A. In my opinion that did not become known.
Q. Aren't the number of the experiments which were carried out important in evaluating the validity of the conclusions reached?
A. As far as I remember, percentages were given.
Q. Well, Herr Professor, you can give a percentage of six people used; you can give a percentage of sixty people used. I put it to you that it seems to me, a laymen, that it is a matter of critical importance as to the validity of a conclusion reached by a series of experiments to know how many experiments were carried out. Isn't that true?
A. Yes, that is correct in itself, but unfortunately in German Medical Literature the inaccuracy was customary, namely that percentages were laid down even if the entire total figure is very small. The endeavor to speak of percentages only when the total figure is 100 or over a hundred, and otherwise express these figures in fractions, that is 1/2 or 1/3, etc., unfortunately never got through and from my own memory I can only say that I, at least after that lecture, was of the impression that we were concerned with relatively few experiments, that is not to name a figure, perhaps twenty or so, without laying down an exact number. .
Q. Well, let's take your figure twenty, since you mentioned it, how reliable do you think your conclusion would be in the sulfonalamide experiments, where they used only twenty subjects, some had to be kept for control, some of the number were injected with gas gangrene and some of the number were infected with something else, how abort it? What would the conclusion be from an experiment limited to twenty persons, Professor?
A. Naturally, the experiments numbering small figures are not as valid as those with a large series of people, but as I said, I didn't say that only twenty people were mentioned. The case was that I said the impression that this was somewhere around that figure, whether this was actually the case or not, I don't know.
Q. You remember Handloser testified that you helped re-write the medical instructions for surgery as a result of this meeting in May, 1943, is that right?
A. I didn't quite understand the question, if I may repeat, I heard that after the lecture some sort of directives were worked out, was that your question, or would you please repeat it?
Q. Well that is the sense of it. After these reports were made it was part of your job and the other consulting physicians of the surgery group to work out medical instructions which would be issued and passed down to the doctors working in the field, and General Handloser testified that in fact was the purpose of these meetings, and that in fact every surgeon of the Surgery Meeting in May 1943 helped to write those medical instructions for that year, and I am asking you if that is correct?
A. This is how the situation was. If a number of lectures were held about sulfonilamide, not only Gebhardt and Fischer held lectures, but I think the pathologists and neurologists spoke, there was a surgeon who spoke, and there were some pharmacologists, and all of these lectures, which I think took about a half a day, had to be summarized to one page, and the outlines had to be repeated. This thing was organized and this was done immediately after the lecture, and special periods of the following day were designated for that purpose, when all participants of the surgeon group got together and then conferred upon the subjects of the outline. This is how it was. Discussions were held and changes were suggested. Whenever I dealt with it I dictated in the presence of these gentlemen these matters to a Secretary into her machine, so that all of the gentlemen were in a position to listen to exactly what was laid down as a general directive. That is something that you would call during a scientific Congress, the creation of a summary or resume.
Q. I think we are in substantial agreement, but it is correct, isn't it, you were not engaging in some sort of academic pursuit at these meetings? You were really trying to work up directives in order that the front line doctors would be advised on how to treat troops, isn't that right?
A. No, what we wanted to do was to work out a scientific result of the lectures that were held and the discussions that followed it. How subsequently this was incorporated into the medical services and the directives of the medical services was not our affair, for all of us were really civilians. We were directors of clinics, etc., and were only in the army in a reserve capacity, and our influence with reference to the medical tactical, measures to be taken were only with reference to the advising of our medical superiors.
Q. Well, in order to do that, Professor, you had to evaluate those reports, didn't you?
A. You mean the reports of the lectures that were held during the meeting?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. All right, wasn't it necessary to find out all the details of Gebhardt's experiments if they were to be properly evaluated, so that any action the Army Medical Inspectorate or one of the other branches carried out on these experiments, would be reliable?
A. have already said that the Gebhardt lecture was only the first of all the lectures held in that connection. If I remember correctly, the result was that with reference to ordinary wounds, the effect of sulfonilamide was to be considered, doubtful, but that only with reference to ordinary wounds, the effect of sulfonilamide was to be considered doubtful, but that only with reference to a few gangrene viruses a certain effect could be determined.
Q. Now, Professor, don't let's quibble around the edges here. I don't care whether Gebhardt's lectures took up l/5th of the meeting or 1/100th of the meeting, but if I understood it correctly, it seems to me you had to know exactly what Gebhardt did in his experiments if you were to evaluate them in any sort of scientific manner. You had to know how many people he experimented on, precisely what infections were developed in the people, where they were developed and how dangerous the infections were and what treatment he gave and how he put the sulfonilamide in the wound, in what form the sulfonilamide was, whether powder or solid, or whether they took it orally, a thousand questions which you would have to know about and have answers before you could evaluate Gebhardt's experiments. Now didn't you inquire into all of those details?
A. It was not necessary to inquire about these details. The result, if I remember correctly, was demonstrated in the way of curves and whether sulfonilamide was injected into the wound in the form of powder or any other form, is not of such great importance. It is important, whether in addition to the local treatment of the wound, sulfonilamide preparation are being taken orally, or are being injected.
In any case Gebhardt, according to my opinion, followed the results of his experiments in a very clear fashion.
Q. But you didn't inquire and you do not know how many experimental subjects were used ?
A. No, I don't know the number.
Q. And you didn't learn of the sex of the experimental subjects?
A. No, I said yesterday that there was never any mention made that these were Polish women.
Q. I suppose it makes no medical difference whether experimental subjects were men or women?
A. No, with reference to the treatment of wounds it makes no difference.
Q. Suppose you had learned that over fifty persons were being used in these experiments, it would not have seemed strange to you that Gebhardt had that many people sentenced to death all at the same place to experiment on.
A. I already said that at that time I was of the impression this much lower figure. I don't even know today hew many there were.
Q. I am asking you to suppose that you knew they had used fifty, and I am asking you if under that hypothetical situation it wouldn't have occurred to you at the meeting to ask yourself how in the work Gebhardt got fifty people condemned to death all in the same place to experiment on?
A. At first I didn't know it was all in the same place. Gebhardt said nothing about the place and, as I said before, the question, as you said, is hypothetical. What would I have done if. Such questions, I beg you to excuse me -- I am not a lawyer, are very hard to answer. That is a question of opinion but not a fact which has to be testified to under oath.
Q. Well, Professor, it may be that you are correct but I have the intention of putting several more hypothetical questions to you which, I think, are quitvalid and I have sufficient reasons for doing that, and while you may find then difficult to answer I would appreciate your best efforts to do so. Now, weren't you really under the impression that these experiments had all been carried out in the same place? Wouldn't it be ridiculous to think that Gebhardt travelled around from one prison to another working on one person here and two there.
A. I must say quite openly at that time I did not have any thoughts about this, namely, local question.
Q. Suppose it had been told you at the meeting that these experimental subjects were women. Would that have disturbed you a little bit or not?
A. It wouldn't have been so comfortable but what I thought myself at the time with reference to the question of people who were condembed to death was the possibility of bringing about a chance for their life. I testified to the yesterday.
Q. We will come to that in a moment. Now, let us suppose that at this meeting in May 1943 you know all the facts, as you now know then, concerning to sulfanilamide experiments of Gebhardt. What world you have done under those circumstances?
A. The way I imagined it to be was an examination of sulfanilamide and how it should be continued to be examined as I said yesterday. In my opinion way in which I thought this waste be dealt with was the correct one.
Q. I assume then that if you had known in March 1943 that in fact Gebhardt had experimented on over fifty Polish women who stated they had not in fact b* tried by any German court; that they had resisted these experiments and not consented to them; that at least three of them, by Gebhardt's own admission, he died as a result of the experiments; that, according to these girls' testimony, five died as a result and six were shot later; that as a result of the experiments one woman had the shin bone cut down so there was left less than onequarter inch of bone, that she was forced to walk on that leg before it was healed and that it broke again; that all the women sustained horrible and muti.
ting scars - am I to understand you would have raised some objection to that at this meeting?
A. What you are saying now was not known to all of us. We knew that Infections were made -- we heard in a certain percentage of cases infection was stopped. Everything else you have just said was not known to any of the participants in this meeting. We had been told that the legal foundation of the matter was clarified and done with. We had no reason at all to doubt the statement or the other statement of Gebhardt.
Q. Very well, Professor, We are willing to assume for the moment that you didn't know. But, you see, the question we put to you is of some importance because Prosecution is taking the position that you did know, or should have known or to assert the contrary. But, quite aside from that point I am interested in knowing what you would have done if you had known, which is also an important question in this case. I know that you say you were told these thin but I want you to assume that you did know them - that Gebhardt came there and told you the whole story and he marched these five Polish women across the stage before the consulting physician you saw them yourself. I want to know what you would have done under these circumstances?
DR. SEIDL (for the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer): I object to this question for the following reasons: This question does not refer to the fact, neither to the external fact nor to the internal fact. Evidently his question is directed to a hypothetical conclusion which is to have a legal question answered by the witness. Questions to a witness can only be admitted in so far as they refer to facts and not to subjected voicing of opinions and conclusions of laws, which the witness has to conclude with reference to event and this is something that has to be designated as fictitious. I, therefore, ask you not to admit this question.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I think everyone understands we put a hypothetical question, that we are calling on the witness to assume certain facts have been here proved and that they did take place. Those are all of course disputed questions but I am trying to elicit from the witness a state as to what he would have done in the situation I posed to him, and I submit that is important.
Prosecution takes the stand that he did know or should have known. Assuming that the Tribunal takes prosecution's position with respect to that I think it important to know what this defendant feels he should have done. In that situation does he feel that he was doing his duty to object, does he feel that it was incumbent on him to go to Handloser, for example, who was not the commander but at last the man in charge of the Military Medical Academy where the subject was given and make a report to him? I think those are important questions and the only way I can possibly elicit an answer is to call upon the witness to assume that he did know the facts as I have hypothetically put them to him. Of course, we are not asking that any of the defendants be bound by these hypothetical questions as I give it.
DR. PROBILLA: Mr President, as defense counsel of the defendant Rostock I should only like to point out that this question in its core involves a judgment about a co-defendant and that is a very difficult situation in which are bringing him, that is when you ask him -- you demand him -- to give judgment about any co-defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until 1:30 o'clock and then announce its ruling.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 21 February 1947.)
THE MARSHAl: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the Defendant Oberheuser): May it please the Tribunal, Defendant Oberheuser, in view of her physical condition, requests that she be excused from, the afternoon session. A certificate by the prison physician will be submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: The certificate from the prison physician is already before the Court. Defendant Oberheuser will be excused from attendance in court at the time of the afternoon recess, it being the opinion of the Tribunal that defendant's interests will no wise be jeopardized by her absence from the court. The Secretary General Will file her physician's note.
The objection interposed by defense counsel to the question propounded to the witness by the prosecution, is sustained.
PAUL ROSTOCK - Resumed.
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. MC HANEY?
Q Professor Rostock, you testified yesterday that you did not know where the sulphanilamide experiments were carried out. Is that right?
A Well, the place where they were carried out is unknown to me.
Q And you did not ask where they were carried out, did you?
A No.
Q You knew that Gebhardt and Fischer were SS men, did you not?
A Yes.
Q Did you know that concentration camps were under the jurisdiction of the SS?
A I did not know all the details about it and I do not know if it was an order by the SS or an order by the police.
Q Didn't you have reason to believe, though, that concentration camps were in fact supervised and run by the SS?
A I did not know that so exactly.
Q I understand that you have never visited a concentration camp?
A No.
Q Were you ever in Danzig?
A No. I have passed through the city of Danzig by train, yes.
Q but never stopped over there?
A I do not believe that I have ever been at Danzig or that I have left the train there.
Q Weren't you curious as to where these experiments were carried out on persons condemned to death, that is, how they brought the experimental subjects and the facilities for the experiments together?
A I understood how the experimental subjects were brought together. That did not interest me and I was not that curious.
Q Can you tell us anything more definitely what Gebhardt and Fischer said about these experimental subjects?
A I have already stated yesterday that Gebhardt said that persons who had been condemned to death were involved and that they had then been granted a pardon.
Q You testified that Gebhardt reported that prominent jurists had approved this procedure. Did he tell you the names of any of the jurists?
A He did not say famous or well known jurists but he said that the jurist's basis had been clarified and had been decided on. He has not used the word famous jurists, nor has he mentioned any names.
Q He did not state who had approved of this procedure, is that right?
A No.
Q Were you told for what crime those persons had been condemned to death?
A No, there was not sufficient time for that. The whole lecture only lasted for about 15 or 20 minutes.
Q. And I suppose you were not told whether these persons had been condemned for political crimes?
A Nothing was said about that, only that persons were concerned who had been condemned to death. No details were discussed at all.
Q Nor whether or not the subject had been tried by an ordinary criminal court?
AAbout the trial procedure and about the court there was not a word mentioned.
Q Nor whether the experimental subjects were German prisoners or non-German prisoners?
A Nothing was said about that either.
Q And you or no one else at the meeting made no inquiry about those matter?
A I personally did not ask any questions. I do not know if anybody else did ask any questions about that.
Q In your opinion, is there any obligation on the doctor performing the experiment to look into the status of the experimental subjects in the respect I have just mentioned to you?
A Do you mean in this case if Doctor Gebhardt had been obligated to inquire why this people had been condemned to death, or that I should have inquired with Doctor Gebhardt? The question was not quite clear to me.
Q I mean whether or not the doctor actually performing the experiment is under any obligation, in your opinion, to inquire into the status of experimental subject, and I do not mean that you have to take Gebhardt as an example since you have shown some reluctance to express an opinion with respect to your fellow defendants.
A Will, I have never worried about what I would have done if I had been ordered to carry out experiments on human beings. I have never been in that situation. If you now ask me the question in this way and I have to answer it, then, without trying to make any judicial statement, not having any idea about it, I would say the following:
If the person was informed by an official that a death sentence had been imposed and that in the case of survival of this hypothetical experiment, the punishment would be amended, then I believe that perhaps I would have depended on the information which would have been given to me by the official. That is not a statement of facts but just my personal opinion -an answer which I am just giving to you without having considered it in detail. That is not an answer to the fact or statement with regard to the fact but it is only an opinion on my part.
JUDGE SEBRING: Doctor, let us assume that the physician who has been ordered or commissioned to make such experiments actually knew, or from past experience with the subjects had reasonable belief to know, that leniency would not, in fact, be given to these experimental subjects if they survived the experiment. What do you think, from the standpoint of medical ethics, would have been the duty of the physician in such a case?
THE WITNESS: I personally would have refused.
JUDGE SEBRING: Let us assume that sulfonamide experiments were conducted on concentration camp inmates without their consent, in the manner and by the methods contended for by the prosecution. Let us assume that, if you will. In your opinion, as a medical expert, would you say that the experiments were conducted in accordance with civilized medical ethics?
THE WITNESS: Even I would not have carried it out than, either.
JUDGE SEBRING: You think that would not be in accordance with medical ethics as you understand the ethics of your profession?
THE WITNESS: I would not have approved of these experiments.
BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q Professor, does it satisfy your sense of legal ethics to make a deal with a criminal condemned to death that he will be pardoned if he under goes a dangerous or experiment and survives?
A I have already stated that if I was to be in the position of the criminal, I certainly would take that chance, but if I was the physician, I would refuse; I would refuse to carry out such an experiment. That is my private opinion.
Q I understand, Doctor. Now, can you tell us in any more detail just exactly what Gebhardt and Fischer said at this meeting; I would like for you to cover the presentation of the curves that you have already mentioned; tell us how many curves, what the curves showed, etc.
A I really cannot tell you that; I do not remember that anymore. We were assigned to hear so many lectures, conferences and meetings and there were quite a number of conferences every year, but it is completely impossible to remember them so completely that I could testify to that here. I am unable to do that.
Q Can you recall whether or not he made any report on blood level tests, that is what they called blood level, at the time they were using sulfamilamide?
A Yes, that was done. It was debated how much sulfamilamide was contained in the blood after a blood test had been made, but I do not know if Professor Gebhardt did that.
Q As I recall from your testimony yesterday, you stated that Gebhardt also made a talk on nerve rejuvination experiments; is that right ?
A I believe that Keestler was working on that; that Keestler gave a lecture on it.
Q Well, did Gebhardt give a talk on any matter other than these sulfamilamide experiments; in other words did Gebhardt or Fischer or any of his associates report on the nerve and bone rejuvenation experiments?
A No, I remember that this lecture about muscle and nerve rejuvenation dealt with the fact that the part of the muscle had to rejuvenated, as in the case of the shoulder blades, from other nerves which had been rejuvenated. That was a field in which Dr. Gebhardt had published quite a large number of articles in peace time for the rejuvenation of paralysed nerves after cases of infantile paralysis. At the time I had the impression that whatever was presented was the result of all of this study, however, I have never talked about it with Gebhardt. I believe it was called nerve plastics, but I am not absolutely certain about it.
Q But, to the best of your recollection Gebhardt did not speak on these subjects in May of 1943?
A In May, 1943 a lecture was given about rejuvenation operations after the removal of nerves; it was made by Keestler. Dr. Gebhardt may have made the introductory speech, but Keestler gave the details.
Q And there was no indication that these experiments had been carried out in a manner similar to the sulfamilamide experiments on which Gebhardt reported?
A No nothing whatsoever was said about it.
Q I understood you to say yesterday and again today that in 1942 you had planned to make certain experiments as to the use of sulfamilamide yourself; is that right?
A Yes, I had discussed that.
Q Were you going to carry out your experiments on wounded soldiers?
A You cannot describe that as experiments, but as persons treated, soldiers wounded in combat and persons injured in accidents were to be treated. This method of treatment was to be observed and improvements were to be made and of curse that certainly is not an experiment.
Q Your plan was to study the effects of sulfamilamide on wound injections by treating wounded soldiers; is that right?
A Yes.
Q And in your opinion, as a medical expert, would the results you obtained from that kind of testing sulfamilamide have been quite satisfactory?
A The series of observations that are made, what the outcome will be no one can possibly know; that is to say I would have treated a number of injured persons and afterwards I would have combined the results, but if then the answer to the question would have been found if a wound should be treated with sulfamilamide or not, I cannot know that ahead of time, because if I know that, I would not have had to ask the examination.
Q I probably did not make myself clear, let me replace the question more directly. In your opinion, would the results which you hoped to obtain by testing sulfamilamide on wound infections of soldiers have produced scientific results as valid as these obtained by Gebhardt in the course of his experiments?
A. Such examination are carried out in many places in the world. One single examination is never so important and only when the results of your examination have been confirmed, or it has been disputed some other place, then you can speak of it as an important matter. Whatever the individual scientist achieves, that at the very best is a stone in the whole pattern of stones, but then of this one stone he can not claim that it was the foundation stone. This meets with the compilation of many examinations at various different places, also with varying applications.
Q. Well, assuming that you tested sulfamilamide on as many wounded soldiers as you thought statistically necessary, would not the results obtained by you have been as valid and as reliable as these obtained by Gebhardt in his experiments on an equal number of subjects?
A. Of course, I hope that my examinations, which after all were not carried out and this is a hypothetical question, that they would have been as valid, but of course I would have to leave criticism with others, it does not rest with me.
Furthermore, and I did not state this in detail yesterday, my work was more concentrated on basic research, therefore I tried to obtain psychological chemists, collaborators and other persons. We tried to discover in what manner the sulfamilamide had a different effect from what we had in these infecting drugs up to now.
With you permission, I can give you the basic lines on the subject in a very few sentences. If i put a disinfecting medicine into a wound, iodine, then we know with a certain concentration this iodine will kill the bacteria located in the wound. However, before it can do that, it will to a much larger extent harm the cells which surround the wound in the human body. As a result of this, the injury done to the cells in the vicinity of the wound is always bigger and always occurs in the earlier period of time than the harm which is done to the bacteria. These sulfamilamides have quite a different effect. They influence the metabolism of the bacteria without inflicting any considerable harm on the wound cells. They cause some harm, but it is not worth mentioning and then the result at the very best is that the bacteria within the wound can be consumed by the defensive mechanism in the human body or that the bacteria is prevented from growing and reproducing.
In 1945 the situation was not as yet as clear or as clarified as I have expressed just now and in order to achieve the clarification of this question that was my main interest at the time.
In the meantime exact results were achieved in various places throughout the world, and what I am describing now was the knowledge we dad obtained in the years 1942 and 1943. I know today that research had progressed a little further abroad than it had with us. As a result of this my aim in these experiments varied considerably from what Gebhardt had intended because, on the basis of lectures which he had given, his questions were as follows; Are the results of healing a wound which has been infected with gangrene bacteria and other bacteria, are they better with the effects of sulfonamides than without them?
I believe that was the way that Dr. Gebhardt asked the question. However, I think it would be better if you were to ask him these questions yourself, but that is what I deducted from his statements.
Q Well, in your opinion as an export, could Gebhardt have answered the question which you state he had posed by testing sulfanilimide on wound infections of soldiers?
A That would also have been a way, and that is the procedure which I suggested.
Q Did you know Schreiber very well?
A I did not know him well, but I know who he was.
Q. What about Rose?
A If I knew Rose well?
Q Yes.
A I know how he looked, and I know who he was, and I know what he had done in the field of science, and I know about his tropical hygienic knowledge, but outside of the usual social contacts I have hardly had anything at all to do with him.
Q And you never heard about Rose's objections to Ding's experiments which he allegedly made at the hygienists meeting in May 1943?
A No, I have heard that here for the very first time.
Q Did you know Dr. Ding?
A No. That name was completely unknown to me until I came here.
Q And I think you told us this morning about Mrugowsky. Could you repeat briefly just how well you knew Mrugowsky and what contact you had with him?
A I did not know him well at all. I knew from the faculty list that there was a lecturer of hygiene by the name of Mrugowsky, and I must have seen him some place or other. When the request came for a hygienist at the University to appoint him as a regular professor; then I had him send his scientific work to me and I perhaps talked with him for half an hour, when I had ordered him to see me so that the formalities could be dealt with, and furthermore, I was informed about it at the faculty meeting of the hygienists, and I have signed the request to the ministry for the faculty. It may be that I handed his diploma to him afterward, but I cannot say that with certainty, and that is all.
Q Did you attend the meeting of consulting physicians in December 1942?
A 1942? Yes, I probably was there.
Q Did you hear the talk made by Holzloehner on cold problems?
A It has already been stated here that this lecture was given in the physiology department, and since the meeting was at the same time as the surgical department, it was, of course, natural that I attended the surgical meeting.
Q Well, I take it then that you did not personally hear his lecture. Did you hear any reports about it?
A In the green booklets which have been presented here I may have perhaps read it, but I didn't read all of them individually. There is no scientist who can read the entire literature. The 24 hours in a day would not be sufficient to enable him to do that even if he wanted to.
Q When did you first learn about treating shock due to prolonged exposure to cold by emersion in warn baths?
A I do not know that either.
Q If I understand your testimony correctly, you state that you had no contact with the Reich Research Council until after your appointment as chief of Brandt's office for science and research is that right?
A I did not have any contact. I was not a member of the Reich Research Council, and I have never tried to obtain a research assignment from the Reich Research Council. Of course, I know Dr. Sauerbruch, who was the head, of branch, but of course I do not knew if you can describe that as a contact.
Q And you became Brandt's alternate on the presiding council of the Reich Research Council early in 1944; is that correct?
A I do not remember the exact date anymore, but I assume that it was in the beginning of 191944. It may also have been at the end of 1943, but I do not remember the date so exactly anymore.
Q And you exercised no functions by virtue of that position? You had no activities whatsoever within the framework of the Reich Research Council?
A I have already stated I did not do anything on behalf of the Reich Research Council, but in this morning's session I have given an example that had to turn to the Reich Research Council.
Q Well now, on that subject I remember only three contacts which you have tell us about that you had in connection with the Reich Research Council and they were really with respect to your position as chief of the office science and research rather than by virtue of being Brandt's alternate on the presiding council.
A I have never functioned as a deputy member of the presidial council. I have never carried out any functions whatsoever.
Q And these three contacts which you have mentioned with the Reich Research. Council are, firstly, that they helped you with respect to calling of the meeting in connection with the electronic microscope; is that right?
A Yes, with the penicillin discussions the electronic microscope discussions which had been arranged by us.
Q And secondly, that you went to them in order to try to obtain some foreign medical literature?
A I was trying to obtain foreign literature, and I wanted the men to see them who had to regulate the work.
Q And thirdly, you had contact with them when you became interested in what you have described as special research assignments?