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 parasithological 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 insti tute, which was to he 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.
A (Continued) 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 cf 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 bar. 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 cf 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 mail for a long time. But, since as a result cf 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 cf 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 cf 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 cut 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 tc 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 fer 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 cf 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 t n.t may be the case with a non-soldier, will recognize very clearly that this is not a letter of a superior agency cf 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 cf 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 cf 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.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1400 hours, 22 April 1947)
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
HR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, after the completion of the Rose case on agreement with defense and the Prosecution and if the Tribunal desires, we would like to present the defendants, Ruff, Tumberg, and Weltz in that order, that is put their cases on. in that order, and after the completion of the case against Dr. Weltz then hear the case against the defendant Brack, based on the fact that the cases of Ruff, Romberg and Weltz are very similar, and it wouldn't interrupt the continuity of thought, and the evidence then would be more convenient for both the defense and the Prosecution, to be handled in that manner.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand that is agreeable to counsel for the defense? If so, that method of procedure will be satisfactory to the Tribunal.
GERHARD ROSE - Resumed
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FRITZ
Q Various witnesses have repeatedly mentioned Stabsarzt of the Luftwaffe Graefe, who is alleged to have assisted Haagen in his work; who is this man and what did he have to do with Haagen?
A In the Luftwaffe, as in all branches of the Wehrmacht, there were so-called expert commandos. These wore offices of the University clinics, in University institutes, in which people from the armed services were sent for technical and special training for several years... Of such, expert commandos for hygiene, there were three in the Luftwaffe, one in Graz, one in Heidelberg and one in Strasbourg. Only in the one in Strasbourg was the director of the Institute also a reserve officer in the Luftwaffe, but that was not of decisive importance. The commando might have just as well gone to another Institute as in the case of Graz and Heidelberg. Stabsarzt Graefe was such a medical officer, who had been detailed for expert training in hygiene. In this trial the ques tion is of importance, what the legal standing of such a commanding officer was.
The question has frequently been decided on in German legal proceedings, because the act of detailing an officer has been a practice for more than a century, and thus the question of legal responsibility and other such questions have frequently been discussed in this connection. I am even in the position to describe such a case in detail which I experienced at the University of Heidelberg. I don't want to do that here unless the Tribunal expressly requires it, but at any rate the question has been decided in German law to the effect that the detailed medical officer is responsible to the Civil Institute, to the Director of the Civilian Institute, and that the Director is liable within the framework of the law for such errors as are committed by the detailed medical officer in the course of his duties. I grant that the question could still be disputed, but at any rate it is so laid down in German law.
Q Now, after this discussion on the legal aspects of it, I ask you to state if you know how reports were made on these research assignments, the content of these reports, when they were made?
A Such a report was prescribed. What the dates were on which Luftwaffe reports were to be made I do not know, because I never received a research assignment from the Luftwaffe. In the Research Department where I had to report, reports were given every six months. Haagen also sent such reports in, for example; on his yellow fever and influenza assignments, however, I saw no reports. In other word.', his reports in these fields were certainly fragmentary.
Q What were these reports?
A Haagen was no better and no worse than other scientists in the matter of his reports. Lost scientists made reports when they needed funds or when they were told to do so. On such occasions Haagen sent short interim reports. Otherwise, he limited himself to sending from the printed material about 2 reports, regarding his work, and calling them his reports.
Q What would generally be deduced from these interim reports?
A Not very much from the interim reports. The assignment was reiterated in it and there was a statement that work was being done, but these interim reports were never very informative, because these were not matters that were suitable for publication and therefore the scientists were very reticent. On the other hand, so far as I am informed, there was never much pressure that such reports should be made, because if one knows scientists, one knows very well that then they have found something out, when they have discovered something, they will report on their own initiative in order to receive recognition for their work, and if they have made no discoveries it does nothing to improve the situation if long reports are sent in on their failures. Scientific research is not something like a factory where you want a monthly report on production. If no positive results are achieved that is too bad, that is a short statement, but nobody gets very excited about that.
Q From your testimony one gets the impression then that Haagen's reports to the Medical Inspectorate were infrequent, but the witness Eyer states here that he wrote reports for Berlin every three months. Can you clarify this contradiction?
A First of all, the impression that Haagen's reports were infrequent in number is entirely correct, and if Miss Eyer says here that she wrote reports every three months, then I don't know where they went to. They certainly didn't go to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, because such an exemplary form of report would have been absolutely unique, and I should not have forgotten it. He would have been the "White-Haired Boy of Report Sending." The correspondence with the Reich Research Council that we have here seen does not give the impression that these reports were very frequent in number, but if one looked at the documents that have been put in evidence here regarding the various duties and obligations that he had, then you can explain Fraulein Eyer's attitude very well, because Haagen was concerned in his research with four entirely different things. First with the Ministry of Education, to which his Institute was subordinate, and from which he received his salary, and which paid his Institute and his assistants, and of course he had to send his reports thither.
Then he received research assistance from the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. Thirdly, he received research assignments from the Reich Research Council, and in payment for their financial assistance they wanted to see a report now and then, and finally his work was supported by the SS, and so far as one can see from the documents three offices were concerned here, the Ahnenerbe, the Reichsfuehrer SS, and the WVHA. Thus in his scientific work there was a great number of offices with whom he was obliged to correspond. Then in his capacity as consultant he had to turn in semiannual reports to the Air Fleet Physician, which were then sent on to the Medical Inspectorate. Those were reports with fixed dates, and if he didn't send them in on the date assigned, there was trouble right away. Then there were also special reports on any official journies that he made. In addition to these official reports he had to turn in accounts, and there were fixed dates for that also. All these obligations to report can be seen clearly in the documents, and there is no wonder that the secretary comes to the conclusion that reports had to be sent off every three months, in view of this. For such a secretary in such a provincial institute, Berlin is a great big confused concept, and we have already seen here just how confused she was when she called me chief of the medical inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, and confused Professor Rostock with Professor Zeiss.
Q. What were your official relations with Haagen?
A. Our official relations in the military field are very clearly set forth; I was consulting hygenist and tropical hygenist with the medical chief cf the Luftwaffe and from 1944 on was not alone in this, but was one cf two, Haagen was tho consulting hygenist for the Air Fleet Physician Reich. Handloser and Schroedor's testimony have already proven this and affidavits have also demonstrated that this position implied no relationship of subordination or superiority. I had no pow r to issue orders so far as he was concerned and I had no duty or right to report on official matters. Moreover the Prosecution, by submitting Exhibits Nos. 12 and 13, has made it clear. They arc in Document Bock No. 1 and they are Documents Nos. 418 and 419. Those are the two organization tables in Luftwaffe research. I do not know if the Tribunal has those charts before them at the moment but I should be grateful if the facts that I am about to state will subsequently be checked on.
My name is set down on the left side of the chart in the group, "Science and Research of tho Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe." Professor is listed as the subordinate of a Air Fleet Physician. This whole table of organization is pretty clear and everyone who knows how to read such a table of organization can see perfectly clearly that a relationship of subordination or superiority is not sot down in such a table of organization.
I must point out one point, namely a serious error in one of these charts in connection with the names of Professor Haagen and Professor Zuckschwerdt, in both tables there is the notation University of Strassbourg.
I don t think we need any export to ascertain for us that the University of Strassbourg was not subordinate to the air ministry and certainly was not subordinate to the medical chief of the Luftwaffe.
Q. The Prosecution asserts you were Haagen's superior; is that incorrect, you say?
A. Yes, the Prosecution assorted that repeatedly but the assumption is erroneous and proved in no way. The relations between Haagen, and myself was perfectly clearly laid down, according to German organizational procedure. The Prosecution bases its assumption on the affidavit which Professor Schroeder signed and of which he has specifically stated here how ho wanted it to be understood and that it did not have the importance that the Prosecution ascribes to it.
Q. Mr. President, in this connection, I should like to put in Rose Document No. 8, which is on pages 24 to 27 of Document Book Rose No. 1. This will be Rose Exhibit No. 29. This is Professor Dr. Hans Otto Luxenbergers' affidavit of 2 February 1947. I should like to read a short passage from it, starting with paragraph 2 on page one of the document.
"At present I am a specialist for nervous diseases in Munich and consulting psychiatrist of the Catholic Youth Welfare.
"Up to 1941 I worked in the German Psychiatric Research Institute, one of the Haiser-Wilhelm-Institutes, attacked to the University of Munich. As the Nazis regarded me as politically unreliable, I had to leave this institute in 1941. In January 1941 I was called up to the German Luftwaffe, at first as assistant physician.
I worked until 1944 with the Medical Inspectorate of the German Luftwaffe in Berlin as an expert on phychiatric questions, and then in summer of 1944 became Commander of Instruction Groups at the Luftwaffe Medical Academy in Berlin, and at the same time consulting psychiatrist with the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Services, with the rank of Oberstarzt."
Theon on the next page of the Document, I read under No. 2:
"The consulting specialists with the Chief of tho Luftwaffe Medical Services had a purely consultative function. Tho consulting specialists with tho Air Fleet were not subordinate to tho consulting specialist with the Chief of tho Luftwaffe Medical Services, but to tho respective Air Fleet physician. They were not obliged to take orders from the consultants with the Chief of the Medical Services.
"The personal relations between Professor Rose and Professor Haagen, who was consultant hygienist with Air Fleet Physician Reich, were, as far as I can remember very bad. I therefore think it unlikely that they worked together on a scientific basis. I can also remember that Professor Rose repeatedly said in my presence that ho did not know what Professor Haagen was really doing. He was apparently making no headway at all with the production of a now typhus vaccine."
That will conclude my quotations from this Document, but I shall return to the rest of it later.
Q. You explained your official relations with Dr. Haagen; now will you please explain your personal relations with him?
A. Our personal relations were cool, we were very different sorts of persons; I had contact with him only in an official capacity.
I never had an outright conflict with Mr. Haagen. Externally, I had perfectly normal relations with him, but neither of us had much doubt about the inner conflict between us. I took it ill of Professor Haagen in the scientific field that he concerned himself solely with development research during the war, with now research assignments, instead of using his indubitably groat knowledge in tho technical field in order to concentrate on purely production problems. I looked upon this as a misuse of his capabilities, because although I was convinced that his scientific goals were perfectly correct, I was also convinced that he would not succeed in a practical solution during the war, because experience in all these problems had shown that the period of development took years. Also tho Medical Inspectorate embraced this point of view, although it had no influence directly on Dr. Haagen's work. The Medical Inspectorate tried again and again, by giving him new assignments, to begin him on production, and always gave him now assurances, but no civilian sphere where the Medical Inspectorate could give no orders or directives, but simply request.
Q. However the Documents show that you sent him information; why did you do that?
A. I held that to be my duty, that pertained to my office. If I found out anything new, of which I had to assume that it was not generally known, that should be brought to the attention of those interested and those who were participating in the matter.
Actually what my orientation on tho matter was can be seen from my report on the Copenhagen trip when I communicated this important matter to the Typhus Research Institute and specialists, with no regard as to whether or not they were Luftwaffe, Army, or Civilian institutes in the Reichs Ministry of the Interior, or University Clinics.
I sent this report to all those who might be interested and it was in this way that Professor Haagen also received his report.
Q What can you say on the basis of your official and other knowledge about Professor Haagen's typhus research?
A. First of all, my sources; since the Prosecution has made me responsible for Dr. Haagen's work, I have made considerable effort to ascertain precisely what he did do and I can now give you information on Haagen on the basis of the following sources; On the basis of his publications; on tho basis of what I knew through private conversations with him, and then from my memory of the reports he sent to the Luftwaffe, which, however, correspond very closely to his publications; and then from the documents put in evidence in this trial. You have to distinguish between two sections in Dr. Haagen's scientific research, first when he worked with Gildemeister at the Robert Koch Institute. There he concerned himself with the production and manufacture of vaccines from virulent viruses, which, however, had been killed. I shall not dilate on the results of his work. They are in part mentioned in the annual reports of tho Robert Koch Institute. Then Haagen became a Professor in Strassbourg on the 50 October, 1341. This was before the question arose of testing these vaccines at Buchenwald because so far as we could see from the documents now, this matter was set in motion only in the winter catastrophe of 1941-1942, nor did I over hear that Haagen participated in anyway in these Buchenwald experiments and if there is mention there of a vaccine according to Gildemeister and Haagen, this is simply meant to describe the method of production, but does not moan that Haagen actually had anything to do with it himself. I know nothing to tho effect that Haagen worked after 1942 in Strassbourg on typhus. I think that he first of all concerned himself with tho construction of his institute, which at the beginning was not in a condition to be worked in. At any rate I know of no positive results from that period. Now, Haagen hoard Ding's report. In tho discussion he said, and others also said tho same thing, that these Ding experiments clearly proved that with killed typhus vaccines you could not achieve any anti-infectious immunity from typhus.
This problem could only be solved through the development of the living avirulent vaccine, and in future on this principle he carried on his work after 1943.
Q It might be well, Professor, if you stated in a clear and understandable form the difference between those two types of vaccine, because it seems to me that it is of importance in order to understand Haagen's work in Strassbourg.
A Yes, that is of absolutely decisive importance, and in order to understand all of the documents it is almost impossible to understand this whole question without knowledge of the basis reports of the camp Natzweiler. The testimony given here in this field was given by persons who are not specialists and you cannot understand that testimony at all because the concepts are so confused in their testimony that at the end it is impossible tell what the witness was talking about and what he meant to say. Let me then start with the concepts of virus, virulent and a virulent, and vaccine. First in order to clarify impartial the question of a virulent, and an avirulent virus, I asked three times that Professor Blanc be called as a witness here, who is an international expert. However, the Tribunal refused this application and now it must be satisfied with the testimony of one of the defendants in this matter. First of all, originally the word "virus" meant any infectious organism. In modern medicine the concept of virus has boon limited to a special group of the most microscopic sort of organisms, which have a group of characteristics in common. The characteristics are as follows: These organisms cannot be seen with the light microscope. Consequently the term "ultravisible" or "ultramicroscopic organisms". Furthermore these organisms pass through a filter through which, bacteria cannot pass, consequently the term "filterable" virus, and finally these organisms cannot be bred in artificial media, although bacteria can be so bred. To the group virus, so far as this trial is concerned, there belong the following: The germs that cause hepatitis - epidemica, yellow fever, and influenza.
The case of the germs that cause typhus is still in question. Many researchists consider them virus although they are microscopically visible, and other researchists give an intermediate position between bacteria and virus. At any rate the typhus germs have a special name. They are called Rickettsia after the American Ricketts and for this trial the following rickettsia are important, ricketttsia prowazek, the germ that causes epidemic typhus, or louse typhus, and the rickettsia moseri or rickettsia murina, which cause endemic or rat typhus. It is not disputed that the rickettsia have many characteristics in common with the virus.
Q Now what is a vaccine?
A Originally the word "vaccine" was only used for the vaccine against small pox. Then it was used as a general expression for living vaccines generally, that is vaccines from living germs, until the habit has arisen that vaccine is used for anything that can be considered a vaccine today. At any rate a vaccine is always a material that is designed for protective vaccination and it is impossible to just exchange the terms vaccine and virus as it was often done in testimony here in this court room. The example as to how the testimony can be changed by this exchange is the testimony of the witness Olga Eyer, during her cross-examination by defense counsel this witness, as the record shows, all of the time spoke of a living typhus vaccine of Professor Haagen. She explained expressly that as a clerk she didn't know very much about these matters but throughout her entire testimony she maintained this expression on "living vaccines" and as a secretary of Haagen she must have written this hundreds of times, this being this main subject.
A (continued) During the re-examination at the end Hardy put a very simple short question to her, "You meant living virus, didn't you?" The witness answered this question without any question in the affirmative and therefore, contradicted her entire evidence; namely, what before had referred to vaccinations, had not suddenly become infections. So, I think it is quite justifiable that finally after this trial has lasted for months it is being clarified what we are talking about. Laymen and even a number of physicians are still mixed up about vaccines and serum. This has occurred here in the documents but not in such a form that it in any way frustrates our search for the truth and that is why I forego explaining this concept - to shorten these proceedings. At any rate, with very rare exceptions, vaccine is used as a protective vaccination as a preventive means, and a scrum, with very rare exceptions, is used for treatment after the illness has already started.
Q What kinds of vaccines are there?
A One distinguishes between two main groups. There are vaccines which come from bacteria toxins and from chemically changed toxoids. The vaccine against scarlet fever, diphtheria, and gas gangrene are examples. In this trial the protective vaccination against diphtheria and gas gangrene are mentioned. The second group, the vaccines from morbific organisms themselves. They again can be distinguished by subdividing into two sub-groups. 1. A vaccine from dead morbific organisms. An example from the contents of this trial - you have vaccines against cholera, against typhoid, and para-typhoid and the typhus vaccines according to Weigl, Gildemeister and Haagen from animal lungs and the liver vaccine according to Ipsen. The second group a.re vaccines from living attenuated morbific organisms. An example from this trial is the vaccine against small pox, against yellow fever, then the plague vaccines with which Mr. Blome dealt. Then the Calmette vaccine against Tuberculosis and the Haagen vaccine against typhus. Finally, the typhus vaccine of the Frenchmen Blanc and Legres.
As the last we have the influenza vaccine.
Q Would you please explain the expressions virulent and avirulent?
A The expressions as they are used today cannot he derived from the word virus as the smallest morbific organism, as it is used today. These expressions originate from old times where one used the word virus in order to designate the infectious organism. Virulence is the capacity of a micro-organism; no matter whether virus or bacteria; to bring about illnesses. A strong virulence has the capacity to bring about death or severe illnesses. A weak virulence has the capacity to bring about mild or no symptoms at all. Avirulence is the lack of capacity to bring about any illness. One must note that the expression virulence does not say much in itself. If one wants to be correct one also has to add "virulence for something or other." A strain can be highly virulent for an animal but completely avirulent for a human being. The Prosecution; for example; in examination of the witness Gutzeit; had difficulties in believing his testimony. From the fact that when infecting with hepatitis virus all mice had died he concluded that such hepatitic virus in the same way must kill human beings. That is not the case at all. For instance; in the famous Pasteur rabies vaccines virulence of the rabies virus was increased to such an extent that guinea pigs died within five days, whereas originally the death only came about after three weeks to two months. But, the increase of the virulence as it affected the rabbit is connected with the simultaneous attenuation of the virulence as it affects the human body, which made it possible that this so-called passage virus be used for vaccination on a human being. An example from this case: the typhus strain matelska which was supposed to have lost its virulence for human beings according to Ding's diary in Buchenwald is highly virulent for the guinea pig according to the statements contained in the Ding article in the Periodical for Hygiene.