Letter from Haagen to Rose dated 4 October 1943 (NO-2874, Pros. Ex. 520).
Letter from Haagen to Rose dated 29 November 1943 (NO-1059, Pros. Ex. 490).
Letter from Rose to Haagen dated 13 December 1943 (NO-122, Pros. Ex. 298).
Professor Rose furnished a detailed explanation of this exchange of correspondence during his direct examination. At the time he was only in possession of his aforementioned letter to Haagen dated 13 December 1943, whereas the two other letters were still withheld by the prosecution. Although, as a result of this, he was put in the difficult position of having to testify regarding an exchange of correspondence which took place four years ago, only a part of which he had available for reference, the correctness of his statements was completely confirmed in the essential points by the two other letters which were not introduced until later in the trial. (Tr. p. 6281.) It can be seen quite definitely from the first paragraph of Haagen’s letter to Rose dated 4 October 1943 that the actual interest of the defendant Rose lay in inducing Professor Haagen to produce a proven vaccine.
The question hinged on the climate installation which was necessary for the production of the Giroud vaccine from the lungs of rabbits. It was only necessary to establish an additional production plant for the Luftwaffe because the vaccine concerned was obtained from dead typhus bacilli and had been introduced for some time. At the end of his letter Professor Haagen once more refers to this purely technical question of production. In his letter Haagen also expresses his opinion and valuation of the Ipsen method. The penultimate paragraph of this letter is particularly important. It describes the great importance Professor Haagen attached to the serological experiments in weighing the results of the vaccination and of the state of immunity. He writes in this connection:
“I generally regret that, in judging immunity, much too little consideration is being given to the serological reaction. My experiments with the nonphenolized vaccine particularly proved again that the titer of agglutination should be considered. No doubt, much greater importance must again be attached to the serological result when judging the state of immunity in accordance with our present opinion on the course of the infection of the virus diseases, especially in their initial stages.” (NO-2874, Pros. Ex. 520.)
At the end of his letter, Haagen suggests that his own vaccines and the Ipsen vaccine be compared by examination. This is unequivocal proof of the proposal having been made by Haagen. The defendant Rose had not the slightest reason to assume that Professor Haagen intended to perform an immunity check with a virulent virus causing disease in human organism, since the Professor particularly stressed the importance of serological methods when testing the condition of immunity. On the contrary, he had to assume that Professor Haagen considered such an infection superfluous.
The prosecution objects to the fact that Haagen, when discussing the planned experiments in his correspondence with Rose, used such terms as “experiments of infection” and “subsequent infection.” But Professor Rose knew that Haagen was engaged in the development of live vaccine nonpathogenic to human beings. He even mentioned this in his lecture on typhus and malaria at Basel in 1944. (Rose 25, Rose Ex. 31.) Every expert knows that the application of living virus for the purpose of protective vaccination is a procedure of infection.
He was aware that Haagen worked on the further development of the method evolved by the Frenchman Blanc. This, too, can be found in the same passage of his Basel lecture mentioned above. The fact that the term “subsequent infection” was used by Professor Haagen in distinguishing protective vaccinations from live and weakened vaccines could in no way surprise or startle him. (Rose 69, Rose Ex. 59; Rose 60, Rose Ex. 60; Tr. pp. 6295-6; German Tr. 9639.)
It must be pointed out in this connection that the notes of the Natzweiler camp physician himself distinctly describe the vaccination which Haagen had occasionally called “subsequent infection,” as “vaccination”. His entries of 22 March 1944 state that “the actual ‘vaccination’ will now be carried out after two protective vaccinations have taken place.” (German Tr. p. 9782.)