Q. I am talking about Professor Blome.
A. Just a minute, I will get around to him. We were used to the Head of the Dermatological Society being Prof. Unna at Hamburg, and in France it was Brock or Bauteriere and in America a man named Sutton. Those were names we knew. I was not referring to Dr. Blome on the contrary I am glad of this opportunity to clarify what might lead to a misunderstanding, that the confiscation of my X-ray machine, this measure against doctors with Jewish associations is not the fault of Mr. Blome. I believe the KVD went to the Ministry of Interior and there was a certain Grote, yes, that is the name, Grote, and this man Grote is responsible, not Blome.
Q. Did you go the Reich Physician Leadership at the time? That was your professional organization, represented by the Reich physician leader Dr. Blome?
A. Doctor, I don't think I would have got as far as the anteroom.
Q. But you could have tried. You got as far as Himmler. You could have got to Blome, too. You could have written him a letter. Why didn't you?
A. Dr. Sauter, I had enough experience with the lower offices, and I could imagine what would have happened if I went to a higher agency, and so I never even tried.
Q. In that connection, Doctor Pokorny, you spoke of the Conti-Action. You know about this?
A. I learned about it here.
Q. Did you hear nothing in your home town of a Conti-Action?
A. No.
Q. Then in 1943 in Prague, there was no persecution of Jewish doctors. They weren't taken out of their homes, they weren't removed from their practice?
A. Dr. Sauter, that was already done in 1938 or 39. The doctors were removed as early as '42, since I have testified that my wife, my former wife was sent to a concentration camp in January '42, as I learned later, it was Theresienstadt; and there were a few other things that happened there that I didn't mention.
Q. Isn't that a mistake, Doctor, don't you mean 1943? You say that the Jewish Doctors were taken away in '42? I am informed that that was in 1943.
A. Doctor, you may be right for this country, but let me point out that the whole development of National-Socialism differed in our country and the Reich. Here it developed slowly, but the movement broke over us like a flood; and perhaps I am qualified to judge this since my own divorced wife was sent to a concentration camp in January of '42, and she asked me for help. I know that very well.
Q. Doctor, that has nothing to do with the removal of Jewish doctors. Your wife was an entirely different case than the removal of the doctors.
A. But she was an X-ray specialist, X-ray practioner, and the machinery was taken away. She was not only Jewish, but she was also a doctor.
Q. Do you know on the basis of what regulations that was done? I will make the question more specific.
A. I can't tell you, Doctor.
Q. Was that on the basis of a regulation of the professional organization or was that a Reich law?
A. I cannot give you any information about that. It must have been a regulation which was in effect in Czechoslovakia, that is, in the Protectorate. I can tell you nothing about it. I only know the fact.
Q. You don't know whether the Reichs-Aerzte Fuehrung, or the leadership had anything to do with it, or Prof. Blome had anything to do with it?
A. I don't know anything about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, how much longer will the examination of this witness probably continue?
DR. SAUTER: A few minutes. Perhaps it would be better to interrupt it now.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, is all this extensive examination necessary. I think that it----
THE PRESIDENT: I was about to suggest to counsel that the Tribunal does not see any particular objective in his examination of the witness in his cross examination. I think that everything along the line that is followed so far, at least, has already been accomplished. If the cross examination would take any ether line, of course, that would be a different question. I think the Tribunal will now recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken at 1700 hours, 25 June 1947 until 0930 hours 26 June 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 Nuernberg, Germany, on 26 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. 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, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
ADOLF POKORNY - Resumed
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions to be propounded to this witness by defense counsel?
DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Blome): Mr. President, before I continue the examination of this witness, I should like permission to give a few suggestions about procedure in the near future. A few days ago the prosecution announced five more witnesses. If we understood correctly, some of them are to be on sea water questions and some of them on general questions. The prosecution also apparently has the intention of presenting further documentary evidence. This prevents some of the defense counsel from writing their final arguments or briefs and turning them in for translation because these defense counsel expect that the evidence which will still be presented by the prosecution will give some of the defense counsel occasion to change or add to these statements which they intend to make. Now, so that the closing speeches and briefs may be turned in for translation as soon as possible, we would consider it expedient if the prosecution, after the conclusion of the Pokorny case, would first submit their new evidence and examine the witnesses and if then after that the defense were to submit what evidence remains we believe that that will expedite proceedings.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in this regard the prosecution, of course, is adverse to complying with the wishes of defense counsel because that would then afford what you would call a rebuttal on the part of the defense to a rebuttal on the part of the prosecution. However, I am informed this morning that our first rebuttal document book has been filed with defense counsel today, which is long before the time necessary. In addition to that, the witnesses that will be called, due notice will be given to them. Now, I assume that particularly defense counsel in the position that Dr. Sauter is in, inasmuch as he is representing Blome and Ruff, that his briefs are all written and that all he will have to do now is add new evidence in a supplementary brief to supplement the briefs that he has now completed. That should be the case in most instances inasmuch as the last few days the discussion has been sea water which doesn't affect many of the defendants to any great extent with the exception of Beiglboeck, Freyseng, and Schroeder.
So it seems to me that their briefs are all completed now and whatever manner we finish up in the next few days in our cleaning up process that they could, in a matter of hours, write a supplementary brief to accompany the briefs which should have been completed up to this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel will, of course, have the privilege of writing, as suggested by counsel for the prosecution, a supplemental brief. It is not necessary to delay translations of their principle briefs because the Tribunal would accept a supplemental brief bringing in any new matter or changes in a brief that has already been filed. It seems to me that that would meet the questions presented by Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: Then, Mr. President, I have a second request. The question is still open. What time is set for giving the closing briefs and the response to them? There are a few other minor questions which have to be cleared up. It would be expedient to discuss these matters, not here in court, but in a personal discussion with the Tribunal and the prosecution.
We should like to ask the President to give the defense counsel an opportunity to discuss these questions which need to be settled with the Tribunal and with the prosecution in the near future. There are only a few minor questions of a certain importance for the defense counsel, however. We should be very grateful for this opportunity.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I am apparently not clear in what Dr. Sauter has said. He said "in answer to the briefs". I feel sure that the prosecution isn't going to write another brief in answer to defense brief. I don't know just what he is referring to. The prosecution will file their briefs and I feel as far as the prosecution is concerned that will be the last brief we will write.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has fixed no deadline for the filing of these briefs, simply assuming that counsel for the prosecution and for the defense would expedite the preparation and filing of their briefs to the greatest possible extent, but there has been no deadline dixed for the filing of briefs. The Tribunal simply wants them as soon as possible. We fix no deadline and shall not do so unless we find undue delay somewhere, some delay which strikes the Tribunal as unreasonable. I think the Tribunal can meet a committee of defense counsel at 6 o'clock this afternoon, after the adjournment of court. If defense counsel desires to appoint a committee to meet with the Tribunal and with the prosecution, we can meet with them in the consultation room at 5 o'clock today.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you, Mr. President. We shall be there at 5 o'clock.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Mr. President, I shall follow your suggestion made at the end of the session yesterday and in the name of the Defendant Blome, I shall put no further questions to this witness. I should, however, like to ask a few questions for the Defendant Ruff and the Defendant Romberg, with the consent of their defense counsel.
Witness, did you yourself carry out any human experiments?
A No.
Q Did you study international literature on human experiments before the beginning of this trial, witness, I mean international literature from which we have heard excerpts here?
A It depends on how you interpret the concept, experiments on human beings. It is a matter of course that at the clinic we tested a drug or a small piece of skin was removed in order to make a diagnosis, possibly also as the basis for a scientific paper, but such things cannot be interpreted as experiments on human beings. They happen daily throughout the world. Such tests, of course, were performed at our clinic too, but experiments on human beings, such as are meant here, that is what I meant in my first answer when I say we had not performed any.
As to your second question, I had a slight knowledge of this type of experiments because one can attain such a knowledge in part even from lay-literature. I never took a special interest in the subject before September of 1941 when the subject was brought to my attention.
Q Then in September of 1941, Doctor, did you study this international literature, which we have discussed here, for examples, Professor Leibrandt and Professor Ivy, and then in a number of the document books; did you study this international literature in 1941; this is primarily literature which was published abroad in foreign languages, or were you unfamiliar with it until the beginning of this trial?
A I did not study this literature in any specialized fashion, but the subject was discussed with great interest by me and two doctors, who were friends of mine but there is no point of introducing them in the trial, because one of them died in a concentration camp and the other committed suicide. The extent of the experimentation on human beings, which has been brought out by this trial, I did not know of course.
Q. Doctor, yesterday, you spoke about the rules for experiments on human beings, I am not quite clear about this, however, therefore, I ask you regarding your statement yesterday on the subject, were you expressing your personal, private opinion, which you formed for yourself without any knowledge of foreign literature, or did you mean to say that what you said on the subject yesterday was in your opinion the recognized version of the German medical profession as a whole?
A Dr. Sauter, I believe I answered this question yesterday, when you asked me whether I spoke on the subject as an expert. It is not the opinion of the German medical profession, I had no way of checking that. I had no occasion or opportunity to talk about it, that is the subjective opinion of mine and I attack all problems from the point of view of common sense. I believe that is the aurea mediocritas, which is the only level for a person of my caliber for juding a problem.
Q I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to the witness by any defense counsel?
Has the Prosecution any further questions?
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Pokorny, witness on his own behalf, may be excused from the witness stand and resume his place in the dock.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, I should like to call the witness Trux.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the Witness, Rudolf Trux.
Rudolf Trux, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Please raise your right hand and be sworn.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q Witness, you were born 11 January 1900 in Komotau, at that time in Austria Hungary?
A Yes.
Q You are now a resident of Kremsminster in the American Zone of Austria?
A Yes.
Q Witness, please tell the Tribunal briefly about your life.
A I come from a family, which for about 400 years has been in the Sudetenland. I spent my youth in my home town of Komotav and about half of my youth, fourteen years, in Prague and the rest in the Sudentenland. Since 1937 or 1938 I have been living in Reichenberg, the capital city in the Sudetenland. Since November of 1945, I have lived in Kremsminster.
Q Witness, have you ever belonged to the N.S.D.A.P. or any of its affiliated organizations?
A I never belonged to the party or any of its affiliated organizations.
Q Witness, are you related to the Witness Pokorny?
A Yes, he is the husband of my youngest sister, my brother-inlaw.
Q Did you know Dr. Pokorny earlier?
Q Yes, before we became related.
Q Was there any friendly connection between you in addition to your relationship?
A Yes, before we became related there was a connection between us. The Sudetenland with its three and one half million German residents was more or less one big family, everyone knew everyone else through business or family connections or otherwise and everyone was connected. Dr. Pokorny was a well known man, he was known in Prague from the German Society of Physicians, the German Ice Hockey Association, and several organizations. He frequented the Prague casino and was a well known sportsman and well know tennis player.
Q Did you often discuss ideological questions with Dr. Pokorny?
A Yes, we frequently discussed ideological questions.
Q What kind of an attitude did he have?
A In the course of the years a degree of confidence developed between Dr. Pokorny and myself, which I might call a true friendship. There were no inhibitions and apparent frankness existed between us. This might be in part explained by conditions under the regime. Everyone who thought with a certain degree of responsibility was more or less isolated and look for contact with persons who shared this point of view. While Dr. Pokorny was a military doctor, we often met on his leaves in Reichenberg, in Komotav or in Chennowitz.
Q Witness, did you know about the difficulties Dr. Pokorny had after the occupation of the Sudetenland.
A Yes, the fact of his former marriage to a Jewish woman, his liberal attitude and other circumstances were occasion enough for the party to make difficulties for him whenever possible. These difficulties ran like a red thread through all phases of his private and professional life. I may give you the following example from memory. Proceedings of the N.S.D.A.P., shortly after the occupation of the Sudetenland began, with the purpose of hurting his practise and recalling his license. The main reason I remember was his close contact with Czechs and Jews, his half Jewish children, pacifists, etc., As a result of indiscretions he knew his house and his contacts were being watched and spied upon by the Gestapo.
His practise, as far as the influence of the party, went, was systematically reduced. For his farm at Komotav for a long time he was refused the so-called farmers certificate, although he cultivated his farm in a examplatory way. His promotion from a Lieutenant to Captain was long delayed because of the political conduct certificate.
Q. Witness, do you know the document in this case, the letter which Dr. Pokorny wrote to Himmler in October 1941? Did you hear anything about it?
A. Yes, I knew the contents from what my sister told me and what Dr. Pokorny later told me himself.
Q. Witness, please describe carefully, to the Tribunal under what circumstances this conversation took place and exactly what Mr. Pokorny said, giving the date as far as you can remember.
A. In the spring of 1942 my sister who was at the time living in Komotau came to us in Reichenberg for a visit. She was at that time getting a divorce from her first marriage and wanted to be away from Komotau for the transition period. She probably expected that I would help her. She remained with us for two or three months until the formalities of the divorce proceedings required her presence in Komotau again. When she was sitting with my wife and myself one evening she said that Dr. Pokorny when he was still in civilian practice had treated a patient who said he was a member in the SD in the protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia. This patient attracted attention by his request to be treated, outside of normal hours. In the course of the conversation during the treatment which lasted several weeks this patient announced that the highest political circles were entertaining ideas of sterilizing prisoners by operation. The point of view here was to prevent an inter-marriage with the population of the country. And on a later visit this patient had mentioned an article which he had found in a magizine in the waiting room. This magazine contained a report about the result of sterilization experiments on animals by a foreign poison plant. Referring to this article, he had asked Dr. Pokorny whether this drug could be used for sterilizing human beings.
Dr. Porkorny had said "no." Dr. Porkorny, my sister went on to say, was shocked at the intentions of castration and could not get over the idea that the intention was to treat human beings like animals. He regretted that the medical professors and other authorities did not have the courage to oppose such intentions. My sister added, that Dr. Porkorny, acting on this conversation, had made a suggestion by letter to one of the highest SS agencies, that this foreign poison plant be used for the sterilization experiments. Thus he was convinced attention would be detracted from the method by operation. Dr. Porkorny expected no results from this drug but he thought that it would be a good way to pigeonhole the whole thing.
Q. Witness, did you yourself discuss the matter with Dr. Porkorny and when was it?
A. A few weeks later Dr. Porkorny also came to visit us in Reichenberg. That must have been at Pentacost 1942 or a week when there was a Catholic holiday shortly before or afterwards. On one of these holidays we and the two women and my two children went on an excursion to Friedland in the Isengebirge to look at the Warenstein castle, and it's museum. While we were walking in the park of the castle in the neighborhood of Friedland, I intentionally brought the conversation to this information which my sister had given me shortly before hand. Dr. Porkorny first of all corrected my view that he had expressed any judgment. Botany had always been his hobby and in earlier years at medical Congresses he had reported on the results of his own research. There were special publications on the subject in his book cases which I had often seen. Dr. Porkorny said that the paper would cause experiments and all the red tape connected with it and that was from his point of view what he wanted to impose on the authorities concerned.
If he had expressed any opinion himself he would have saved the work. He confirmed what my sister had told me.
Q. Witness, what was your re-action?
A. My first re-action was that this letter was a very serious matter, although I knew the reasons which load Dr. Porkorny to write it. I may have said this to Dr. Porkorny too and when I said that I would not like to have my name in Himmler's files Dr. Porkorny repeated his motives and said that something had to be done. One can't explain everything with rationalization and use careful common sense.
Q. Mr. President, in connection with the testimony of the witness Trux I should like to offer a document for identification which is in my document book I on Page 30, document No. 15, which will be Exhibit No. 21. This is a certificate of the Czechoslovakian Republic about the political circumstances regarding the witness Trux, on the basis of investigations.
MR. HARDY: I would like to know just what this document is. I would like to have it explained.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, this document which I shall show to the witness for identification is an official statement of the Czech Republic stating that the witness Trux is recognized as an Anti-Facist by the office for National Security and is exempt from wearing an indentification badge pursuant to ordinance 637.
BY DR. HOFFMAN:
Q. Witness, please look at this photostat and tell the Tribunal whether this certificate's made out for you?
A. Yes. I have the original of this. It was issued for me to certify that I am an Anti-Facist, that I did not belong to the Party, and according to the terminology of the Czech authorities, I am considered politically reliable.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, I have no further questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, do you desire to offer the photostat card as an exhibit?
DR. HOFFMAN: I offered it as Exhibit No. 21
THE PRESIDENT: And it has the same number as the certified copy of this card which is in your document book?
DR. HOFFMAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit will be admitted in evidence.
TEE PRESIDENT: Does the defense counsel have any questions to propound to this witness? Being no questions, the prosecution may cross-examine.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I might request the defense counsel for Dr. Pokorny if it would be convenient to call his witness Dr. Friederick Jung before he calls Dr. Friederich Koch.
DR. HOFFMANN: Mr. President, I should prefer to call Dr. Koch first and then Dr. Jung.
MR. HARDY: I am asking if it would be convenient for him to call Dr. Jung first. The prosecution would like him called first inasmuch as I wish to prepare some work for the witness Koch and I haven't had a too long knowledge that Dr. Koch was coming here as a witness and I would like to work over it a bit during the recess this afternoon or at noontime.
DR. HOFFMANN: Mr. President, I would be glad to oblige Mr. Hardy but I need Dr. Jung after Dr. Koch and I announced in time that Dr. Koch was coming.
MR. HARDY: In that event it may be necessary after the completion of the direct examination of Koch for the prosecution to ask for a delay in cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will entertain the request when it is made.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Mr. Trux, what is your occupation?
A. I am a bank director by profession, that is, I was until 1945. Since then I have been director of a textile machine factory in Austria.
Q. When did you meet Dr. Pokorny for the first time?
A. After the World War, I think. I can't remember today of course. I became close friends with him after 1938. I was in Komotau frequently in connection with the illness of my mother whom Dr. Pokorny treated.
Q. When did Dr. Pokorny first start courting your sister?
A. I am not informed about that. My sister was a friend of Dr. Pokorny for many years.
Q. Dr. Pokorny married her in 1943, is that correct?
A. Yes, October 1943.
Q. Your sister had been married previous to that time?
A. Yes, I mentioned before that in the spring of 1942 she visited us in Reichenberg in connection with her divorce.
Q. And at that time she spoke to you relative to a situation wherein Dr. Pokorny had met a high official of the SD?
A. Yes.
Q. What was it she told you about his meeting of the high official of the SD more specifically?
A. I can only repeat what I said before. A patient came who said that he was a member of the higher SD in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and who was unusual because he has to be treated outside of the normal hours.
Q. Did Dr. Pokorny ever talk about any other patients of the SD or the SS?
A. By name, no, no one. It might have happened that he made general statements about a certain case and draw general conclusions from the case but I can't remember that any specific cases were talked about except for purposes of illustration.
Q. Did Dr. Pokorny and your sister tell you that the matter concerning his letter to Himmler was secret?
A. No.
Q. You of course have read the letter?
A. I know the contents.
Q. In the letter he states--
A. I was told about it by Dr. Pokorny and my sister.
Q. You haven't read the letter? Hasn't the defense counsel presented the letter to you to read?
A. Yes, I read the text once.
Q. The letter of Pokorny tells Himmler he will keep this matter secret, doesn't he?
Don't you recall that in the letter?
(No answer)
Pokorny states in the last sentence of the letter to Himmler, "As a German physician and chief physician of the reserves of the German Wehrmacht retired I undertake to keep secret the purpose as suggested by me in this letter." Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. He wrote this letter in October 1941, did he not?
A. Yes, he told me it was a few months before; I talked to him in the spring of 1942 and he had written this letter a few months beforehand.
Q. So he didn't keep it secret if he told you about it, did he?
A. Well, of course these things were confidential.
Q. Did he tell you that he had proposed that experiments be conducted?
A. Well, I could see that from what I was told from the contents of the letter.
Q. Then you understood that Pokorny was proposing that experiments be carried out with this poison plant, caladium?
A. Yes, that is what I understood. Dr. Pokorny from the very beginning very clearly expressed the opinion that this was an experiment with a useless drug because he expected nothing from this poison and because the cultivation of the plant during the war would be impossible, as he said repeatedly.
Q. But you understood that the reason why Pokorny proposed these experiments was because he thought the drug was useless?
A. The motive of Dr. Pokorny was doubtless to gain time.
Q. I didn't ask you, witness, about the motive. I asked you to repeat my answer to my question, the reason why Dr. Pokorny suggested that the experiments be conducted was because he thought that the drug to be used was useless, hence the sterilization would not take effect.
A. Yes, he said to me repeatedly that he wanted to distract attention from the method of operation.
That, perhaps, was the motivating factor.
Q. In any event you clearly understood that Pokorny had proposed to Himmler that he should experiment with this plant?
A. Yes, but Dr. Pokorny was working from the assumption that the poison could not be obtained during the war.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: No further questions for defense counsel? The witness Trux then is excused from the witness stand. The Marshal will summon the witness Dr. Ernst Koch.
(DR. ERNST KOCH, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:)
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Hold up your right hand and be sworn.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q. When and where were you born?
A. On the 17th of February, 1901, in Fulltau in Westphalia.
Q. What education have you had?
A. I attended the public schools for four years and the Real Gymnasium in Quackenburg for five years. Then I intended to study medicine. My parents did not permit that. I had to study national economy but secretly I took courses in medicine. Since 1922 I secretly studied medicine on the side. In 1924 I took the physical examination for the doctor's examination in 1326 the State examination; then I became assistant at the Medical Clinic in Cologne. In 1929 I became assistant at the bacteriological institute in Cologne. In 1932 I became chief physician at this institute. In 1935 I was put in charge of the biological institute of Dr. Madaus in Radeheul.
Q Witness, what scientific papers have you written?
AAbout seventy, mostly on the basis of animal experiments.
Q And what are you doing at present?
AAt present I am working for Madus and Company in Bonn.
Q And where did you work until the collapse?
A In Radebeul, and briefly before the collapse I was transferred to Moern, Hamburg.
Q What position did you have for Madaus and Koch in Hamburg?
A I was in charge of the biological institute.
Q Witness, in the Journal for Experimental Medicine did you publish a paper about caladiun?
A Yes, together with Dr. Gerhard Madaus.
Q In the "Unschau" -- you know the "Umschau"?
A Yes.
Q Did you publish an article about caladium?
A No.
Q Who did?
A Dr. Gerhard Madaus.
Q What was the purpose of your paper in the Journal for Experimental Medicine?
A The firm of Dr. Madaus produced drugs from medicinal plants. This did not seem to have a scientific basis in the eyes of many German doctors, and it was the duty of the biological institute to carry out scientific research on medicinal plants, especially to determine the effect of such plants exactly in animal experimentation. Dr. Madaus had very special interest in the influence of medicinal plants on the function of the inner organs, especially the function of the glands with internal secretion.
The exact purpose of the paper I indicated in the paper itself. On page 69, the occasion for our investigations was the question - to what extent the experience of popular medicine and the practices based on this experience could be brought into conformity with the laws of pharmacology, physiology and experimental therapy."