Q. Professor, you were just speaking of the examination of dry vaccine of Haagen's; what do you understand by examination of vaccines?
A. In this case, we are exclusively speaking about the examination of its tolerance on human beings, computability, and the question as to how severe by the fever is conditioned by this vaccination, in other words the severity of the vaccine reaction. This is the point which is very decisive in the case of the living a-virulent vaccines. In the case of these vaccines this question of reaction is very important, because if you have a tolerable vaccination reaction it is sure that the protective effectiveness is also more favorable. This is absolutely clear, according to general experience. Now and again it is examined subsequently, but today one can say with certainty from the outset. Now the vaccination reactions in the case of most living vaccines are stronger than in the case of the dead vaccine; but as I have already said, the immunity is more favorable, this is taken into account, since this procedure is only applied in the case of especially severe illnesses. Naturally the hygienist as well as the physician prefers any vaccine, which causes reactions, but it is clear that a condition, which is only brought about by a severe disease dangerous to life, can only be brought about artifically, by certain subsequent reactions, such reactions as fever, head-aches, etc., one must always consider the gain. One must always consider that this constitutes a protective injection against an infectious disease which is dangerous to life.
Q. Would you please continue describing Haagen's experiments?
A. Haagen at first did not arrive at any other results than Blanc when conducting these experiments. This is the situation as one can see it from his report to the Reichs Research Counsel, dated 21 January 1944, under paragraph 2. This is Document No. 138. I am afraid it must be an error, I think this is contained in Document Book No. 13, page 87.
This is also the situation which I described when I gave my lecture in Basle on 17 February 1944. This vaccine was only used in the case of conditions where there was great danger and where on the other hand it did not matter if the people suffered fever for a few days and had to stay in bed. During war time, one cannot do that in the case of the troops who are committed in the front line; one cannot put a squadron of bombers to bed just because they were vaccinated against typhus. Therefore, Haagen endeavored to find a method which would alleviate this vaccination reaction. He first had just meant to vaccinate with a dead vaccine, for instance the vaccine of Gildemeister-Haagen and then vaccinate again with the living avirulent vaccine. This thought was really very logical, after it had proven itself that these dead vaccines influenced the course of the illness very decisively. Hence the assumption was justified that it would have a favorable influence on the vaccination reaction with a living a-virulent vaccine.
May I ask whether I have explained this point clearly; naturally the gentlemen of the Tribunal are not acquainted with this question very well, but I think it is of decisive importance.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the witness has explained his ideas on the subject.
Witness, how much longer will your explanation on this particular branch require?
THE WITNESS: I believe that this would be a good point to recess, because after this basical explanation I shall turn to the explanation of a number of individual documents, and will then describe what these documents actually mean according to the explanations which I have now given.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in keeping with what I suggested some 40 minutes ago, if the defendant still has another half hour or more to continue on in this technical language, it seems to me the suggestion of an affidavit would suit our purposes much more conveniently.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems there might be considerable merit in that suggestion. Counsel, how much further in the course of your examination of the witness, will these technical explanations be produced?
DR. FRITZ: Only one more question, I think. The defendant just said himself that after having made these general statements he will explain the individual documents which are also supposed to incriminate him.
MR. HARDY: That may be well and true, Your Honor, but just 40 minutes ago we heard we were only going to hear this for five minutes longer, and now we have been listening to it since 10 minutes to three o'clock.
THE PRESIDENT: If the witness is now approaching that point which effects his particular case, I think the witness should be permitted to testify orally in that matter.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal recessed until 0930 Hours, 23 April, 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 23 April 1947, 0930, 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 I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed.
GERHARD ROSE - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the Defendant Rose):
Q. Professor, yesterday you were giving a description of the medical basis of Dr. Haagen's work. You already explained that Professor Haagen was working on a new living avirulent typhus vaccine. Would you please, briefly, explain the connection between his plans and the document which I am going to discuss with you and put into my next question.
A. I repeat very shortly, I had described that in the case of a vaccination with a living avirulent vaccine, we are basically concerned with similar events as occurred in a genuine infection and that, therefore, the expressions and phases used must in many things be very similar and sometimes even be the same. It is naturally understandable that laymen misunderstand these terms, and it is not surprising at all that the prosecution also considers a number of documents as being suspicious while in reality they are completely harmless.
Q. Did you have the desire to alleviate Haagen's vaccination reaction which came about from murine in his small pox vaccine rickettsia; did that have anything to do with your correspondence with Haagen?
A. Yes, the letter refers to this question which Mr. Hardy could not understand when submitting his documentary evidence and about which he wanted an explanation from me. This is document 122 to be found in Document Book No. 12 on page 82. I think that I should have to read this letter once more, considering it is significant, although it was already read once by the prosecution. I draw your attention to the date which is the 13th of December 1943. It says:
"Dear Mr. Haagen.
Many thanks for your letter of the 8th of December. I don't think it is expedient that in addition to the application which you have already made, another special application is made to the SS Main office. I request that in the case of getting the people to be vaccinated for your experiment that you requisition a corresponding number of persons for vaccination with the Copenhagen vaccine. This has the advantage, as also was shown in the Buchenwald experiments, that the testing of various vaccines simultaneously gives a clearer idea of their value than the testing of one vaccine alone."
Then follows the end.
Q. How is it that this letter isn't signed by you yourself?
A. I cannot remember with certainty that I dictated this letter, but judging by its form it is quite possible that it originates from me. It was customary whenever I went on official trips and my typists hadn't finished their letters, that I left it to them to sign them, that is, in every case where the letter was not directed to any superior agency. I think that this letter is absolutely genuine.
The contents of this letter fit into the connection of the situation at that time, and it is quite clear to me. Professor Haagen, as well as the five other agencies which are mentioned in the distribution list, received the annex to my report about my trip to Copenhagen and I mean the annex which refers to the Ipsen vaccine, Rose document 22, volume number 2, pages 15 to 19. He had then worked with a dry vaccine from living attenuated murine virus. He tried to find some way in order to alleviate the vaccination reaction. As I explained yesterday, he intended to do that by carrying out preliminary vaccinations with a dead vaccine.
I may emphasize that this thought was not new at all. These experiments have already been made before in the case of other living vaccines, and the best known method of that nature is the sero-vaccination which was introduced at the beginning of the yellow fever vaccination when one had no harmless yellow fever vaccines yet. Then, yellow fever serum and vaccine was vaccinated simultaneously. Since the end of 1943 Haagen worked with a vaccine from murines, and that can be seen from his report to the Reich Research Counsel to which I pointed out yesterday, he must naturally have been very interested in the Copenhagen vaccine because that one was produced from dead nurine virus. Haagen at that time obviously had planned an experimental series where he would make prevaccinations with a number of dead vaccines and would then be able to test to what extent they were in a position to alleviate the reaction of his living avirulent vaccine. Originally he only intended to use such vaccines for his pre-vaccinations which were already generally applied with the Wehrmacht.
In this letter he put the question and suggests to start a series of experiments with the Copenhagen vaccine for the same purpose. In my answer I obviously make suggestions to the contrary and object that he should start a special series of experiments for that purpose. I say that it would be far more expedient to have these serios running simultaneously and my indication to the Buchenwald vaccination is a matter of course for the biologist, because in Buchenwald the effectiveness of various vaccines upon the course of the illness was tested in the case of an infection with virulent virus.
Haagen, on the other hand, was dealing with the problem of influencing the vaccination reaction with living avirulent vaccine. The parallel aspect of these two testings running together was even more desirable in the case of Haagen, since Haagen's vaccine was still in the stages of development, it had in no way been standardized and he couldn't have large supplies.
Q. You were just discussing vaccinations and you described then as infections with attenuated living vaccines. But we are concerned with infections on human beings in this trial and that constitutes one of the main counts of the indictment.
A. Well, I described yesterday that the application of an avirulent vaccine from a biological point of view is a kind of infection but an infection which can be controlled and which is not dangerous. As for the legal aspect of any such infection, you find the smallpox vaccination, the yellow fever vaccination, and all other vaccinations which I have already mentioned are infections in the very same sense but they gave gone outside this sphere of juridical judgment. No prosecutor would entertain the thought today to make any accusations because of a smallpox vaccination because he would undoubtedly make himself ridiculous. The typhus vaccination, on the other hand, hasn't progressed that far as yet. I admit that. Haagen in his work in this field knew of the Frenchmen Blanc and Legres and a number of others as predecessors, and he was in a much safer ground in his work than Strong, for instance, when developing his plague vaccine. Strong said expressly in his report that he was surprised at not finding any stronger reaction and not encountering any incidents. Haagen, throughout the years, could always base himself upon experiences which were available to him, and I'm referring to experiences which had been made during the last forty years, and, in addition, he could base himself on the technique which had been developed, especially in the production of virus vaccines. In addition, there was his very special personal experience as a virus expert. All these were factors which gave him the assurance that any serious incidents could not occur. Certainly, his procedure is not fully ripe as yet, but there is no doubt that within four or five years it will be the generally applied procedure in the case of typhus. If Americans are trying to follow that procedure, too - such as at the Rocky Mountain Institute or the Rockefeller Institute in New York - I am sure that this stage will be reached within a period of two years already. In its present stage, however, it is possi ble to find somebody who would give an expert opinion and therein consider this procedure as being doubtful and that, I am sure, you will find if you take a surgeon as an expert in this field who knows little about the development of a typhus vaccination.
If you want to create any martyrs in this procedure, this will be the last opportunity. In three years' time the public will no longer tolerate that. I can only say that Oberstarzt Kowalzek, who was with the Luftwaffe, has already clearly suggested that this French procedure be applied generally in the Luftwaffe. After this, he vaccinated himself and. the members of the German Armistice Commission in Morocco according to this procedure. The Medical Inspector at that time did not decide to introduce that procedure because he still considered the reactions to be too severe considering time of war. He assumed that in peacetime such reactions could perhaps be tolerated by the troops but that that could not be done under conditions of war. Accordingly, I saw no reason whatsoever to voice any misgivings about the fact that Professor Haagen was dealing with a procedure which was recognized and, to a considerable extent, was already practically applied. Certainly, in more than a hundred thousand cases.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the defendant has now been on the stand over two days. This morning he is spending twenty minutes merely approaching the point where he is trying to attack the integrity of this Tribunal and acting in a manner which is not appropriate here and I feel that the defendant should answer the questions asked of him and not delve into the question of whether or not the Tribunal knows this case or whether or not the prosecution has weighed the facts in this case. That is for the Tribunal to decide and not for the defendant to decide.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness should answer the questions more directly without so much diffusion in his answers. The witness may file, as it was stated yesterday, a supplemental affidavit to his testimony, if he desires to do so, but this particular phase of the trial has lasted quite a while and I think the witness - questions should be asked him - propounded to the witness which he can answer more definitely and that the wit ness should endeavor to answer the questions as directly as possible.
I would say further that counsel will have ample opportunity to argue the questions, both on the fact and on the law. He may file briefs and submit oral argument to the Tribunal. A great deal of the time taken up by the witness is really a matter which can be properly argued to the Tribunal, from the facts, by his counsel.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Haagen tested the compatibility of his vaccine on human beings. Couldn't he ascertain that by testing it on animals?
A. The pre-testing, where animals are possible, was actually carried out by Haagen, as can be seen from his reports. He had plenty of animals available. The decisive question as to what the vaccination reaction is on a human being can only be ascertained by testing it on a human being.
Q. Why didn't he test it on himself or on his collaborators?
A. This is impossible for the simple reason that, in order to find out what a vaccination reaction is, one needs a larger number of persons. In addition, the persons in his environment were already vaccinated against typhus and for the most part had already experienced typhus themselves because of the work in the laboratory.
Q. Why did he have to go into a concentration camp in order to carry out his tests?
A. The reasons which caused Haagen to go into a concentration camp I don't know since I didn't discuss that matter with him, but they are very obvious. For one, there are technical reasons which led him to do that, and then there are purely practical reasons. Whenever one did carry out any such test vaccinations, one would carry it out on persons who would benefit most in case they were successful. The free population of Wester Germany and Alsace was not at all subject to typhus danger at that time. The concentration camps, however, were definitely in danger. The witnesses from Natzweiler who testified here, Holm and Grangend, told us in detail that a typhus epidemic had broken out there and that the persons who were vaccinated by Haagen definitely benefited from this vac cination.
None of these persons fell ill of typhus and it is upon that that he bases his assumptions in his report that the anti-infectious immunity had been proven. The witness Grangend emphasizes, on page 1145 of the record, that the persons who had been vaccinated with other vaccines in the camp had fallen ill to a considerable extent.
Q. How about the voluntary aspect during such test vaccinations?
A. Since I never learned any details about Haagen's work, I naturally cannot say whether he asked these persons for their permission. In itself it is rather probable that in an endangered atmosphere as was the case in a camp the persons there would undoubtedly volunteer to be vaccinated against hyphus. It becomes, however, clearly apparent from the correspondence that the experimental subjects wore somehow or other designated. Obviously that can be explained by saying that one could not from the start determine how strong the vaccination reaction would be. I personally would not have any misgivings in forcing people to submit to such vaccination, because in the German Health System we are quite used to the compulsory application of vaccinations of human beings. We have legal compulsion in the case of smallpox vaccination. In the case of the Wehrmacht we have the protective vaccinations against typhus, cholera, and so forth, which are compulsory on the basis of a directive, and we have the same thing on the basis of the labor service. Nobody could withdraw from any such vaccination by refusal.
Q. Is that also true abroad, are there compulsory vaccinations there?
A. The legislation of the various countries differ in this field. There are states who have a certain conscience clause, but there are other nations who know of an absolute legal compulsion for vaccination.
Q. In order to revert once more to the Haagen vaccine, did he actually carry out this series of experiments, I mean the series of experiments which is mentioned in the letter which you have read before?
A. As far as I am informed, no. He never came back to that subject, and he never sent a report about it.
Q. How do you explain that?
A. The reason, according to the documents available, must be the following: We know from the correspondence between Haagen and Hirt that Haagen was not at all satisfied with the health conditions of his experimental persons, and that therefore his experiments were delayed.
It also becomes apparent from his publications that in the meantime he had succeeded when carrying out his further work to bring about the alleviation of the vaccination reaction in the case of the living a virulent vaccine by keeping the dry vaccines in store for a period of two months. By applying this procedure he no longer had any serious reactions. That, of course, killed his interest in the Copenhagen vaccination completely. Haagen then continued to work. He used this method which had been successful in the case of a murine rickettsia and in the case of the recattsia prowazeki too. He produced a vaccine which was produced along the same method from rickettsia prowazeki. This vaccine too was tested as to its reaction on human brings, and by applying this series of experiments he realized a thought which he expressed in the correspondence of December, 1943, and discussed for the first time with me in the case of the murine vaccines. As one can see from his papers he was then carrying out double vaccinations. A number of persons were only vaccinated with the dry vaccines, and then there was a control group which was vaccinated with the dead vaccine, namely the vaccine, according to Gildemeister and Haagen, and then he used his new dry vaccine from living a virulent prowazeki rickettsia. Then he only tried to alleviate the vaccination reaction. He limited himself to a single infection of the dead vaccine, whereas in the case of a normal protective vaccination against infection one always carried out a vaccination which included three injections. Since this dry vaccine which he used afterwards had been produced from rickettsia prowazeki, he did not use this Copenhagen vaccine for the purpose of prevaccination, but the dead vaccine, according to Gildemeister and Haagen.
Q. I have another question referring to the complex of Haagen's vaccines; I refer to the document of the Prosecution NO. 128, Prosecution Exhibit 307. This is to be found on page 97 of Document Book 23. This letter is signed by Professor Luxenburger, the commander of the lecture group "Science and Research."
Professor Schroeder stated here that you must have had knowledge of this letter, and that you had written the draft. Is this statement correct, and I ask you to reply to this question as briefly as possible?
A. It is correct that I know of this matter. It is only partially right that I made the draft of this letter. This paper was submitted to me for my attitude, and I still remember it today. My entire description of Haagen's work is based upon the knowledge of this paper. We are here concerned with a second report, but there was already a first report. At that time I wrote my attitude on this paper from many points of view, rather I wrote my attitude at that time, my opinion, which amounted to a number of pages. It was done in great detail since the original report was so short it did not allow me to gain a clear picture as to how the actual procedure was carried out in the individual series of experiments. The reason for this short publication was found in the regulations of War, which limited the extent of any publication. Unfortunately the commander, Professor Luxenburger, did not take over my explanations, since he as you probably to, was an opponent of any long and detailed descriptions. On the other hand on the basis of my report he wrote this short opinion, but that did not make the matter any clearer and this is the best example as to what the result is, if you are trying to abbreviate these matters, especially since the writer was a psychologist and not an immunity researcher. In the case of this paper we are concerned with a further step of Haagen This time he suggests a pre-vaccination with his living avirulent murine vaccine which he had developed to such a point where it no longer created any reactions. Afterwards he carried out a second vaccination with his dry vaccine from living avirulent prowazeki rickettsia, which pa.per describes here that the first vaccination had no reactions, and that in the case of the second vaccination very strong reactions occurred. Only a few of the persons who were vaccinated had no fever at all.
Most of them experienced high fever which took a number of days, and in the case of some of them temperatures went up to 40 degrees. This is a very violent reaction, which is only equaled by the plague vaccination reaction, and. as to its duration is even a longer time in the case of plague vaccination reaction. At any rate this reaction was purely limited to fever and headaches, and the characteristic symptoms of typhus were completely missing. There was no ex anthem, there was no disturbance of the heart and no cerebral symptoms. Naturally, there were no fatalities. The blood examination of the vaccinated person after a period of a few weeks gave a high type of value in the case of Weigel-Felix reaction. I described this reaction yesterday. It was carried out in the case of typhus illness and also after typhus vaccinations, including typhus vaccinations with dead vaccines. It does not offer you any measure as to the grade of immunity, but at least is an indication that specific events occurred within the body. In the work the serum titer of the vaccinated person are compared to the serum titer of a number of sick persons, who naturally fell ill in Natzweiler within the framework of the typhus epidemic.
It is emphasized in this paper that no illness occurred among the persons vaccinated, and this, it was said, had proven the entire infectious immunity. The serum Titer in the case of the sick persons was much higher than in the case of those persons who had been vaccinated. Objections to this paper refer to the following points:
First that the reaction was not described in the usual manner by average fever charts, but a mere statistical chart was given, which could no easily be surveyed.
The second objection is, that in this statistical chart the two methods used for vaccinations were not distinguished so that the reader could not see exactly how the reaction was in using one method and what it was to the other.
Thirdly, it was objected that of the persons who had fallen ill of typhus in this camp epidemic, no fever statements are made, but only the results of the blood examination are stated, and these are the people that Luxenburger in his paper here describes as control groups.
Haagen, as far as I remember, answered to these objections in the following manner:
First, the fever cause in typhus was well known. One could see it any text book. It was not necessary for him to repeat it once more in his paper. In addition, the fever charts of these sick persons were not at his disposal because they were not his experimental subjects, but were patients from camp where he only carried cut a blood examination, and those two reasons are quite understandable.
Q What was the final result of these Haagen experiments?
A For once he emphasized that in the case of his vaccination such high titer values according to the Weigl Felix value reactions were achieved, as was not the case in any other dead vaccine. He further emphasized the immunity against infections, because his vaccinated persons did not fall ill during the camp epidemic. Thirdly, he said that his vaccine was not yet suitable for practical application because the vaccine reaction was still too strong.
Q Why did the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe ask Mr. Haagen in the letter of 29 August 1944 on page 99 of Document book 12, this is Document of the Prosecution NO-131; Exhibit No. 309; whether the typhus epidemic in Natzweiler was in any way connected with his vaccine experiments?
A This request is based upon my initiation; the work which I just described and the report by Haagen of 21 June 1944 regarding the Natzweiler epidemics were simultaneously available. I was suspicious: In the case of the development of all vaccines from living avirulent germs, the main worry always is that the vaccines in their application on human beings will quickly regain the virulent they already lost. This worry can always be seen when discussing all these vaccines; that was the case with the Jenner small pox vaccine, and we have the same result with the plague vaccine, according to Kolle, Otto and Strong. be still discuss it today in the case of Calmette vaccine. I had exactly the same worry in the case of this new typhus vaccine; and when discussing influenza vaccines for instance, I again expressed that worry as one can see according to the Document by Bieling.
I therefore recommended that one should ask whether this epidemic started as a result of the vaccinations and this one can see under Figure 3. This inquiry was clearly answered in the negative by Professor Haagen, which can be seen in the next Document on page 100, Document No. 132, Exhibit No. 310 in Document Book No. 12.
Q Now, Professor Haagen, in a further letter dated 27 June 1944; addressed to Professor Hirt, says that in a control group for further experiments illnesses are to be expected in the case of nonvaccinated persons. This is in the Document book 12 on Page 96 of Document Book 12, Document NO-127, Exhibit No. 306; would you please look at that letter and explain it to the Tribunal?
A This letter by Haagen, in my opinion, is the only serious Document contained in Haagen's complex. I must emphasize that I am in a rather difficult situation here.
I have to explain letters written by ether people, letters which I have never seen before and about the background of which I have no knowledge at all. In addition, I only have a fraction of this correspondence available and by no means the entire correspondence.
Haagen never reported about any such intentions to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, he never reported about the execution of any such experiments. In this letter, addressed to Hirt, he thinks for the first time to include non-vaccinated control groups in this experiment.
I have tried to explain this letter in the following way giving due reservation to whatever Haagen may have to say in this connection. This is an attempt on my part, because Haagen is not here and it is by no means an explanation from my own knowledge: Haagen says expressly that he was planning this parallel group because he wanted to clearly prove the effectiveness of his vaccine against infections; he wants to clearly establish that. He obviously is of the opinion that his earlier experiments have not brought a clear proof. The earlier experiments were based upon the blood examination and the examination of vaccinated people who had not fallen ill during the epidemic. This assumption, from a purely scientifical point of view, is absolutely correct because these two facts alone did not constitute a clear proof, although they had a large degree of probability on their side.
One must assume then, as long as one does not know the real plan of the experiments, intended by Haagen, and we have no clear plan of the experiments, that he had to take into consideration, insofar as the experience he had so far, that he would now succeed to apply an avirulent living vaccine without any subsequent reactions. Also that this time he wanted to test the success of his procedure by afterwards infecting someone with virulent virus as Blanc, Balthasar and others did, and as it was carried out during typhus experiments in American prisons during the war.
Q Did he not have to expect any fatalities in carrying out such experiments?
A If a bungler would carry out such a series of experiments, naturally, yes; but we are concerned with the best known virus research worker in Germany. In his letter there are contained two points, which enable the hygienist to guess what he planned to do with this control group. It becomes noticeable that this control group, as he called it, or parallel group, comprises fifty persons. Now we know from the Buchenwald series of experiments that in the case of infection control of typhus ten persons are sufficient. Even Ding at the most took twenty persons for his experiments. Therefore, Haagen must have some reason to select a large group like that. Secondly, it becomes noticeable that in this letter he only writes one has to count on people falling ill, but in an infection controlled with typhus fatalities are to be expected with a certainty. Haagen says nothing at all about that possibility. Considering the progress of the typhus research at that time one has to conclude with all probability that Haagen was perhaps planning the following thing:
We knew that the dead vaccines gave no certain anti-infectious immunity, but a very reliable anti-toxoid immunity. Therefore, on the basis of this letter, one can explain the experimental plans by considering that the 150 persons were to be treated with this new vaccine, whereas the parallel group was to be treated with a number of old vaccines, of which it was known already that their effectiveness was only limited. If in such an experimental series he was carrying out subsequent infection with virulent viruses the following was to be expected: No illnesses, or very few illnesses in this group which were treated with vaccine from living avirulent viruses. On the other hand illnesses in the non attenuated form as they according to experience so far when using dead viruses, that is exactly what is contained in this letter by Haagen to Hirt. As I said before, this is merely an assumption and it is quite possible Haagen intended something different. This is not the only possibility.
Q Did Haagen report this experimental plan to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe?
A No, he neither reported this experimental plan, nor any other experimental plan.
Q Haagen is expressly speaking of one group that was not vaccinated?
A That is correct. It says so here, but in the case of his letters one has to take into consideration he is addressing laymen. He is obviously answering a. question which was put to him, namely, whether illness could occur, namely and that meant, of course, a deficiency in labor, that he uses the expression "non vaccinated group" towards the laymen in order to designate the parallel group which has only an anti-toxoid immunity is quite imaginable. On the other hand, it is not imaginable that he did not mention the possibility of fatalities as it would have been unavoidable if he was actually infecting persons who were not at all protected.
Q How could Mr. Haagen plan or carry out any such experiments without the knowledge of approval of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe? He was an Oberstabsarzt of the Reserve of the Luftwaffe and consulting Hygienist with the Air Fleet Reich?
A Yesterday, I have explained the double position of Haagen in detail and I naturally wouldn't want to repeat that now, but I would merely like to point cut a number of facts which were not mentioned yesterday. Haagen, for instance, as an air force officer, could not have been in a position to obtain assignments from the Reich Research Council without the permission of his superiors. No air force officer could carry cut independent negotiations with the Reichsfuehrer SS or any other SS agency, in particular, not at all about his Luftwaffe activities. The director of the Hygienic University Institute on the other hand was in a position to do that, and the files and documents show clearly that Or. Haagen made full use of his independence as a University Professor. He received monies for the direction and the building of his institute from numerous agencies which really are not inter-connected at all.