1947-04-22, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

GERHARD ROSE — Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the Defendant Rose):

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 the 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 the name of anyone of my collaborators is being mentioned. On the 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 the 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 the 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 the title of "Typhus" are 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 me deal exclusively with typhus combat as an epidemiological problem, and are mostly based upon my work during the resettlement. in ease the Prosecution should contest the authenticity of this statement, it is naturally possible to produce copies of these 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 the 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 me 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 of the textbook, Article 16 already mentioned before. On Page 78 there are again a number of matters mentioned which refer to typhus. There is an article written in the Reich Health Periodical, "Progress in Combatting of 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 already 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 of 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 of 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 out 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 of 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 of the living organism of either the human being or the animals, and the bearers of 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. Agglutinin, praecipitirs, bacterioligenes, bactericides, 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

A: I heard of Professor Haagen for the first time by reason of his yellow fever work which he was carrying out at the Rockefeller Institute in New York. Then in the year 1936 I made his personal acquaintance when I came to the Robert Koch Institute. During the following years we, of course, met frequently. Haagen was a reserve officer with the Luftwaffe, just as I, and at the beginning of the war became the consulting hygienist with Air Fleet I. At the Robert Koch Institute he had the department for cell and virus research. He worked closely with Professor Gildemeister. He worked closer with him than was usually customary at the institute. These two gentlemen had already been together at the Reich Health Office and together had come to the Robert Koch Institute. They published an important handbook on virus research together. Haagen was considered to be one of the most important German researchers and was sent to the Rockefeller Institute in order to work there on yellow fever. Later he was called — I am sorry I made a mistake, I meant the Rockefeller Institute in New York, because at that time already he was considered to be a virus specialist.

Q: Did you collaborate with Mr. Haagen?

A: No, I specialized on parasitological questions during the last decade and since my Herbes work was concluded in the year of 1936 I no longer carried out any virus work.

Q: What did Haagen do during the war?

A: He became consulting physician with Air Fleet No. 1. He participated in the Polish campaign in the year 1939. After the end of that campaign, in addition to his consulting capacity, he resumed his work at the Robert Koch Institute once more and when the Air Fleet No. 1 was transferred to the Fast he was transferred as the consulting physician to Air Fleet Center in order to enable him to continue his work at the institute. In the Fall of 1941 he became director of the Hygienic Institute at Strassbourg and thus ceased work with the Robert Koch Institute. At the same time he ceased his work as consulting physician with the Air Fleet because he had to devote his time exclusively to his institute, which was to be newly instituted.

In addition, Professor Haagen up to that time had not yet been active as a university lecturer and he had to get used to this field of work. Since there was a lack of good hygienists at the Luftwaffe, I was approximately two years later, in the middle of 1943, assigned to go on an official trip to Toul in France and at the same tine interrupt my journey at Strassbourg in order to discuss the question with Professor Haagen as to whether he could not, as a side position, Participate in a consulting capacity.

I received this order from Professor Hipke, informed him accordingly. When I visited Strasbourg in the year of 1943; Haagen declared himself ready to assume such side activity with a great deal of reservation. However, he refused work with Any other Air Fleet but one stationed at home. Accordingly, he reported to the Inspector, Professor Hipke, and Haagen in the second half of 1943 became consulting physician of the Air Fleet Center stationed in the Reich. He remained in this position until the end, of the war. I don't know the extent of his official activity but I assume that Haagen went to his Air Fleet physician once or twice a month and, in addition, made a number, of official trips in the case of special assignments, Haagen, as in the case of all other hygienists, sent half yearly experimental reports from which no greet deal of activity became apparent. I remember a summarizing report particularly about experience gained with cholera and typhoid vaccines, about deficiencies in the building of barracks, and deficiencies in Housing and Settlement of youthful air men. Since the fact that so little is reported about activity with the Air Fleet does net exclude that he did a lot of useful work for the air Fleet but all that work probably did not concern any fundamental matter which could even be mentioned in any report to the Air Fleet.

Q: What do you know about Professor Haagen's fate after the collapse?

A: I merely heard that he was kept here in the Nurnberg jail for a long time. But, since as a result of the interrogations the accusations made against him were found to be unjustifiable, he was released by the CIC and released from prisoners of War by the American authorities as a man without guilt.

Q: What do you know about the research assignment which professor Haagen received from the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe?

A: I am hardly informed about the beginning of these assignments and my statements will therefore not be reliable because this goes back to a time when I learned nothing whatsoever about these matters.

Around the center of 1940 on the occasion of the campaign in France he probably got himself a research assignment with reference to yellow fever when one counted on the possibility that the battle field would extend to Africa. This assignment Haagen received from the Robert Koch Institute. I heard of this assignment when he was transferred from the Robert Koch Institute to the Hygiene Institute in Strasbourg. This became necessary because these assignments were net only given to the person individually but to the entire institute and when a person transferred; the assignment was also transferred to the institute. Obviously in the year 1943 he also received typhus assignment from the Luftwaffe and; I think; at the same time he must have gotten himself an influenza assignment. However; I can not remember that because at no time did I see a report from him on influenza.

Q: Hew was it possible that he could have research assignments in the field of hygiene without you gaining knowledge of it as the consulting hygienist?

A: Well, that is very natural. The research assignments did not originate from the medical inspectorate. The researchers asked for those assignments on their own initiative. That has already been explained here by witnesses and the procedure illustrated. Owing to regulations of the War it became difficult for civilian institutes to get raw material because civilian research work was completely neglected at first and if anyone received priority on basis of an order by the Wehrmacht only then could he receive ran material and personnel. This situation changed when the Reich Research Council was created which could even use higher priority numbers and the result was that everybody then endeavored to get research assignments from the Reich Research Council. In case of application for research assignment the people who needed that assignment personally asked for thorn and since there was no immediate interest on behalf of the Medical Inspectorate in these things it was not necessary to ask a specialist to advise on the matter.

In many cases it was a question of a mere courtesy on behalf of the Wehrmacht offices. I would compare it with a similar situation as it prevails in the Rockefeller foundation. I was speaking about the grants which are given out by the Rockefeller Institute. It is not necessary for the Medical Inspectorate to state that there is yellow fever m Africa and that it is a good thing to produce typhus vaccine. A consulting physician need not be asked to take part in these things. Only in later years the habit arose that of any research assignments I was also informed.

Q: You were just speaking of a courtesy shown by the Wehrmacht Medical Services to the civilian researchers, in order to alleviate their difficulties. But Professor Haagen was a Luftwaffe officer. Didn't he receive these assignments in his capacity as an Air Force officer?

A: No. That can clearly be seen from the documents which the Prosecution was kind enough to submit but upon which it did not comment accordingly and, therefore, I should like to do it for them. I refer to Document Book XIII of the Prosecution which is Document No. 137, Exhibit 139. This is page 6 of this document. In this document Professor Haagen, as the director of the Hygienic Institute of the University applies to the civilian superior of this organization, the director of the University, to declare the Hygienic Institute as an armament work. As a reason he gives a list of the numerous research assignments with which the institute had been entrusted. Naturally, it would have been of no importance to knew what Haagen's assignments were in his Luftwaffe position but it was important for the position of the institute within the University. It can be quite clearly seen from this document, and Professor Schroeder correctly emphasized it, that the duty, the research activity, of Mr. Haagen was something which was carried on in his civilian sphere of activity.

Q: Was this conception also represented by the Medical Service during the War?

A: Yes, the Prosecution in that case has submitted the document which covers the point. We are here concerned with the Document No. 297 which is Exhibit 316, Document Book XII in the German edition to be found on page 112. We are here concerned with the conclusion of the yellow fever activity by Professor Haagen which says here "the Inspectorate of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe asks," and then the next paragraph states "it is requested," however, the next paragraph says "the Inspectorate asks, etc. to continue the work." Whoever knows anything about military correspondence in Germany, and I think [illegible] may be the case with a non-soldier, will recognize very clearly that this is not a letter of a superior agency of the Medical Services to a little staff physician but that we are here concerned with a letter by the Medical Inspectorate to an independent organization whom one cannot order about but to whom one has to make requests. Considering the German style of official correspondence this is something that is absolutely clear. In military order it says — it is ordered, you have to do this, you have to do that, execution of the report is to be notified on such and such a. date. This letter also shows clearly that in the case of research assignments the Medical Inspectorate did not consider Professor Haagen as a subordinate.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30.

(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)