I refer to page 11 of the Document Book, which is page 1 of document 34, to numbers 1, 3 and 4 in the affidavit. No. I gives the personal date of the witness. No. 3 describes the visit of Colonel Schreuder to the department at Pfafferode, and No. 4 contains a brief personal statement of colonel Schreuder about my person.
Q. You discussed experimental malaria research as carried on by you; did you also deal with protective vaccination against malaria?
A. I want to say it was the experimental malaria research as carried out by me where I was responsible and had something to say, and the ways and means in which this work was turned over when the enemy came where I was responsible. No records were burned, no patients were sent away, the person in charge of the experiments did not run away but I saw to it that my patients were taken care of decently. I saw to it that my patients were taken care of decently. I saw to it that no document was destroyed carelessly, and I myself went through the lines to see to it, instead of running away. Now I am to be held responsible for what somebody else did, over whom I had not the slightest influence, of whose activity I knew nothing whatever, and who in his entire conduct was the opposite of what I did myself. I would have liked, if I had been able to describe in more detail the way in which I worked, but the Tribunal has limited the time for my defense. I did not work on protective vaccination against malaria. On the basis of work of other researchers I was convinced that that is an insoluble problem, and normally a research worker does not deal with problems which he considers insoluble, and I have recorded this point of view about protective vaccination against malaria in literature, I can point out on the negative side that I have excerpts of everything that I said about malaria at the meetings of consulting physicians, which I have submitted that here. There is not a word about protective vaccination against malaria, and.
if I had a man anywhere who conducted experiments about protective vaccination on over a thousand people I would no doubt on one of these many occasions have said a word about it. I hope that my opinion written in the year 1941 will turn up again. It is in the hands of the Military Government, because the records of the session in 29 December of 1941 which was submitted here, came from the same files. In the same filing cabinet is my expert opinion. If they want to find it they can; and then I should like to refer to my Basle lecture of 1944, which has been submitted here, Document 25, which says on page 39, and I quote "The role of drugs in malaria combatting ----" page 39, Document 25, Document Book 2, page 39.
"The part played by drugs in the fight against malaria is not exhausted by the possibilities enumerated. Although we do not know of a vaccination effective against malaria, and although it is unlikely that such will be developed, in view of the nature of this pretezoa-infection, the preventive treatment, the so-called 'drug prophlaxis' has already played for some decades, in the fight against malaria a part similar to that played by vaccination in cases of bacteria and virus infections."
That is not the speech of a man who is conducting experiments on a thousand people in a concentration camp on protective vaccination, when he at least knows everything about it, as the Prosecution says.
Q. Now, can you please comment on Professor Schilling's work at Dachau?
A. That is impossible at the moment. I am accused, because of this work, that is true, but the only material which I have on it is Document Book 4, and the testimony of the witness Viehweg. I do not even know the wording of the testimony of Professor Schilling in the Dachau trial, although I asked for a record of the testimony. According to the American newspapers, Schilling prepared a meme about his work which is available to foreign experts, and I have not been able to get it yet either.
The materials available so far are so inadequate from the medical point of view, that I, at least, cannot express any opinion on them, although I am supposed to take the responsibility for then. I can only point out one thing, the witness Viehweg said here that experimental subjects of Schillings died because of the Salvarsan treatment of malaria. I should like to refer to Document Book Rose 3, document 922, Prosecution Exhibit 435, page 30, the lecture by me at the meeting of consulting physicians. I refer to point 2 "Treatment". At the end of this paragraph it says the following: "--the treatment of tertiana with neosalvarsan, which only suppresses the vivex infections but does not cure them parasitologically, is also to be rejected." I can say that was a lecture at a general Wehrmacht meeting where I could only give a recommendation for the Luftwaffe; if my recommendation was accepted, it could be turned into an order, and as a result of this recommendation the treatment of malaria tertiana with salvarsan was prohibited in the Luftwaffe; and now I am to be held responsible, I, as the man who had salvarsan treatment for malaria prohibited, because Schilling had the misfortune when treating malaria patients with salvarsan that some of them died. But I should like once more to express the hope that the prosecution in submitting document Book 4, promised the files of the Dachau trial would be made available here. I am to be held responsible for it. I applied in time to be given the testimony of Schilling to read. I have not seen a single line of it yet. I hope before the end of the trial I will see the records, and then I will perhaps be able to express my responsibility for what is in it.
Q. Well, was Professor Schilling informed about your malaria work?
A. As far as I know he was not, at least I told him nothing. He probably read what I published. I assumed that my special publications were always sent him by the secretary, according to the distribution list. I had a general list of names, malaria works were sent to so and so, etc., but the reports of the Wehrmacht meetings Schilling probably did not read because he did not belong to the Wehrmacht, and my associate, Miss von Falkenhayn who corresponded with him, had express instructions not to tell him anything about our work, so that there would be no gossip between the laboratories, and I acted no differently toward Schilling than toward any other malaria research worker. As the annual reports of the Robert Koch Institute state I, of course, collaborated with quite a number of people, such as Mertens, Koenig and Sabel concerning certain malaria drugs, and of course with these people I discussed the particular part of my work which we were doing in common, and corresponded with them, because we had to collaborate; but of course I didn't tell these people anything about the other matters which my other associates were doing; and in addition to these people there were quite a number who were working on malaria research experimentally, Schulemann, Sivoli and those at the Hamburg Tropical Institute, Hauber, and so forth. I did not exchange views with a single one of these. That is the general custom. If one exchanges opinions with ones closest competitors, there is always the danger that both people who are working on the same thing will get the same idea, and afterwards if they talked about it they reproach each other that one stole the ideas of the other; and if one is a little older and has a certain amount of experience and wants to be on good terms with his colleagues, one knows that the best thing is not to talk about work which is not finished yet, but just about the work which has been completed.
Q. Then your conduct toward Professor Schilling was exactly the some as toward your other colleagues?
A. Yes, exactly the same.
Q. Now, do you feel responsible for the work of Professor Schilling because your department sent Professor Schilling mosquito eggs and a malaria strain?
A. Of course, I take full responsibility for the fact that my personnel sent this material to him. It is out of the question that Miss von Falkenhayn is responsible, that is my responsibility. Of course, I do not take any responsibility as to what another scientist does with mosquito eggs and malaria parasites which I have given to him. My duty and care is limited to giving such, material only to the people, primarily doctors, whom I must assume, according, to customary procedure, will use the material properly and not misuse it. It was the official duty of my department to do so. If for example some Wehrmacht hospital, on the basis of the order of the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, wanted malaria for malaria treatment of of diptheria and asked me for it, gave it to them without any delay. I did not have the task to check whether this hospital had the authority to carry out malaria treatment, I had no supervision over these hospitals. Supervision to see that only a qualified man should carry out malaria treatment in the hospital was up to the chief physician of the hospital, and secondly of the Wehrmacht physician. They had to see to it that the regulations about the correct execution were observed, and how was I supposed to do that as I sent malaria to all sorts of people? How can I control fifty hospitals? The number was even greater, how can I ask what they do with malaria? In the same way, it was not my duty to ask what the use of the mosquito eggs by Professor Schilling; but the duty of the supervision over this work belonged to the people who had given Schilling the assignment and made it possible for him to work.
As far as I know today that was the responsibility of the Reichsartz SS and Himmler. What immediate agencies were authorized, I do not know. In any case I had no official connections with either of these offices or with Mr. Schilling. That I am not alone in my opinion is shown by the fact that Schilling asked for material from various foreign and German institutes and got it, as Viehweg said here, and he never had any difficulties. Also Schilling had his own mosquito catching detail and had bred his own malaria strains. He was in no way defendant on my strain and the few mosquito eggs he received from my own department. If the fact of having given him such material moans responsibility for their use by him, then all scientific cooperation must stop. Then no one can give anything out of his hands. I have given much more dangerous things than malaria strains, for instance, cholera and plague cultures, only on the basis of application by mail to people. I personally did not know, only on the basis that I knew the institute where they worked and know that it was reliable.
Q. When such requests were made, was it not said for whet purpose the material was needed?
A. No, that is not customary. Usually one merely asks for the material and the material is sent without further inquiry; that is an international custom.
Q. Then could any doctor ask the Robert Koch Institute for plague cultures; is that it?
A. Plague cultures; no. In Germany there are certain legal regulations about plague. There are only a few institutes that are allowed to work with it, and they are known to us.
To legally authorized institutes one, of course, sends them. But, for example, if foreign institutes ask me for plague cultures, as the Robert Koch Institute had the permission to work with plagues and had such cultures, I would have sent a plague culture to a foreign country. In the accompanying letter, I would perhaps have added to the sentence that I assumed the recipient would see to it that the legal regulations in his country were observed, which I would not know. For malaria strains there are no such restrictions, they are distributed internationally without any reservations, and certainly mosquito eggs.
The witness Viehweg said for example that Schilling worked with the Madagascar strain, that was a well known strain in literature. That was bred in Hortlan in England by Colonel James.
Q. Did you yourself ever get malaria strains from abroad?
A. No malaria strains. I always worked with malaria strains which we had bred ourselves, but I know of a number of strains in Germany which must have come from abroad as this is well known in literature. I, myself, get from abroad snails, which carried diseases, ticks, mosquito eggs, worm parasites, infected cats, and plague strains. In all cases they were sent to me without any reservations on the part of the sender. It was my own personal business in each case to get the approval for importing these tings from the authorized Governmental authorities; and there are legal regulations about the importation of disease carriers and dangerous insects which my assistants and I had to observe. But the sender abroad had nothing to do with that.
I had to see to it that I could present the custom's office with approval for introducing these dangerous things in Germany. I assume that is the case everywhere in the world.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I have completed the direct examination of the defendant Rose. I should now like to reserve the right, after the cross-examination, to submit a few more documents to the Tribunal.
WITNESS: I beg your pardon, how about the document Muehlens?
DR. FRITZ: I should like to offer that at the end, Professor, after the cross-examination. I want to end my direct examination now.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may offer the documents either tomorrow morning or at the end of the examination, as he pleases.
MR. HARDY: I don't understand what Your Honor meant by offering documents before cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defense said he had a few more documents which he would like to offer at some later date and I informed counsel he could offer those documents tomorrow morning or some later date, and I thought possibly counsel had understood when I told him the direct examination would be limited to this afternoon that might also include the offering of documents as exhibits. It did not include those.
He can offer those the first thing tomorrow morning if he desires. Is it understood, counsel?
DR. FRITZ: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(At 1525 hours the Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 24 April 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 24 April 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal I is new in session. God save the United States of American and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Are there any questions to be propounded to this witness by any defense counsel?
GERHARD ROSE - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the Defendant Karl Brandt)
Q. Witness, can I consult you as an export on the field of epidemic research?
A. For almost two decades German and foreign authorities have considered me an expert in this field and consulted me, and you can also consider me as an export.
Q. Is hepatitis a fatal disease?
A. You mean hepatitis epidemica?
Q. Epidemica contaminosa.
A. Hepatitis epidemica itself is not considered a dangerous disease by hygienists. But in all those things you must consider that one must give justice not only to the hygienic but also to the clinical aspect.
To give you an example, take the common cold. Everyone here in the courtroom no doubt agrees that that is not a dangerous disease, nevertheless, everyone knows that otitis media may fellow a cold. This can be complicated by meningitis, and the person can die of that, I mean primarily; but no one will for that reason call the common cold a fatal disease. It thus is possible in the case of hepatitis there maybe some other complications, but no one will call hepatitis itself a dangerous disease because cf that.
Q. Witness, is the customary experimental research with the hepatitis virus connected with great danger?
A. There is some material on that. There are three examples known in Germany. Experiments with hepatitis virus have been carried out in Germany by Eppingor, Vogt, Essen and Lemke. No incidents occured. The experiments were harmless. That is very little material, but hundreds cf cases, which would permit us to form a much mere reliable judgment, can be found in English and American literature. Up to today there have been about human experiments with hepatitis, and there has not been a single incident reported.
Q. Witness, can you imagine experiments in this field which end in death, or where on can expect death?
A. I would not expect any death in any such experiment.
Q. I ask whether you as an expert can imagine such experiments, what the nature of such experiments would be?
A. Experiments with hepatitis virus no, I cannot imagine them.
Q. Witness, you know from this trial that the Reich Physician-SS Grawitz in a document NO-110, Exhibit 187, demands prisoners from Himmler for such experiments and says that death has to be expected. You will remember that in another document, NO-011, Exhibit 188, Himmler made eight prisoners who had been condemned to death available. Can one not conclude from this that extraordinarily dangerous experiments were planned with these prisoners?
A. I would not draw that conclusion. I would consider two possibilities: either that the applicant did not know enough about the matter, and since the person who wrote the letter was Mr. Grawitz, who for years had worked only with administrative matters, that possibility would be quite reasonable. The other explanation for no would be that he was very extremely careful and, of course, it is better when there is need to carry out an experiment to present it as serious and dangerous than to under-estimate tho danger. An exaggeration is better than a minimizing of the danger. What reasons were followed in this case, I do not know since I an not informed about the matter.
Q. In connection with hepatitis research did you hear the name of Professor Brandt?
A. I never heard the name of Professor Brandt in this connection.
Q. Did Professor Brandt ever in any connection demand that you conduct experiments on human beings?
A. No. When I met Professor Brandt there is testimony on that; we did not say anything about experiments on human beings.
Q Witness, a few questions on bacteriological warfare: Since about 1943 there was a working community under the name "Lightning Rod" (Blitzableiter), which dealt with the question of biochemical warfare. Do you know this working community?
A May I remark that I know it, but it did not deal with biochemical warfare, but with defense against biological weapons. That is what is also understood by the term "bacteria warfare." The expression "bacteria warfare" is more restricted in meaning? biological weapons denote use of bacteria, virus, protozoans, germs of all kinds, against human beings and animals, also the use of insect pests which harm plants or seeds, destroy harvests, potato bugs, and similar things. That is called biological warfare? and the Committee Blitzableiter dealt with these questions.
Q Now, the next question, did they deal with offensive or defensive?
A Whoever was delegated to this committee had to signify by his signature when he entered it that he was aware of a basic Fuehrer Order, and this Fuehrer Order read that it was prohibited even to study the possibility of a offensive biological warfare. I myself put my signature to such a document, and I belonged to this committee until the end of the War. I attended the last meeting. I know, therefore, that this Fuehrer order was never repealed.
Q Now, Witness, before the International Military Tribunals here Generalarzt Schreiber was examined, and in contrast to you he said that such aggressive preparations were made?
A I consider that one of the most infamous lies which Mr. Schreiber gave here. At the time when the news came over the radio I immediately offered myself as a witness to the International Military Tribunal. Mr. Schreiber never belonged to the Blitzableiter committee.
Q Generalarzt Schreiber also said that experiments on human beings were conducted in this field? what do you think about that?
A It is of course always difficult to give negative testimony. I can, of course, not say no human being experiments were conducted? but I can testify for certainty that in the Blitzableiter Committee experiments on human beings were never discussed in this connection, and that no such experiments on human beings were planned there.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, at the close of the direct examination by the defense counsel for the defendant Rose, Your Honor asked whether any of defense counsel wished to cross-examined the witness. Dr. Servatius now is cross-examining defendant Rose, and during the course of the cross-examination is bringing in new material which was not covered during the direct examination. I object to any further questioning along these lines concerning something other than what was brought out in direct examination.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I did not intend to cross-examine the witness, but to question him directly. If I did not have the opportunity to question him now, I would have called him as a witness, but up to now it has been the rule that I can examine a defendant as a witness, and only when the direct examination is finished, if I am not the defendants counsel, then only can I ask him about questions of the cross-examination. I believe that these questions are now permissible to him as a witness in direct.
THE PRESIDENT: It has been the practice of the Tribunal to allow defense counsel to examine defendants after they have finished their testimony in chief in their own behalf, as witnesses for the different defendants, whose counsel desire to examine. The prosecution has had the same privilege.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor then, whenever a defense counsel other than the particular defense counsel for the defendant involved, is examining a defendant, how can the prosecution determine whether that defense counsel is bringing the defendant on the cross-examination or whether he is using him for his own witness, and thereby being responsible for everything that defendant says.
THE PRESIDENT: By the questions which I propounded in this case, counsel for Karl Brandt, says he is examining the defendant for his own witness.
MR. HARDY: At this time?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Counsel may proceed.
Q Witness, in the work concerning biological warfare did Professor Brandt play any role?
A Neither in the Blitzableiter Committee or outside of this committee did I hear anything about Professor Karl Brandt in any connection with biological warfare.
Q Now, I have a question on another subject, euthanasia and insane asylums; witness, you gave an affidavit. Document NO. 872, Prosecution Exhibit 181, and you state the following concerning the defendant Karl Brandt: "He gave me the insane asylum in Thuringia, and promised me my patients could remain in this institution." Did Professor Brandt have the right to dispose of such insane asylums? -I can show you this exhibit.
A May I see it? -- I signed this affidavit in English. I believe that I have an adequate knowledge of the English language, so that I can take the responsibility of signing affidavits in English. When I signed this affidavit I made a few changes in the original wording. This is not my testimony. It is an excerpt which the Prosecution made of an interrogation. I had a long conversation with Mr. Devreis about these words "to put an insane asylum at my disposal." And I told Mr. Devreis in my opinion this expression "put it at my disposal" neither covers the rights which I obtained in this transaction, nor represents correctly the function which Professor Brandt exercised. Mr. Devreis very stubbornly held to this expression "put at my disposal," and he ended the conversation by saying "you could put your patients into this institution." "yes," I said, "I could." And then he said, "Then the institution was at your disposal", and that is what the English means," and I signed it, and of course I admit that it was my mistake to sign something which I personally thought was incorrect.
Now, also I was not asked at the time how I got the insane asylum of Pfaffenrode. The question which I was asked "What official connections did you have with Professor Brandt?" I mentioned these two points first, that I negotiated with him about this institution, about the question of fever therapy, and second that I asked him for his help when I wanted to get better food rations for my patients. I would have considered myself terribly boring if in answer to this question I had given a long description of the technical procedure of my getting the institution. That was, of course, a long administrative matter, in which Professor Brandt was not longer concerned.
Q. Witness, Professor Brandt then had no administrative or supervisory authority over the insane asylum?
A. I never knew of that. The state supervision over state asylums was up to the Ministry of the Interior and the administrative authority was no doubt in most cases with the provincial authority. In any case, with this institution that was the case, and I had to negotiate with the provincial administration in Merseburg.
Q. Witness, you were just speaking of the food rations for the inmates of these insane asylums. Here during the trial you have heard that people were allegedly allowed to starve to death, this being a version of Euthanasia. Did you negotiate with Professor Brandt in any way about the reduction of rations for these patients; do you know that professor Brandt advocated the starvation of these insane? You said in your affidavit that on the basis of intervention of Professor Brandt, the patients received higher food rations. What did Professor Brandt have to do with this matter?
A. You have asked me several questions. First of all, I never heard that starvation rations were set especially for insane asylums. I had something to do with insane asylums because I had to supply the malaria vaccine, which gave me much more contact with the insane asylums than the normal hygienist has. On those occasions I never learned that especially low rations were given to insane persons anywhere.
This specific matter was the following: When I started with fever therapy at Pfaffenrode, all the insane persons there received the normal rations, that is the rations of housewives, mothers, and myself for example as an office worker, the same rations that we received; these rations had been especially reduced at that time, not for the insane but for the entire German population, and I wanted to carry out fever treatment on my insane people, and that is an additional burden on the body; therefore, I wanted the higher rations for my patients, which were given in the general hospitals.
That was refused by the Provincial Food Office in Thuringia; therefore, I made another application to the food ministry; and since there were laymen there, I was afraid they would not have enough understanding for the insane. I wrote to three agencies and asked for support. I wrote to the Reichs Commissioner Professor Brandt; secondly, to my Medical Inspectorate, and third to State Secretary Conti. In each case I enclosed a draft of a letter, and asked the gentlemen to send this draft as their letter to the Reichs Food Ministry, because I hoped that if three cannons were shooting at the food ministry, that they then would perhaps give me these additional rations for my six hundred patients and that was successful. However, that was a favor I was asking from these three gentlemen. I asked them to support my medical opinion, and one could not conclude from that that they had anything whatever to do with the setting of food rations for insane asylums.
Q. Witness, one more question. According to the Prosecution evidence that has been submitted here, one could assume from 1942 on all insane persons Were exterminated in the institutions; how Many inmates were there from 1942 on; were there still insane persons?
A. Of course insane persons were still there in considerable number. I have of course no knowledge of the figures; I only cooperated with institutions and I did not gain insight into the actual business of the institutions proper, but in Pfaffenrode, for example, it was as follows: In peace time Pfaffenrode had beds for two thousand insane people, and at the beginning of 1945 there was a total of 4,000 insane there, as the result of transfers, because other insane asylums had to give up beds for evacuation hospitals and similar purposes.
Q. Do you know the number of the patients on hand in the winter of 1941-1942 when Euthanasia was stopped?
A. No, I know nothing about that.
Q. Do you have the impression that blindly exterminations were carried out?
A. I had nothing to do with the execution of Euthanasia. I can only say from my experience that the heads of the insane asylums did not talk about this subject at all, or only very reluctantly. For example, I can mention the director of the institute Arnsdorf, there were a few old schizophrenics who were under my fever treatment and they were transferred. I must assume today that they were included in the Euthanasia program. I attempted to learn from him to what institution they had been sent, so that I could write to the director there and find out whether there had been any reoccurances of malaria. My treatment had been very unsuccessful and that was the final attempt, from a psychiatric point of view nothing could be done for these patients any more. I was interested from the point of view of malaria; but I could not find out from Mr. Sagel what was going on.
Q. Witness, that was in 1945?
A. No, that was 1940.
Q. I have no further questions to the witness.
BY DR. NELTE: (Counsel for the Defendant Handloser.)
Q. Professor, in Document book 12, there is a letter which you wrote to Professor Haagen on 9 June, 1943, it is Document NO-306, Prosecution Exhibit 296. This letter reads:
"Dear Mr. Haagen: My best thanks for both your letters dated 4 and 4 June and the prompt execution of my request. I have compiled a proposal for the Inspector, in which I enclosed your original papers and requested him to urge the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht to order the production of spotted fever vaccine for all Wehrmacht in the Eastern area..."
The rest of the letter is of no interest here.
Do you remember this letter?
A. Not in the sense that I know exactly that I wrote this letter; but the whole matter, the whole context I remember clearly.
Q. One basic question, you know that the Prosecution brings this letter in connection with the human experiments at Natzweiler; that is the experiments which Professor Haagen conducted in Natzweiler on human beings; does this letter have anything to do with the research or experiments in Natzweiler as the Prosecution submits?
A. No, nothing at all.
Q. What was the context of your suggestion, or rather the suggestion which you made on the basis cf material from Haagen?
A. The whole matter was as follows: Professor Schreiber wanted to have a survey of the practicability of the various procedures of the production of typhus vaccine from an economy point of view; that is, assuming that a factory is to produce vaccines every month for one hundred thousand persons; how much material is needed; how many workers are needed: (a) If the Weigl lice procedure is used, (b) if the vaccine is produced according to the Gildemeister-Haagen method and (c) if a lung vaccine is produced, etc.
Schreiber had asked several typhus experts about it, and he had called me up and said I should get him the information from the Luftwaffe. Document No. 305, which is on the proceeding page, shows .....
Q. This is Prosecution Exhibit 293.
This shows that Mr. Haagen gave me the corresponding information. This information itself is not available but only a correction of it. Apparently in the first letter he had made a mistake in the figures and he corrects it now, and he gave his opinion on these questions; that is merely his opinion on purely technical matters of production. Mr. Schreiber did not want to rely on the opinion of a single man, he knew scientists, he knew that every specialist would uphold his own-procedure and call it the most valuable.