A. No, I never heard anything like that, namely, that any details were discussed with the people concerned.
Q. Then all you know about it is what you have already related here in evidence; is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. Professor Restock, your counsel has placed in evidence Rostock Document Number 5, which has been received in evidence as Rostock Exhibit Number 5. This document purports to list of scientific publications of which you are the author. In the document under the title "II, Journals," appears a publication entitled "Treatment of War Wounds with Sulfonamide, Report of Congress East of Consulting Physicians, 1942." Where did you get the information and data upon which this publication was based?
A. That is the lecture which I mentioned this morning. It was printed in the report of the consulting physicians of May, 1942. I don't know the exhibit number; but it was submitted to the Tribunal by the prosecution.
Q. Where did you obtain the data and information from which the report was given? Do you recollect it this time?
A I know that in the year of 1942 I held a lecture there.
Q. Now, then, returning to the Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser matter, did there ever come to you, from Gebhardt, Fischer, or Oberheuser or from anyone else, any information concerning experimental efforts to transplant bones, muscles, or nerves from one human being to another?
A. No.
Q. You know nothing about that whatever?
A. No.
Q. During the course of your interrogation today you made some mention of an order, decree, or directive of some sort from some responsible government officer or authority or agency, authorizing medical experiments on persons condemned to death. Is that correct?
A. No, that must have been a misunderstanding.
Q. I understood you to say that at this meeting Gebhardt had attempted to rationalize the legality of his experiments because of the purported existence of a decree or order which legalized such experiments on persons who had been condemned to death. Did I understand that correctly, or am I mistaken?
A. Well, in his lecture he said this. The legal basis for the experiments about which he was going to report was clarified and did not concern us, that is, the people in the meeting. That was a matter that was decided. He did not say, however, that any certain authority or certain person was at fault. He merely said generally that this was a matter that was decided. We the listeners, or at least I as a listener, gained the impression that any hi h governmental agency gave the authorization to these physicians; and because of the relationship of obedience which is used in military circles, I assumed that this governmental agency, which I didn't know, would have to assume responsibility. That is the picture I gained at that time. That was the impression I gained. But I must say that I did not consider this question legally or in any way intensively. Well, anyway I don't understand anything about it.
Q. You didn't understand then that there was any existing German law or decree or order which in its terms legalized such a type of experimentation; but all you understood was simply what you had heard from Gebhardt in his assertion that so far as the lawfulness or legality of the question was concerned, it had been settled by someone?
A. I know nothing of any law or decree in that direction. I assumed that Gebhardt told us and repeated to us what had been told him by some other agency. He told us that he was authorized. I cannot say whether such a law existed or whether it did not exist. At any rate I do not know of such a law.
Q. Do you recollect the words he used in regard to the legality of any such experiment as you have narrated? Can you remember the verbiage he used?
A. I don't remember the exact word's. I only remember the sense.
Q. Will you repeat again what you remember of the sense, please?
A. According to the sense of it he said that the juridical basis for the execution of these experiments had been decided and a discussion about it was not necessary with the people who were present. But I think that Gebhardt may remember those words more exactly.
Q. Did he make any mention of the type of persons upon whom such experiments could be legally conducted. Was something said about people who had been condemned to death?
A. Yes, he said that this concerned people who had been condemned to death and who had subsequently been pardoned.
Q. Who had been pardoned or who were to be pardoned if they would give their consent to the experiment and did survive the experiment, which was it?
A. The word "approval" in my opinion was not mentioned. I understand it in the following manner: That if the man concerned survived this wound infection, that so to speak would be synonymous with the execution of the death sentence, and that if he survived this death sentence would not be passed. That is the way I understood it at that time.
Q. Did you understand whether or not the element of voluntary consent on the part of the human subject was to play any part?
A. The voluntary nature, according to my opinion, was not mentioned.
Q. So far as you understood it then, it was not to play a part?
A. That I don't know.
Q. Well from what you gained from Gebhardt or any understanding either from what he said or did not say am I to understand that the effect of it was that without any element of consent or lack of consent, certain persons condemned to death were to be used as experimental subjects, and that if they survived the experiment that they then were to be pardoned or their sentence would be commuted in lieu of the execution of the death sentence, is that correct?
A. In my opinion the situation was that whoever had survived this infection therefore did not have to be executed and was not sentenced.
Q. What was to become of them?
A. I don't know how it is usually handled in penal executions, whether that means complete liberty or any deprivation of liberty is something which I do not know.
Q. Did you have any understanding as to how it was to be handled in these cases? 3376
A. No, I did not know that.
Q. Your understanding was that people who had been condemned to death were to be the experimental subjects, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you understand that any distinction was going to be made between German nationals who had been condemned to death under the German penal laws as criminals or the political prisoners or prisoner of war who was a non-German national and who had been convicted or sentenced to death?
A. A differentiation between criminals, prisoners of war and political prisoners was not made. I had the impression that these were ordinary death sentences, whether they were Germans or non-Germans I don't know either. I don't know but I believe that even a non-German can be sentenced to death by a German court. I don't know whether that is customary or not.
Q. Let us assume that is true. Do you know whether or not a nonGerman national in a concentration camp who has been sentenced to death may be subjected to human experiments upon his body?
A. I don't know that.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until nine-thirty o'clock Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 Monday February 25, 1947.)
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 24 February 1947, 0930, Judge Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their sets. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal I 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, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, the defendant Oberheuser is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The rest of the defendants are present?
THE MARSHAL: The rest of the defendants are present, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Oberheuser, having filed with the Tribunal a certificate of Roy A. Martin, Medical Corps, U.S. Army, that she is unable to attend court this day on a count of illness the defendant will be excused, it appearing to the Tribunal that her absence from the Tribunal today will not prejudice her right.
The Secretary-General will file the medical certificate of Doctor Martin. Counsel may proceed.
PAUL ROSTOCK -- Resumed.
DR. PRIBILLA (Counsel for the Defendant Rostock): Mr. President, I ask you to excuse me that I am turning to the Tribunal at this time. At the end of the last session the defendant was asked some questions by the Tribunal. Mr. McHaney was kind enough to draw my attention to the fact that the witness didn't quite understand one of the questions of Judge Sebring, perhaps because of some misunderstanding. My own observation confirmed his and we are concerned with the following. Judge Sebring asked Rostock Ex. No. 4, Page 7, where there is a publication of Rostock's about sulfanilamide. He asked where Rostock received the date for that publication.
To understood that Judge Sebring wanted to ask from where he received the material basis for that lecture. The defendant, however, always answered continually in such a manner which led one to believe that he meant that the question was about the reliability of his statement as contained in the document. If Judge Sebring is off the same opinion. I would suggest we clarify this point again before answering any more questions.
JUDGE SEBRING: As I understand it, the purpose of Rostock Document No. 5 was to show to the Tribunal the extend of the work done by Professor Rostock in the publication field, Roman 1 showing the books which had been written and published by him since the middle of 1937, Roman 11 showing the articles which had been published by him, I take it, in medical journals and other published works of that nature. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. The Tribunal was interested in knowing something about the general publication "Treatment of War Wounds with Sulfanomides, Report of Congress East of Consulting Physicians, 1942". Perhaps to further clarify the matter it might be appropriate to ask this question: What was the nature and content of that article that appeared as a journal publication?
A. As a matter of fact, I really misunderstood the question as was put to me on Friday, after what I have heard today. Friday I believed that I was asked on what basis I incorporated this article in that list, namely, Exhibit No. 5. Naturally, it is very easy for me to answer the question as to what my explanations were based on in the year 1942. That was based upon my own experience during two and a half years of war. That was based on studies of literature which was published, and, furthermore, the consulting surgeon with the Army Medical Inspectorate sent me the experience reports of other surgeons of the Army in that field. In order to an answer the other question at the same time, I should like to say that I didn't receive a report from Mr. Gebhardt.
That wasn't at my disposal at that time. When at the time I hold this lecture the experiments of Mr. Gebhardt, which are subjects of discussion here, had not even started. According to this list they began in July of 1942. I don't know whether I have answered your question with that.
Q. Professor Rostock, do you recollect at this time the date or the **** and year in which this article was published and made available to the medical public in Germany?
A. The lecture was held in the middle of May, 1942. I can't give you the exact date. Maybe I could look it up. It appeared in print, that is, in these reports of the consulting physicians that were submitted here, and I assume that was published in the summer or fall of the same year. They were not published in the same manner as would be the case with a periodical, but they were published in an official printed matter which was not secret and were put at the disposal of the military physicians. That is how they appeared in print.
Q. So far as you know, were they put at the disposal of the medical officers of the Waffen-SS?
A. I don't know that. Perhaps Generaloberstabsarzt Handloser could answer that. I know they were sent to the physicians of the army. I don't know who else received them.
CROSS EXAMINATION RESUMED BY MR. McHANEY:
Q. Herr Professor, do you remember what conclusions you drew in this lecture on sulfonamide in May, 1942?
A. I merely initiated the basic research work about which we spoke on Friday, and, according to the knowledge which we had at that time, I gave some basic outlines as to how treatment was to be carried out and I pointed out a few questions which had not been cleared up in that field. I could explain that in greater detail if I could look through the wording of the lecture once more.
Q. Did you draw any conclusions with respect to the necessity of having front line hospitals with surgical treatment of soldiers with wound infection as against the possibility of treating such wounded soldiers with sulfanilamide and evacuating them to the rear?
A. Sulfanilamide treatment in itself was customary in many places at the front.
There weren't any special hospitals for that purpose and they were hardly possible at the moment. Our entire difficulty was that, under conditions of war, every physician who took care of the initial wound, of the wound dressing, only kept the patients for a few days under his own observation since the medical stations and hospitals at the front had to be evacuated very speedily in order to keep them ready for now wounded who might come in, and this change just during the first decisive days made it practically almost impossible for one surgeon to care for such a patient from the wound dressing up until ten to fourteen days later and keep him under constant observation. And during these ten to mostly fourteen days the wound development decides itself.
Q. Now, Professor, the sulfanilamide experiments of Gebhardt have been rationalized to some extent by the statement that German military medicine was undecided as to the value of sulfanilamide treatment and, that if certain problems could be cleared up in that respect it could be determined whether it was possible to cut down on the treatment of wounds with surgery in the front line hospitals and merely treat the soldier with sulfonamide and evacuate him to the rear or whether, on the outer hand, it was necessary to build up, to increase the number of front line hospitals because it was necessary to treat these wound infections with surgery. Do you understand that?
A. If I understood the interpreter correctly that certainly was the problem. Was I to treat the wound with surgical means -- was I to use knife and scissors in order to remove the tissue in order to kill the basis for the bacteria or can I dispense with that treatment and can I think that it would be sufficient to put some powder into the wound? There was very much controversy about that question. There were followers and opponents for both of these extreme uses and only gradually the point of view prevailed that with reference to the ordinary wound infection the mere treatment of powder -- that is sulfanilamide -- in the wound itself would not be sufficient. But, in order to experience that and in order to arrive at that conclusion as we did we needed a number of years in view of the numerous wounds that occurred during the war.
That is because of the difficulties which I described before in the medical observation during the first days of the wound. In order to answer the question whether or not more hospitals had to be instituted -- that, of course, would have been an expedient measure but I don't believe that it was possible from the personnel point of view for, in order to furnish a hospital, you need experienced physicians, and, as far as I could survey the situation of personnel, we hadn't enough. I remember a radio report which once came from America where an American high medical officer said: We Americans shall win the war because we have four or five times as many physicians as the Axis powers." I don't dare to decide whether this view was correct or not.
Q. Did your paper, your lecture in May, 1942 shed any light on this problem as we have posed it here?
A. I'm sure I didn't express it with these words, but the question of whether to treat wounds surgically or only use powder was a question that was repeatedly contested.
Q. Now, you have testified concerning two conferences in 1944 to discuss special research and that Schreiber and Breuer of the Reich Research Council were present at these meetings. Who else was present and what agency did they represent?
A. This is how it was. The first meeting in the summer can be traced back to me. Present were gentlemen of the Reich Research Council, gentlemen of the Medical Inspectorates of the Wehrmachts branches and Reich Office for Economy and Building. It was just a very small circle. This took place in Bielitz, mainly because of air raid precautionary reasons. It probably would have been as well to choose a little room in Berlin for expediency but Berlin had become very troublesome at that time. The reason of this discussion - don't let's call it a conference - was that almost underhanded I heard that there were considerations pending in the Armament Ministry in order to stop research. These considerations were pending apparently for quite some time for the second meeting of which I also spoke only took place in the winter and was not initiated by me but by the Armament Ministry. And, there the circle was much larger for there were present about seventy or eighty gentlemen, mostly technicians. Any measures of the Armament Ministry were probably directed to technical research and the few gentlemen who did purely research work in the medical field only were so very few that they played no part whatsoever.
Q. Do you remember who represented the Wehrmacht at the first meeting?
A. I don't know. I believe Schreiber was there. I don't know who was there from the Luftwaffe or the Navy.
Q. Anyone represent the SS?
A. I can't remember exactly which one of the gentlemen was from the SS.
Q. Well, do you think there was someone there from the SS and you just don't remember his name?
A. I can't tell you that exactly.
Q. And, have I understood from your previous testimony that you discussed nothing at this meeting except what fields of research were urgent?
A. We discussed the question of what larger fields of research, considering the intensified conditions of the War, would be necessary in the future. We arrived at about twelve or fourteen such themes.
Q. Didn't you discuss particular research assignments?
A. Individual research assignments you mean? Assignments to Mr. so and so, is that what you mean?
Q. Yes.
A. It may have been possible but that could only have been used as an example. It wasn't done in a manner where a list or research assignments available came through in detail. Entire list perhaps was discussed. Naturally one of the participants, by way of example, mentioned any particular assignment ---
Q. You say you did not go through a large list of research assignments and pick out certain individual ones and designate them as urgent?
A. We designated the entire field. Naturally the gentleman who had distributed these orders had to use their own discretion whether they wanted to drop one or the other. That wasn't my task to decide and I had no power to do that.
Q. You yourself did not designate specific research assignments as being urgent?
A. Naturally it is quite possible and thinkable that if somebody said that I give this assignment to so and so and would say, "please think about it" - quite natural I would give my opinion on the subject. But, without having my material at my disposal I could hardly answer that here under oath. I think that will be the case with many gentlemen here. I don't know whether if one of the defense counsel who would be asked here what happened during a trial three years ago, whether they remember all the details of that trial - maybe they could discuss it if they had their files. I would be able to do that if I had my files and could look it up, but merely from memory, considering the time that has lapsed it is something too much to ask.
Q. Well, do you remember what you did following the first meeting? What results occurred as a result of this meeting?
A. As a result of this meeting a list was made about these twelve research fields which were considered important. That was sent to Ministry Speer and to other agencies.
Q. Now, didn't all of this really require some knowledge of just what a particular scientist was doing? And how he was doing it?
A. No, not at all. It wasn't necessary to decide whether, in order to give an example of this trial, whether to know what Haagen carried out in way of typhus vaccine experiments. It was sufficient to know that typhus danger was very large for Germany and we had to say to ourselves that we had to protect Germany against this danger - that we had to continue to work - and in order to arrive at this realization it wasn't necessary to know any details which were carried out in some typhus hospital somewhere. The decision of importance could be arrived at without any of the detailed knowledge that were in the individual's sphere.
Q. Now, I take it that you were getting together your card index file of special research assignments before this meeting took place in the summer of 1944. Is that right?
A. Yes. A little before that.
Q. What use did you ever make of this card index file of research assignments?
A. It didn't really find a proper use. As I said the actual threatened interferences in research activity by the Armament Ministry only came about in the winter and whoever can remember what Germany looked like during the winter of 1944-1944 will agree with me that at that time directives from above had no value any longer. In most cases they didn't reach the agency they were directed to. I think that the number of mail that was burned was very large and extensive.
Q. Didn't you have any correspondence with these scientists who were working on special research assignments? Didn't you send general instructions to them of any sort, or things of that nature?
A. I certainly had correspondence with the scientists. As for general directives to individual gentlemen, that is something I didn't send. But, if somebody believed that he was to be limited in any way or some personnel was to be taken away from him or that his iron or material supply was to be cut down, then certainly he approached all agencies from who he hoped they could help him.
A. Did you ever circularize German scientists with any sort of instructions about what your task was, how you could help them in a given situation, just when it was they were supposed to get in touch with you?
A. I never sent a general directive of that nature. This would have had to be printed considering the amount of people involved and I cannot remember such a procedure. I certainly had individual correspondence with gentlemen that I knew.
Q. Did you know a man by the name of Schulemann, S-c-h-u-l-e-m-a-n-n?
A. Yes. I know Schulemann. He is the well known discoverer of the well known malaria drug "plasmochin". He was professor of pharmacology in Berlin.
Q. Do you know a man named Zeiss, Z-e-i-s-s?
A. Zeiss was professor for Hygiene in Berlin. I know him naturally. There is another Zeiss. There is a Zeiss in Magdeburg. I don't know which one is meant.
Q. Now you mentioned the correct one first - the Hygienist in Berlin. What about Dr. Pfaff, P-f-a-f-f?
A. Pfaff? Pfaff? At the moment I have no imagination when you mention that name. Maybe you could tell me more about him - was he a surgeon?
Q. Apparently he was an expert on tuberculosis.
A. I don't remember. If I think about the names that I know of German tuberculosis workers I don't think I heard anyone of that name in that connection.
Cuort No. 1
Q. What about a man named Vezler?
A. Vezler? Yes. Vezler was a physiologist at Frankfurt-on-theMain, who worked on Taslau physiology.
Q. Did you know a man named Hildebrandt?
A. Here was a surgeon, Hildebrandt. He is dead. He was dead at that time. I don't know anything about him.
Q. I Have in mind a pharmacologist at Giessen.
A. No, I don't know him.
Q. What about Fischbeck?
A. I know the name from somewhere but at the moment I cannot say who he was.
Q. Schlossberger?
A. Yes. Schlossberger was a hygienist at Jena.
Q. Bachmann?
A. Bachmann? At the moment there is nothing I can remember under that name.
Q. Gremels?
A. Gremels? I don't know him.
Q. Butenandt?
A. Butenandt was a very well known physiological chemist and ho is the man who discovered how the female sexual hormones were put together and did research work on that subject. He was at first in Berlin and then Tuebingen.
Q. Now, professor, isn't it a fact that German medical research is composed of a fairly close-knit body of scientists? Isn't it a reasonably tight organization in a country of this size?
A. No, certainly not. For instance, I know all the well known surgeons of Germany because of the yearly congresses which in normal times took place; but I never knew the expert representatives of other fields. Even if you took out the top people from these various fields, the people who were the bonds of the representatives of universities, I would not know them. I would know some of them but certainly not all of them.
Maybe one or the other name is known from literature but if one is confronted with that Gentleman it does not follow that one should know who he was. This tight connection which you are perhaps submitting here, never existed. One could almost say that, unfortunately, it never existed, for the big danger to German science and perhaps also abroad was that most people had a very poor eyesight in that regard and did not want to look right or left to see what happening. When science wants to advance it has to be able to see clearly.
Q. You have previously shown some knowledge of Beckenbach in connection with a cyclotron. Did you ever meet Beckenbach?
A. Yes. I met him on two or three occasions.
Q. Where did you meet him, do you remember?
A. I met him at Strasbourg - something that hadn't been quite finished yet. At that time I spoke to Mr. Steiner, Mr. Beckenbach, and with some physicist whose name I do not remember any longer. We discussed the problems at that time of research possibilities on a medical biological field.
Q. Was that in the fall of 1943?
A. That may have been at the end of 1943.
Q. Were you there with Karl Brandt? You remember he said he was there too.
A. Yes, I was there with him at one time. Yes, we looked at the institute where this cyclotron was to be installed. It was in one of the university clinics at Strasbourg.
Q. How many visits did you make to Strasbourg to see this?
A. I was in Strasbourg once in my entire life.
Q. Do you remember the other occasions when you saw Beckenbach?
A. I think I saw him in Berlin at one time and I think that was all. Otherwise I had no connections to him.
Q. Do you remember when that was?
A. I believed that was before I got there, that is, before I went to Strasbourg. Whether this visit was in connection with my efforts I do not know but nothing materialized anyway.
Q. Did you meet Hirt when you were in Strasbourg?
A. No, I do not know what Hirt looks like. I only know the ****
Q. You say you met Dr. Stein there?
A. Yes, Stein was the dean at Strasbourg.
Q. Did you also see Haagen on that occasion?
A. No, I did not meet him.
Q. Did you meet a collaborator of Beckenbach -- Dr. Fritz Letz?
A. I don't know that. There were two gentlemen there, some assistants, but whether a certain Dr. Letz was there I really don't know.
Q. What about Dr. Hellmuth Ruhl?
A. I can imagine nothing by that name but it is possible he was one of the gentlemen there.
Q. And you are sure that you know nothing about research by Beckenbach on chemical warfare?
A. No. No, we discussed the designation of a few atoms with regard to the radio-active manner and their mannerism in the human body.
Q. Well, but as I recall, Karl Brandt testified that on the occasion of this visit to see Beckenbach and the cyclotron, that he had some discussions with Beckenbach about his work in the field of chemical warfare agents and Beckenbach asked Brandt to help him and, as a matter of fact, he did help him, insisting, among other things, in setting up a laboratory at Fort Fransecky, just outside of Strasbourg. Did you know anything about that?
A. That discussions were pending in order to furnish a laboratory for this research work, I know.
Q. Do you mean to say you don't have any idea of what research work he was doing. It seems to me that if you were right there and heard him talking about fixing up a laboratory you would know what they were going to do with the laboratory.
A. I did not know that in detail. It did not concern me very much. One cannot ask me to know about every German lecture and what he was doing in his institute. The situation was that all these lecturers and scientists were working on a number of problem simultaneously and were helped by assistants and interns and it goes beyond the strength of a human being to try to know all this and keep it in mind.
Q. But whether you know his work in detail or not, did you know that it was concerned with the field of chemical warfare?
A. I did not know that in that sense.
Q. I want to put a document to you to see if your memory will possibly be refreshed. I have handed the witness page 14 of Document NO-1852. It is on page 15 of the translation which has just been handed to the Tribunal.
A. This is a letter from Mr. Beckenbach. One cannot see on what date this letter originated; nothing can be seen here. It concerns Beckenbach's experiments on three cats apparently. That was with reference to aerosols. Aerosols in modern physics as well as in medicine in the future play the part of distributing the materials in a gas and also in the air. He says here that an aerosol was taken from Hexamethylentetramin, the matter we usually call Urotropine, and was neutralized by phosgene. That is what I can see from this report here. This letter is not directed to me and I can't remember ever having read it. This is in accord with what Dr. Brandt has testified; namely, that the work on chemical warfare agent was his affair and did not concern me.
Q Well, now Herr Professor, this letter is addressed to the Fuehrer's General Plenipotentiary for Sanitation and Health, Surgeon General Professor Dr. Brandt, Berlin, Ziegelstr. 5-9, Surgical Clinic at the University. That is about two or three doors away from your office, in the same building?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q I assume that this letter came into his office sometime in 1944; don't you really think you read it?
A No, I don't think so, and whether you believe me or not, you may rest assured that I was glad if my daily mail was not too extensive. We scientists have so much to read that we have no inclination to want to have this burden of mail increased. I cannot remember having read this letter.
Q I will read the letter into the record. It is labeled "Top Secret (Military) 2 copies." "To the Fuehrer's General Plenipotentiary for Sanitation and Health, Surgeon General Prof. Dr. Brandt, Berlin, Ziegelstr. 5-9, Surgical Clinic at the University.
"6th Report.
Q The protective effect of an inhalation of HexamethylentetraminAerosol on phosgene poisoning.
A Ten per cent. solution of Hexamethylentetramin is sprayed into a suitable box of 1/6 cbm with a Schlick jet. Aerosol of varying size particles is formed which is given to cats to be inhaled. Immediately after the inhalation they are placed in phosgene c.t. about 3000.
"RESULTS "1) A cat inhaling aerosol on 3 different days for altogether 8 hours contacted a slight attack of pulmonary edema, survived; the control animal died after 6-7 hours of severe edema.
2) A cat inhaling for 2 hours also fell sick slightly and survived; the control animal died after 6 hours.
3) A cat inhaling for 1/2 hour fell sick severely and died after 20 hours of pulmonary edema, the control animal died after 6 hours. No further experiments could be carried on owing to lack of experimental animals.