approaching winter again, because this meeting took place in December 1942, my remarks did not refer so much to Professor Holzloehner's lecture, but it was merely a reminder that we wanted to do everything and in that way wanted to concentrate our entire interest to the front where freezing took place in order to help our soldiers. That is all it means to say.
Q. I suppose the Tribunal wishes to adjourn at this point. I might say it is not the desire of the Prosecution to hamper either the Defendant Handloser or Dr. Nelte, his counsel, in the continued preparation of their case. In view of the fact that we are now adjourning for a period of four days, I would be willing to permit Dr. Nelte to confer with his client, if Dr. Nelte will state for the record that he will in no manner, shape or form discuss with his client the matters about which he has already been interrogated, or in any way coach him on subjects which may come up. I don't mean by that to bar him from discussing any of the subjects, which I will interrogate him about, that is typhus or anything like that, but if he wants to discuss with Dr. Handloser the question of some wit nesses, further affidavits or matters of that character, I will be willing to let him do it on the basis of the understanding that he will not in any way influence the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal inquires of counsel for Defendant Handloser whether he deems it important to consult with his client during these days of recess, the Tribunal stating that if he does feel that is important, the Tribunal will consent, relying upon Dr. Nelte to conform with these principles of professional ethics to which he should confirm under the circumstances.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I thank Mr. McHaney very kindly for his suggestion and I thank you for the confidence which you place in me and I can assure you that I shall comply with the professional ethics of our profession and I shall only speak to my client about questions, which have nothing to do with the complex of questions that are the subject of cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The counsel for Defendant Handloser may talk with his witness during the recess.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock Tuesday morning.
(The Tribunal recessed at 1652 Hours)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 18 February 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Court Room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, have you ascertained if the defendants are all in Court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all defendants are present in the Court Room.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in Court.
Counsel may proceed with the cross examination of the witness.
MR. McHANEY: May it please the Court.
SIEGFRIED HANDLOSER - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q General, isn't the utilization of material and personnel in the field of medical research a common problem of all branches of the Wehrmacht? I will repeat the question, General. Isn't the utilization of material and personnel in the field of medical research a common problem of all branches of the Wehrmacht, requiring a coordinated and planned direction?
A The question never confronted me.
Q Well, whether it confronted you or not, wasn't the utilization of material and personnel in the field of medical research a common problem of all branches of the Wehrmacht?
A The personnel was distributed in such a way as was practicable for the individual institutions and agencies; and the constant requirements of material which they had were settled automatically according to the demands, which I did not have in my hands.
Q General, you'll recall that the Fuehrer Decree of July 1942 vested you with jurisdiction ever problems concerning the utilization of material and personnel. You remember that?
A Yes, it was the material and personnel coordination; and the reason for this was that at a central office for reasons of economy the strength of the individual branches of the Wehrmacht was to be distributed according to the size and the requirements of the individual branches.
Q Well, now, General, we understand that; but we are trying to give some content to these general words "material" and "personnel"; and I'm asking you if the utilization of material and personnel in the field of medical research wasn't a common problem, requiring coordination, which fell with in your jurisdiction under the decree of July 1942.
A I can only say that in practice -- and that is the most important this question did not even come up in my staff and within my field of competence. Nothing was ever submitted to me with regard to the distribution of material or personnel where I would have had to make a decision because there were different difficulties in this respect and that is the most important.
Q General, you'll remember that I read part of your speech to the consulting physicians at the meeting held from 30 November to 3 December 19???
A Yes.
Q That was Document No-922, Prosecution Exhibit 435. In that speech, General, you said in part that "it is not a question of marching separately and battling together, but marching and battling must be done in unison from the beginning in all fields. As a result, as concerns the military sector, Wehrmacht medical service, and with it the chief of the medical services of the Wehrmacht, came into being. Not only in matters of personnel and material even as far as this is possible in view of special fields and special tasks which must be considered, but also with the view to medical, scientific education and research, our path in the Wehrmacht medical service must and will be a unified one."
A Yes.
Q Aren't you saying there, General, that the coordination of scientific research was one of your jobs as chief of the medical service of the Wehrmacht?
A Yes, it was in all the fields where this was required and necessary.
Q General, did you have any interest in the treatment of wounds cause by gas of various types?
A Of course I was interested.
Q What research was done, to your knowledge, on this question?
A In the Wehrmacht we had two separate fields. They were the military field about the use of chemical warfare agents and the medical field for the treatment of injuries sustained because of such chemical agents. Accordingly, there were two separate regulations. There was one regulation which referred to the military use; and there was one regulation which referred to the treatment. These were the army regulations Number 395 and a printed regulation Number 396. That was the medical regulation. During the war it was completely reproduced on two or three occasions. I have always shown a special interest in this service regulation. In connection with this the most emphasis was placed on the question of the burning chemical warfare agents, mainly lost gas; and as far as I can remember the first World War, this was a field of special interest, not only with us but also in all countries.
Q Well, did you know of any gas experiments carried out on human beings?
A Yes. We had a laboratory, an institute, in the academy which had always had the assignment and which was also given the assignment by me to try finally to find a very practicable method of treatment; as we called it, to find a decontamination procedure; and this assignment was very zealously carried out. It finally resulted in the fact that in the course of the year 1943 we found an excellent skin decontamination procedure. Experiments were carried out on animals. Then they were carried out on voluntary officer candidates. They were medical students in our military medical academy. They were furthermore carried out on soldiers in the army chemical warfare service school where the training took place for the gas protection offices.
That was located at Zelle.
Q Did you know of any gas experiments carried out on concentration camp inmates?
A No.
Q You testified that you knew nothing about August Hirt's lost experiments? Is that correct?
A No, I did not know anything about them.
Q. You probably remember Herr Brandt and I discussing the experiments of Bickenbach which Brandt described as being carried out on animals, phosgene experiments, I think? Do you know anything about the experiments of Bickenbach?
A. No.
Q. Did you have an officer by the name of Wirth, W-i-r-t-h, working on gas problems in the Army Medical Inspectorate?
A. I cannot remember the name Wirth at all.
Q. Why I thought you were calling Wirth here to testify in your behalf?
A. I have not had Wirth called here.
Q. The name is Wirth.
A. Yes, Wirth. I have not had Wirth called here.
Q. And you don't know him?
A. Of course I know him. I have known him for years. He was a specialist in the Military Medical Academy.
Q. That is what I am trying to get at. Will you tell us what Wirth was and what he did?
A. Wirth was a student of Fluri and Wirth was the successor of Munsch who had worked on chemical warfare agents for many years and who had written books which can be found in any book store about chemical warfare agency. Wirth was the head of the Pharmacological Institute Department in the Military Medical Academy in whose field he dealt. Among other things with the service regulation No 396 which has been mentioned before He had been assigned by my predecessor, Dr. Waldmann, to improve the decontamination drugs and during the entire time which I held office I have kept on working on this assignment.
Q. Well, in your opinion, Wirth would probably be informed on all gas research in Germany, wouldn't he?
A. I have not said with all gas research in Germany but I said that he was head of the Institute at Berlin and that he was special consultant in the field, that he was special consultant for the Wehrmacht, or the Army, in the field of chemical warfare agents.
Q. Well, he was your foremost authority on gas problems, was he not?
A. I would not call him the first authority but it rather is my opinion that the first authority would be his teacher, the well known Professor Fluri.
Q. What is Wirth's first name, do you know?
A. No. I assume that his first name begins with "W". I think on one occasion I read W. Wirth, but I am not sure.
Q. Did you know if Wirth ever worked with Bickenbach?
A. No, I cannot tell you that.
Q. Wirth is the man who recommended to Karl Brandt experiments for the decontamination of water poisoned with lost, isn't he?
A. I have read that here for the first time in the document which you have presented here.
Q. That was in Document N0-154, Prosecution Exhibit 446, for identification. You will remember that document contained the paragraph which read as follows: "The third series of experiments were carried out with the agent of the lost group, the asphixiating gas lost, in accordance with suggestion made by Oberarzt Dr. Wirth at the conference 4 December 1944 with Reich Commissioner Dr. Brandt." Those experiments were carried out on concentration camp inmates, weren't they General?
A. I cannot give you any information at all about that. I do not know anything about the session, which is mentioned in the document, nor can I tell you the reasons for it.
Q. Does it strike you as a little strange that one of the officers in the Army Medical Inspectorate would be recommending experiments on concentration camp inmates unless he knew that practice was approved by his superiors?
A. I cannot judge if Professor Wirth made this suggestion that such experiments be carried out on concentration camp persons. I don't know anything about that.
Q. I was just asking you if you wouldn't find it strange that an Army officer would suggest or participate in experiments on concentration camp inmates unless he knew that his superiors had no objection to it.
Wouldn't you find it strange if he did that?
A. Professor Wirth could not have believed that I would agree to this because we have never discussed this question at any time.
Q. Did you know Dohmen?
A. I knew Dohmen very slightly. I can remember him because in one of our meetings he gave a very good lecture about epidemic jaundice. I can remember that on the occasion of some meeting which I attended when I welcomed all the people attending. I asked one of them, "Where are you working and who are you?" And Gutzeit told me "That is Stabsarzt Dohmen." I did not have any personal contact with Dohmen. I can only remember him because he gave an excellent lecture about the jaundice and about the little incident with Gutzeit.
Q. As I recall you testified that you knew nothing about Dohmen's experiments in Sachsenhausen on concentration camp inmates, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you call the Breslau conference on jaundice in 1944?
A. When I opened the conference in 1944 I states, and that is contained in my opening address, that I had given orders that all German hepatitis scientists, regardless if working in the Wehrmacht or civilian center, to hold a meeting in the near future in order to give them the opportunity to exchange their experiences and, above all, to compare the cultures which they had discovered, to compare them and to test them.
Q. Did you attend the Breslau conference?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn't you know of the collaboration of Hagen and Dohmen in Strassburg?
A. I did not know anything about that. I know they worked together in this field. I only knew one time about it - that was Schreiber presiding over the meeting. I know that in the course of the meeting he had the very fortunate idea to suggest that various working groups should be formed so that at least these working groups could exchange their experiences.
I heard here from Gutzeit, from his testimony, that as far as I can remember that the ring also included Gutzeit and Dohmen and also Hagen. I know that especially between Hagen and Dohmen difficulties existed, probably also in the conference of the German Society for Internal Medicine October 1943 in Vienna, it was not the Military conference. For this reason it was without any doubt a success on the part of Schreiber as if he succeeded by means of this working group procedure to remove these difficulties that existed.
Q Do you know whether Haagen and Dohmen conducted experiments on human beings at Strasbourg?
A No, I do not know anything about it.
Q Well, you talked to Haagen at the meeting at Breslau in 1944, didn't you?
A I have not understood your question.
Q Did you talk to Haagen yourself at the meeting in Breslau in 1944?
A I do not believe that I have spoken with Haagen at Breslau. I may have welcomed him just like all the other people there, but I'm not quite certain of that either.
Q Didn't you receive any reports on jaundice research?
A I did receive reports about jaundice from my own consultants but not in excess of that.
Q Did you receive none from Haagen?
A No.
Q Well, Dohmen was one of your subordinates, he was attached to the Military Medical Academy. Didn't you ever get a report from Dohmen?
A I have already previously stated that Dohmen was one of fifty, sixty or seventy medical officers of the scientific group, and I have not received any report from Dohmen because Dohmen was, first of all, subordinated to the chief of the medical scientific group and then to the head of the Academy and whenever reports were submitted then they first of all went either to the consultant of the medical inspectorate or the medical inspector, (this was Gutzeit or they went to my scientific department in the medical inspectorate, without my being directly informed about it. Gutzeit himself has repeatedly personally reported to me on a large scale about the epidemic jaundice. Of course, that was his natural duty because the problem played a major part. However, your question if I had received any reports from Dohmen I must answer in the negative.
Q Do you know of any experiments on human beings with jaundice?
A No.
Q Well, General, in view of the testimony of Gutzeit that jaundice was medical problem of major proportions, and in further view of his testimony that it was not a serious disease, how do you explain the fact that no experiments were carried out on human beings to determine whether in fact you had isolated a jaundice virus?
A I can only explain this through the fact that research was still under way and that at the Breslau Conference, with the utmost variety of scientists present, one of the scientists still disputed with the other if this was the cause at all. I can tell you further that I did not even know anything about the fact, that I was never told, that Gutzeit had carried out an experiment on himself. I can explain the fact in the way that we had not yet succeeded in finding the virus. There were only assumptions and some of the scientists believed they had found it. However, the fact had not yet been established.
Q Well, but General, as early as the middle of 1943 Grawitz was stating that it was necessary to have animal to man virus experiments. Now, in view of the importance of the problem how is it that no experiments were carried out on human beings?
A I cannot tell you anything about it. However, I believe that Grawitz opinion was not decisive for me because, without any doubt, he had handled some problems which were not ripe for discussion yet, while we, in the Wehrmacht, maintained the point of view that one should be very careful in all these cases.
Q General, you have testified that you attended the meeting of the consulting physicians at the Military Medical Academy in May, 1943. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q You have also testified that you heard the report by Gebhardt and Fischer at the meeting. Is that right?
A I have stated that it can be assumed that I attended this conference.
Q I asked you if you heard the report by Gebhardt and Fischer at this meeting?
A I assume so, yes.
Q Well, do you remember whether you heard it? Did it make any impression on you?
A No, I cannot remember that at all. I must tell you that I have not shown any special interest in these reports or that they did not make any special impression because, otherwise, I would be able to remember them.
Q Well, wasn't it made clear in this report that they had performed experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A In my opinion, as far as I know, it has been stated here that prisoners who had been condemned to die and those who had been pardoned were concerned.
Q Well, General, you saw these women, these Polish women who came here to testify. You saw how their legs were mutilated. Will you tell the Tribunal what you think about sulfanamide experiments at Ravensbrueck? Do you think they were all right?
A I can only repeat again that in the lecture certainly the subject of concentration camp prisoners was not concerned. It was not discussed because one or the other of the words would have remained in my memory. I am quite certain that no female prisoners were discussed. I have seen the Polish women here and I have also seen the scars. That is the subsequent result. However I cannot state exactly what was done to them and the explanation was not given by Dr. Alexander here. He has only given a diagnosis and if I were to tell you what I think about these experiments then I must ask you that I can postpone this statement until I have heard the people who carried out the experiments and who will describe how they carried them out. I do not know anything about it because I cannot remember the lecture.
Q Was it not clear even from the summary of this lecture in your report of this meeting that the experimental subjects had been artificially infected?
A Then I would have to read them over once more.
Q Well, let's do that. I'll have to read this to you, General, as I'd seem to have the German here. This is Document NO. 923, Prosecution Exhibit 436. After Gebhardt and Fischer gave their report they had a little discussion and a man by the name of Schreus had the following to say: "As far as I perceived, Gebhardt's and Fischer's experiments do not qualify for an immediate comparison with animal experiments as performed by myself and others because ligature of vessels eliminated larger muscular parts and prevented the influence of para-orally administered sulfanilamide."
This fellow has already pointed out that they tied off some blood vessels in Gebhardt's and Fischer's experiments, hasn't he?
A Larger muscular parts were included in this or were removed.
Q He goes on to say: "The range of locally administered sulfanilamide, especially of non-soluble ones, must not be over-estimated because the conditions of diffusion are not sufficient due to poor solubility. Especially morphinal has to be considered in this respect." Then he says: "The poor takes of infections with gas gangrene, which is stressed by the lecturer, coincides completely with the findings in animal experiments." Now, General, isn't he saying very clearly that they artificially infected these human beings with gas gangrene?
A That cannot be deducted from this text. They only speak about the bad results of the gangrene infection and anybody that doesn't exactly know what has happened and who knows that the infection was to have been artificially caused, cannot deduct this, in my opinion. It only states here about the bad results of gangrene infection and I as a known surgeon, and not a bacteriologist could not have reached any conclusions in that sense or could have deducted anything as you have just suggested.
Q General, my English translation reads "the poor takes of infections with gas gangrene." I can only conclude one thing by that and that is that the lecturer was pointing out that they had trouble getting gas gangrene infections they had trouble making them "take." Now what other conclusion can be drawn?
A Well I cannot draw that conclusion from it because that is a discussion between two people and one person refers to his experiments and I do not know to what extent this comparison is correct. I am not enough of a specialist in order to judge that. I can only say that if I were to read this report today, after everything I have heard, and if I were to read it over without Knowing anything in particular about the subject, then it certainly would not draw my particular attention.
Q All right, General. I take it you made no investigation to this experiment after this report since it made no impression on you. Is that right?
A The important factor in this case is, because after all one must consider the circumstances, that although 300 to 400 people participated and all of them were consulting physicians, that is to say all of them were specialist that at no time during the lecture or after the lecture or during the intervals or even later on, nobody even discussed this question orally or in writing or through some other means. Nobody suggested that something did not seem to be in order here. Therefore I did not have any cause to make any special investigation with regard to the subject.
Q But General, one can draw two conclusions from your statement. One, which you have just drawn, which you justify your inaction by. The other is that everybody there just had no reason to object to these experiments; they knew that it was an accepted policy of your organization to experiment on concentration camp inmates so they said nothing. You can also draw that conclusion, can't you?
A I must repeat once more that I doubt that the words "concentration camp" or "concentration camp prisoners" were mentioned at all.
Q Very well. I think if we had proved here that there was an objection at this very lecture that you would conveniently have been outside the room at that time. Now I put to you that at this same meeting in May 1943 there was an objection by our defendant Roser to Ding's report on Typhus experiments and your man schreiber was chairman of the meeting at which Ding spoke. You say you were not there but you also have testified on this stand that you heard nothing about that objection.
A I and not only I but it has already repeatedly been stated here and it has also been seen by the documents which were presented here, that this was a conference of 12 different specialist groups, and that the individual specialist groups had individual meetings and that it would have been completely impossible to be in 12 different places at the same time. I have stated under ?ath on various occasions here that I did not attend the conference of the Hygienist Group where Ding was present. Even Schreiber has not told me anything about Rose's objection which has been mentioned here. Gebhardt's lecture took place in the large auditorium after I had given the opening speech and after the conference had been opened within the framework of surgery. The bacteriological hygienist specialists held a conference by themselves at some other place. I can only repeat once more that I was not present.
Q General, I am not present downstairs in the Milch Trial but I think if anything unusual happened down there and most particularly if anybody was killed down there I think not only that I would hear about it up here but I think even you would, and I am asking you if it isn't a bit strange that when an important man like Rose gets up in a meeting of an institution of which you were the commander, and objects to what he terms to be murder, I ask you, isn't it passing strange that Schreiber or someone else did not say anything to you about it?
A It may seem very strange to you but I can only repeat the fact once more that nobody told me what the reasons were for the people that attended to fail to object and I cannot state anything with regard to Rose because I did not hear him.
Q Were any military medical measures taken on the basis of Gebhardt's sulfanilamide experiments?
A Yes, a measure was taken; the conclusions which were reached in the end were changed into directives just as they are stated, as final conclusions which were approved by all the medical men who attended.
Q Well, in other words, as a result of the experiments of Gebhardt, medical instructions were issued, is that right?
A The phrase "new instructions" goes perhaps to far. Perhaps there were about 10 lectures and the results of the subsequent discussions were summarize and a part of them referred to the results achieved by Gebhardt. That was the actual reason for the conference so that the people should know what the result were with regard to the conference of all the specialists. That was not always something positive, but very frequently in other problems the question remained open, that a large number of physicians outside the country were to be given clarity that the leaders of the medical service and the consulting physicians were constantly and at all times trying to find a solution to all the question which had still remained open, in order to help all the wounded.
Q General, that makes what we are talking about the same thing. Did the Army Medical Inspectorate issue instructions on a piece of paper to the physician working in the field stating that in case cases of shock due to prolonged exposure to cold you should treat the patient in the following manner and been outline the manner of treatment? Did the Army Medical Inspectorate issue that kind of instructions or not?
A Yes. First of all they are the instructions and secondly it is also a part of the reports of the conference of the consulting physicians.
Q I asked you if those instructions concerning the treatment of wound infections were changed or influenced by the talk of Gebhardt and Fischer. Yes or No, that is all we need. I don't care how they were changed, just a yes or no--were they changed or weren't they changed?
A That was no change. That was an addition to the previous results. This result was also added--these results which had been achieved by the discussions.
Q Well, precisely what was added to the instructions which you gave to field medical officers on treating infections of wounds?
A The instructions begin with the following, with a short review. There are about 1, 2, 3, 4, 6-1/2 lines here about the experiments which were carried out by Gebhardt and then from the next lecture are the results of sulfonamides, then application, then the clinical results, and then it states the following rules are to be added for the praxis. Therefore what has been added here now, that states that the development of an inflammation caused by banal causes and the internal and external cannot be prevented by the internal and external application of sulfonamides. Then it states about the inflammation the important part of this that also in this case of warning had to be issued to the surgeons outside that the experiments had shown that they could not solely depend on these sulfonamides but that they would remain and maintain their surgical treatment. This was a very important point that only in some cases they should add sulfonamides.
Q. General, would your organization, your staff, make such additions to medical instructions without investigating precisely what had been done during the course of experiments upon which these new instructions were based? That's a pretty important problem, isn't it?
A. That would not be the task of my staff, but it would be the task of the specialists, and the reason for this conference and everything that has been newly discovered since 1943 was that several dozen leading scientist could read and that they could consult about these instructions which were issued here. Neither I nor normally people of my staff participated during this conference, but the procedure was that on the very last day before this meeting was disbanded, the 12 or 14 different specialist groups announced the text of these instructions. And in this case it was to be asked once more if there was any further discussion, and if not, then these instructions were accepted. They were printed as quickly or as slowly as this could be done, and then they were sent to the front.
Q. Well the, General, I take it that these specialists groups investigated the conditions of the experiments which were reported on with great care; is that right?
A. Yes. Naturally you will have considered in that respect under what medical forms; that is, in this case bacteriological forms or surgical forms these experiments had been carried out; that is to say, how the results were achieved can be seen by the case histories and the person who has carried them out will answer the questions here which were put to him, because after all, a number of physicians are not always of the same opinion.
Then various questions were asked and they were discussed and we also have instructions with various things that were not added and where people were arguing what procedure should be followed, and that, as a result of the discussions we saw a big advantage.
Q. Rostock was a member of the surgical group, wasn't he? He was primarily concerned with this sulfanilamide problem?
A. All of us were interested in the sulfonamide experiments -- problem
Q. Well, was he a member of this group of specialists which investigate very carefully these reports because they were going to issue medical instructions based on those reports, and they wanted to be sure that their instructions were right and that the reports were correct; and now I am asking you was Rostock a member of this specialist group?