It was clear that I could not occupy that office during the war, since I was with the Luftwaffe.
Q In other words, you never really for practical purposes practiced, you never really did anything as vice-president of the institute?
A No, I never signed as Vice-president and I never represented Professor Gildemeister even for one day.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I should like to offer a few documents in this connection. First of all from Rose Document book No 1, Document No. 13, Rose Exhibit 22, pages 80 and 81 of the document book. This is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Boecker, who is still active in the Robert Institute in Berlin, the affidavit being dated 3 February 1947. I should like to read from Paragraph 2 on page 80-
THE PRESIDENT: What Exhibit number are you giving this document?
DR. FRITZ: Number 22, Mr. President.
" Professor Gerhard Rose was appointed on 1 February 1943 vice-president of, and Professor at the Robert Koch institute, while ha was in the Wehrmacht. Owing to his engrossment by his service in the Wehrmacht, Professor Rose did not actually officiate as Vice-president. He was hardly ever available for the tasks of the Institute and for the tasks of his department, The late President of the institute, Professor Eugen Gildemeister, occasionnally deleagted me to look after the practically orphaned department of Professor Rose ( Tropical diseases.)
" Relations between President Gildemeister and Professor Rose, were, as far as I know rather strained on the whole.
" I do, not know weather Professor Rose was informed about the thyphus research done by Professor Gildemeister. Judging by the habits of President Gildemeister and the relationship between him and Professor Rose, I do not think it likely that he informed Professor Rose about it.
Berlin, b February 1947."
and then follows the signature and certification.
IN this connection let me put in the following document, Rose Document No, lb Rose Exhibit No. 23 This is Professor Dr. Gins affidavit on b February 1947. I should like to read the last two paragraphs into the record, Professor Gins stated:
" Because of my activity in the Wehrmacht from 26 August 1939, I only went occasionally to the Rob-rt Koch Institute and only worked there irregularly until spring 1943.
" Within that time and after I was deferred for work at the Institute from Spring 1943 on, I did not see Professor Rose acting in his capacity as Vice-president of the Institute. I only heard Professor Boecker mentioned as deputy of Professor Gildemeister.
" Berlin-Charlottenburg 9, " 4 February 1947.
'' Then follows the signature and certification.
I should like to state that Professor Gins is still working today in the Robert Koch Institute.
I should like to put in the next document, pages 84 and 85, Rose Document 15, Rose Exhibit No. 24 affidavit by Dr. Werner Christiansen, on 12 February 1947, Rose Exhibit No. 24. I should like to read two paragraphs. First of all the second:
"From 1940 until the capitulation in 1945; I was one of the three officials in charge of the Department for Epidemics of the Reich Ministry of the Interior."
I shall skip the next paragraph in view of the statements that the Prosecution has made regarding the Rose case and I shall continue - skipping paragraph:
"It is not known to me that Professor Rose, who had been appointed Vice President of the Robert' Koch Institute in 1943; actually ever held this office. Professor Rose was registered in the Ministry as 'drafted to active service with the Wehrmacht'. If it became necessary for somebody to act as deputy for the President Gildemeister, because he was on leave or sick, for instance while Gildemeister suffered from typhus, Professor Boecker, one of the directors of the Robert Koch Institute, would act as his deputy, as far as I know.
"Nurenberg, 12 February 1947."
Then follows the signature and certification, And finally' I should like to offer Rose Document No. 9 on Pages No, 28 to 30 of the same Document Book.
This will be Rose Exhibit No. 25, an affidavit of Mrs. Ilse Lundberg of 14 February 1947. I should like to read from paragraph 2:
"I worked as a secretary in the Medical Inspectorate of the Reich Air Ministry from 31 January 1941 until 1 November 1944. I first worked for Oberstarzt Professor Luxenburger, the psychiatric specialist, and from March 1941 also for Professor Dr. Rose, then Oberstabsarzt, later Oberstarzt of the Luftwaffe, who was consultant hygienist for scientific consultation of the Medical Inspectorate in the sphere of hygiene and tropical medicine. My place of work was in the office, from summer 1941 on, and later on in the anteroom of Professor Rose. My work with him-was terminated when I had myself assigned to a Luftwaffen hospital in Italy on 15 February 1944.
"From my work, I can state that Professor Rose, was very occupied in his military duties.
He was in the office from 0815 in the morning until 1730 in the afternoon, except for his frequent official military trips, during which he was supposed to get acquainted with the actual conditions prevailing among the troops. He was also a university lecturer for hygiene, as well as at the Faculty for foreign science, and as such he had to give lectures. Moreover, he frequently attended scientific meetings and congresses, as for instance with the Society for Tropical Medicine, the Reich Committee for Tuberculosis and other scientific associations, the names of which I no longer remember. I always knew exactly the whereabouts of Professor Rose, in order to be able to switch over the telephone calls and to pass on important news. I knew therefore that Professor Rose's activity in the Robert Koch Institute was limited to occasional telephone calls and short visits (about once every 2 or 3 weeks). According to his own statements, he charged his female technical assistants who had long years of experience and the assistant Dr. Emmel with the work, restricted himself to checking the work and order of the department (only the department for tropical medicine was under his supervision).
"The appointment cf Professor Rose as vice-president of the Robert Koch Institute did not take place until the end of 1942 op 1943 as far as I remember, and was in my opinion only of a purely representative character. As far as I remember, Professor Rose did not make any use of his position as vice-president, much less so as he had the intention of leaving the Institute."
Q Professor, the direction of your department, namely the Tropical Department you kept also during the war?
A I kept my department going throughout the war. At the beginning of the war 19 departments at the institute were closed, their directors having been drafted, and almost all the assistants were drafted, however; I kept my department open.
During the first year of the war I worked there myself, as long as I was in Berlin; but at that time I was already half a year or more in Russia and the Balkans, and during those periods of absence my assistants had to work according to my policy directions.
At the beginning of 1941, work with the Luftwaffe increased in scope so that I had to work at my Luftwaffe office the whole day through. In order to facilitate communications with my department I had a direct telephone line put in which made it possible that from my Luftwaffe office I could communicate directly with my laboratory without going through the office or through the central telephone switch board of the various offices. Then in the evening my private secretary came to my house, bringing the matters from the institute that had arrived that day, and I dictated my private correspondence on matters concerning the institute, scientific essays and scientific correspondence.
Q Did not the work in your Department suffer greatly because of your absence.
A That was Professor Gildemeister's opinion; namely that my department was entirely without supervision and that I was not in a position to check on the work of my assistants, and once as Professor Boecker also says, he attempted to commission one of the other professors with the direction of my department. This interference with my rights, of course, led to another altercation between me. Taking war conditions into consideration, it certainly can be seen that my department was well and efficiently conducted. I simply have to draw your attention to my essay on the DDT preparations, which are also mentioned in this lecture at Basel and which were even translated into French in 1944.
Q What deductions did you draw when the effort was made to transfer the supervision of your department to other hands?
A On the pretext of seeking security from air-attacks, I made the effort to transfer my department out of Berlin. Gildemeister personally did not wish to leave Berlin and did stay in Berlin to the very last moment with his Typhus Department. Since Gildemeister would not give his approval for this transfer of my department, I took the very annual step of turning my whole department into a Luftwaffe unit and with the same personnel and equipment I set it up as a department for Fever Therapy of the Luftwaffe.
Q Was this agreeable to Professor Gildemeister?
A Of course he made difficulties at first; finally I had the impression that he was on the w hole happy that in this manner all difficulties with each other were alleviated.
Q The Prosecution calls you a collaborator in Gildemeister's typhus experiments?
A I can only reiterate that never in my whole life did I work in the Typhus laboratory. When I was an assistant at the Robert Koch Institute Otto was working there on typhus; but in the two months that I was with him another assistant took care of that matter and I worked in thorology. When I came back to the Institute in 1937; Otto had left but the Typhus department was taken up in the Virus department; namely by Professors Gildemeister and Haagen. I never worked with these men, never carried out joint experiments and never planned anything jointly with them, This separation can very clearly be seen in the printed annual reports of the Robert Koch Institute.
Q Mr. President, the whole report that the Defendant just mentioned I have in my Document Book No. 1. These arc Documents No. 10 on pages Nos. 31 to 43; which I put in as Rose Exhibit No. 26; also Rose- Documents No. 11, which will be Rose Exhibit 27 on Pages Nos. 44 to 60. Finally there is Document No. 12; which will be Rose Exhibit No. 28; this is on Pages Nos. 61 to 79. Those; as I said, are the annual reports on the activities of the Robert Koch Institute from the period from 1 April 1939 to 31 December 1943.
I have a few questions to ask the defendant about these documents. Professor, in Rose Document No. 10 on page 34, in the second Paragraph, perhaps it would be best if I quote this brief paragraph:
"In infection experiments on human beings a rapid development of rather high eosinophilia was observed as early as a few hours after the infection of the skin with a few bilharzia cercarioe."
Now, who are these experimental subjects, Professor?
A. These experimental subjects in the case of the first experiment were exclusively the members of my assistants in the department and in the laboratory, and in the second experiment they were doctors who had attended a lecture on tropical medicine in which I spoke about these experiments, and who declared their readiness to be experimented on also.
Q. Did you also infect yourself?
A. Yes, I infected myself in the first series and had the strongest reaction of all the experimental subjects.
Q. Did you carry out other experiments on yourself?
A. Yes, other experiments I undertook on myself or had others undertake on me, and they were experiments with dysentery toxin, infections with intestinal flu, and experiments on quinine damage.
Q. Did you also test vaccines on yourself?
A. Once I made myself available as an experimental subject in the testing of a vaccine, namely, a new yellow fever vaccine from living yellow fever virus. That was in New York in 1936 and at the time I was myself producing vaccines in China. I tested the tolerability of a large number of vaccines by innoculating myself with a double dose.
Q. Within the framework of your professional or other official activities did you become infected any other ways?
A. With the greatest care in the world it is still impossible in my profession to avoid infection. I have been infected with dysentery and with skin tuberculosis, and then cholera, typhus dengue, malaria complicated with black water fever, hepatitus epidemica, and finally in my DDT work I got a chronic infection from which I am still suffering.
Q. Professor, in Rose Document No. 10, namely, the annual report of the Robert Koch Institute from 1939 to 1941, there is on page 42 to be seen from the paragraph headed roman numeral III, "Practical Work", it can be seen that typhus vaccinations in the tropical department were undertaken.
A. These inoculations were carried out in practical work not under the scientific department. There was a sort of a poly clinic attached to the tropical department and when any one came to the institute and wanted to be innoculated against something then he was innoculated there. It can be seen there from this list he was innoculated against smallpox, cholera, typhoid, pare.typhoid, and typhus. These were purely practical innoculations or vaccinations that had nothing to do with scientific research. You can find the same list in the next year's report on pages 58-59 of Document No. 11. There also of the 4,000 innoculations the number of typhoid innoculations is only 33. Then in the annual report for 1943 there is no mention of innoculations because the limitation that the war placed on the work of the department made it necessary for me to stop giving these vaccinations. These vaccinations were never evaluated. In any way the scientific work on vaccines didn't stop in 1943 in the institute. On the contrary, it became larger and larger and it rested there until the end of the war.
Q. Professor, I should like you to make whatever statements you would like on the contents of these reports so far as they concern typhus and to explain the contents briefly. These are Rose Documents Nos. 10, 11, and 12.
A Perhaps I may point out first of rl?. a translation error on page 41 of Document No. 10. Opposite the words, on the third paragraph, page 30, there is the word "jaundice" in the English text and in the German text there is the word "Gelbfieber", which means "yellow fever".
THE PRESIDENT: What is the meaning of the German word in English?
WITNESS: Yellow fever.
INTERPRETER: The interpreter corroborates that.
A. Now I shall explain these documents. The report from 1 April 1939 to 31 March 1941 contains under No. 7 on pages 32 to 40 a report on the work of the tropical medicine department. Since there is no mention at all of work on typhus, it is not my intention to go into that here, but I should be grateful if the Tribunal would take a look at this passage in order to ascertain that I and my assistants concerned ourselves with a great number of things but not with typhus. On page 41 of the document bock, page 10 cf the document, there is a short excerpt from the report of the department of cell and virus research under no. 8.
Only that paragraph has here been quoted which refers to the case here at bar. And it says in the report of the next year that yellow fever was the new subject of work. Experiments were made primarily on the breeding of virus, its preservation, and on the production of vaccine cultures. This department was at that time under the direction of Professor Haagen. On the same page there comes under No. 10 the report on the work of the laboratory of the general managing director, namely, Professor Dr. Gildemeister. I shan't read this in detail but here there is a description of the collaboration with Professor Haagen, an indication of the work the department did in typhus, and it can be clearly seen from the report that the collaboration with other departments is here being described but that there was no collaboration with the tropical department or with Professor Rose. This report continues on Page 11 respectively 42, the nine typhus vaccines which were carried out at the tropical medicine department I have already explained.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, on page 42 after "the fol lowing number was inoculated against small pox, cholera, etc." there is first a total number followed by two other numbers* What do tho two following numbers indicate?
A. Mr. President, if you turn to page 31 you will see that this report is a report for two years - I April 1939 until 31 March 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Those two numbers then simply indicate the number of inoculations in two years, with tho total?
A. It is the total for two years and it separated the numbers, giving the number for tho first year and tho second year.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
A. If you add up those two numbers you reach the sum that corresponds to tho first number. Now on page 42 are publications that appeared from the Robert Koch Institute. Those works have been extracted which concern the case before this Tribunal* First of all, a paper by Gildemeister and Haagen on typhus* Then a paper of Haagen' s on yellow fever, and then a series of text book cssagys by myself. And under No. 3 there is the word "rickottsiao" which is typhus virus. This is a little text book essay of four pages in length. I goonow to Document 11, Report for Period 1 April 1941 too 31 December 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you begin the discussion of that, witness, the Tribunal will be in recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is against in session.
BY DR. FRITZ:
Q Professor, you were going to start referring to Rose Document 11 before the recess, which is to be found on pages 44 to 60, Document Book I?
A We are here concerned with the first yearly report after the reorganization of the Robert Koch Institute into into a Reich Institution. At the beginning of this yearly report there are to be found the speeches which were made on tho occasion of this reorganization. On Page 45 there is to be found an excerpt from professor Gildemeister's speech where he gives you his survey about the work of the Institute. On Page 45 the development of his typhus work is being described One can see here that neither my name nor tho name of anyone of my collaborators is being mentioned. On tho next page of the document, which ordinarily would be three pages further on, in the printed report, but we find it here on the next page, since there are only excerpts, we find a description of the work at the Tropical Department, the malaria work, and the work about the transfer of bacteria as being transmitted by flies is being emphasized. I skip the pages 47 to 57. In these 11 pages the work of the Tropical Medical Department is being described under Paragraph 7. 7 was the number under which these reports appeared yearly. With reference to Department 8, the department regarding cell and virus research, there is no mention in this yearly report, since this department, owing to the departure of Professor Haagen, had become vacant, and professor Haagen obviously no longer sent in reports. Then on Page 58, under paragraph 10, there is a report about work of tho head of the Institute, which is again Professor Gildemeister.
His participation in typhus is being described in this report. Professor Gildemeister, professor Peter, and a certain Dr. Passer arc mentioned as collaborators. On page 59, 35 typhus vaccinations are Mentioned at the top of the page, second line, which were given under the practical work of the Tropical Department. I have already explained the significance of that entry* There follows an excerpt from the list of publications which appeared from the Institute during tho time this report covered* I only included such publications in this excerpt which either originate from me or my collaborators, or those which deal with typhus. Work publications which bear tho title of "Typhus" arc found on Page 60, the publications there by Professor Gildemeister and Professor peter. Then under my name we find two papers about typhus. They are "Typhus problems at Home," and underneath that "Typhus Problems arising from the Resettlement of Racial Germans from 1939 to 1940." Those two publications about typhus written by mo deal exclusively with typhus combat as an epidemeological problem, and arc mostly based upon my work during tho resettlement. in ease the Prosecution should contest the authenticity of this statement, it is naturally possible to produce copies of thoso two papers. Naturally, we did not want to increase the size of our document books to an unreasonable extent. I now turn to Rose Document No. 12. This is the annual report of my department covering tho year of 1943. T his annual report was printed for the entire institute, but unfortunately it was not possible to find a copy of this printed report. However, the Robert Koch institute made the manuscript available. It was still available in the files of the Institute.
For the year of 1943 we have not the report on typhus work of the Institute, which naturally could be found in the printed report. I regret that in particular, because this would show clearly that I did not participate in that work nor did my collaborators participate in it. I have not gone into the contents of the annual report of my department at this point, but i shall merely limit myself to stating the fact that there is no mention in this report about typhus or yellow fever. A short survey of this document will confirm that statement.
Would you please turn to page 77, which is page 17 of the document, and you find work by mo and my collaborators. That is up to page 79. On page 77 you find the title "Rickettsiosis(typhus)." This is under Figure 3. It is a new edition cf the textbook, Article 16 already mentioned before. On Page 78 there arc again a number of matters mentioned which refer to typhus. There is an article written in the Reich Health Periodical, "Progress in Combatting cf the Clothed Lice," it again refers to my DDT work. Then in the center of the page you will find the other "Typhus Vaccines," This refers to the discussion remark made during a meeting of the Consulting Physicians, which is aL ready available here in its original. This is the technical introduction with reference to my protest at Ding's work. Then as the one but last publication, a book written by me in collaboration with a number of other gentlemen, regarding procedures for decontamination, which again deals with typhus, of course, but only from a combat and epidemiological point of view. I think that this describes the essential points I wish to prove by submitting those documents. I think that you have already made available the printed original covering the first two annual reports, haven't you?
Q Yes.
A But we made excerpts of anything which is in any way essential for this trial.
DR. FRITZ: I offered the original printed report as evidence, and I handed it to the General Secretary.
Q I now turn to another subject, Professor; the Tribunal put the Question to Professor Rostock during his examination whether immunity could be discovered by an examination of the blood. Professor Rostock answers this question in the affirmative, but added the limitation by saying he did not consider himself an expert in that field; was Professor Rostock's answer correct?
A I think that this question put by the Tribunal is very important and I would like to answer it as a question of the Tribunal, because I think that the answer given by Professor Rostock was not correct.
It is not possible to answer the question whether a person or an animal is immune against a disease by examination of the blood; but this question cannot be answered by a simple "yes" or "no." In order to understand the real situation, which is of great importance in order to clarify a number cf Documents, a more detailed explanation becomes necessary.
The fact alone that Professor Gildemeister knew about the series of experiments at Buchenwald, and perhaps participated as a collaborator, was to have been a proof that something was to be ascertained there, which could not easily be ascertained by an examination of the blood. Nobody would start any such tests if by a simple examination of the blood one could arrive at the results.
Very shortly, I want to illustrate the definition of the word "immunity." Immunity is the capacity not to have to fall ill in spite of infection with virulent germs.
One has to basically differentiate between two forms, the naturally inborn immunity: this immunity is in all cases absolute and in spite cf the severest infection no illness results. Thus human beings naturally immune against nagana and cattle plague; and the dog is of course immune against the human plague. On the other hand there is the acquired immunity. This immunity can either be acquired by a disease or by a protective vaccination, and it is only with this problem that we are dealing with during this trial here.
Q How can immunity be ascertained at all.
A Only through the recognition of the fact of somebody not falling ill in spite of an infection. This can be ascertained in many ways. It can be discovered at an occasion when one could assume that during a large scale epidemic every person was subject to infection, or at least all members of certain groups were subject to infection, and that in spite of that, a certain number of people did not fall ill. That is the usual method used in order to find out the effectiveness of protective vaccination.
Subsequently, one tried to find out how many of the people who had fallen ill were vaccinated and how many were not, then these two figures are compared.
Another possibility is the one of artificial infection. This method is being used on animals and in exceptional cases on experiments on human beings.
Q Considering a dangerous illness such as typhus; were such artificial injections carried out in order to find out whether a person was immune after having been given a protective vaccination?
A That repeatedly happened before the war outside of Germany. The artificial infections in the case of typhus fall into two groups. I shall now leave cut the time before 1900, and then we come to the classical experiments conducted by Jassil, one of the two discoverers of the plague bacilli. Jassil found out on experimenting on coolies that typhus can be transferred by transmitting blood from one person to another. Then, Sergean, in his work on natives, proved that the typhus virus can be found in the louse; and finally in the case of the Rocky Mountain Spotted fever, which is related to the louse fever, the transmission of that disease by ticks was found in experiments on human beings. These are the three great classical experiments, which are generally known, because they constitute cornerstones in typhus research.
The second group covers the experiments in order to test the value of typhus vaccines. These are the experiments of the two Frenchmen, Blan and Balthasar, who were vaccinating people with a living a-virulent rickettsia strain, and afterwards by an infection with a virulent strain, tested the immunity.
Next is the work of Van de Millas for the Journal cf Immunity in the year of 1939; who was testing the essential vaccine by artificial injection on twelve persons.
Finally we have the American experiments with typhus on inmates of prisons that were carried out during this war.
Here, I am only citing the best known examples which brought about results of basic importance.
Q How, considering the situation as you describe it, would it be possible that Professor Rostock answered the question in the affirmative as to whether immunity can be ascertained by the examination of the blood?
A Rostock himself emphasized that he himself was not an expert in this field and originally wanted to reject the responsibility. When giving his answer, he obviously mixed up immunity and immunity reactions. The immunity is a property cf the living organism cf either the human bting or the animals, and the bearers cf immunity are the cells, the tissues and the blood. We know quite a number of things about the immunity in the tissues, but technically there is very little proof. It is much easier to observe the changes of the blood.
We are here concerned with the following matter. After surviving an infectious disease a number of symptoms arise in the blood, or in the serum either newly or to an increased extent. Channels of these symptoms are the so-called anti-bodies. Aglutinin, praecipitins, bacterioligenes, bactericidenes, anti-bodies, complement fixation anti-bodies, etc. The presence and amount of these antibodies can be proven in the test tube. The group of those reactions are designated immunity reactions, because it occurs simultaneously with immunity.
But, it is one of the fundamental teachings of immunity research that not one of these numerous often highly complicated reactions offer a measure or proof of immunity. All of these reactions play a huge part in laboratory diagnosis and in scientific work, but as I said immunity cannot be measured by them.
Q. Do such reactions play any part during this trial here?
A. Yes, in the case of typhus and especially in Haagen's complex of work the so-called Weigl Felix reaction has been repeatedly mentioned, which is an agglutination reaction with Proteus X-19.
Q. Would you please describe briefly what this situation is?
A. The Weigl Felix reaction is the most important reaction referring to the diagnosis of typhus. A few days after the beginning of the illness the serum assumes the property to agglutinate these special bacteria Proteus X-19. As the illness progresses and takes time,this capacity increases in its strength so that finally the serum can agglutinate diluted one to ten thousand. After surviving this illness the agglutinants decrease in their amount and finally disappear completely. However, the immunity remains, and that this agglutination, although it is an immunity reaction, has nothing to do with immunity is best show by this Weigl Felix reaction; the proteus bacteria, with which it is being carried out, are not at all the virus of typhus, and as I said before, the agglutinins disappear within one year but the immunity remains for decades and generally for a lifetime.
Q. Why did Professor Haagen after his protective vaccination work on this Weigl Felix reaction if it does not give any proof of immunity?
A. The reason is the following. Four fonts are known. After surviving infectious diseases an immunity arises. We know that after protective vaccination immunity can also appear to a weak extent. We know on the other hand that after infectious diseases agglutinins often appear together with other anti-bodies. We also know that after vaccination agglutinins appear. Since the only reliable method in order to examine immunity material, a. subsequent infection, is mostly and generally not available, one takes recourse to such serological reactions. This is an emergency aid and the expert knows that this is very unreliable and can easily lead to erroneous results, and this is one of the essential weaknesses in immunization research. For that reason one starts out on these very expensive and tedious statistics in immunity research, which in spite of that always brings very questionable results, and for that reason experiments on human beings are again and again suggested, and in this connection I may perhaps point to a document which Professor Blome is going to submit here.
In a paper by an author American the matter is described in the very same manner as I have just done. Now, my entire testimony could be perhaps in contradiction to what Professor Hoering has said. Professor Hoering said that as only exception in the case of yellow fever immunity can be established by blood examination. He said first of all that this was the only exception and since he did not know the subject of the trial this testimony needs brief correction. It is correct that in the mouse experiment one can establish that the serum of a vaccinated person kills the typhus in the test tube and the conclusion is justified that if the serum can do that in the test tube phase the blood has the sane ability in the body, but Professor Hoering forgot to say that this serum reaction can have a negative result, namely, after the vaccination. Approximately two years afterwards the serum reaction becomes negative but that is not at all proof that impunity has ceased. Immunity is a collaboration of the properties of blood and tissues and takes longer.
Q. Is the description as it is given by you generally recognized or is that merely your personal opinion?
A. It is generally recognized and Professor Blome, who is interested in this question on account of his plague vaccines, will submit an American document; and if Professor Rostock made a different statement here, it was due to the fact that the immunity science belongs to the most difficult questions of medicine and generally is only treated by specialists. The non-specialist will always try to evade a question in this field.
Q. I now turn to the complex of the typhus work carried out by Professor Haagen of Strassbourg. I should like for you to tell me what your connection to Mr. Haagen was and what you know about his civilian and military position