The Committee has submitted to Dr. Conard questions concern’.g this passage, but at the time of the writing of his report a response had not been received, It is hoped that such can be included in a subsequent report of the Committee, To the layman, the three statements, aside from appearing to be unnecessary and therefore somewhat defensive, appear to be somewhat contradictory. If there was no accurate knowledge about the number of granulocytes required by man to prevent infection, how could it be assumed that antibiotic treatment would have led to recovery, despite the fact that the people were under continuous medical observation? The argument that administration of antibiotics might have resulted in the patients developing a resistance to the drugs is a statement that can be made about any prophylactic antibiotic. for treatment” is obscure. or for other effects? effect? Lastly, the phrase’ "obscured indications Does it mean treatment for that particular effect Would treatment for the effect obscure treatment for that It would seem not. What it must mean is that treatment at that point might have prevented other effects from appearing. In other words, if an antibiotic were administered to help prevent infection, or to help raise the cell count level at that point then a further, later development might be prevented from occurring. This decision was apparently reinforced by the comforting fact that the people were well-attended by numerous doctors. However, it would appear on the surface, trat here the impulse of scientific curiosity was somewhat str .nger than that of medical duty to respond to the immediate need of the patient. The Committee feels that the same impulse overrode relatively early administration of Thyroxine or a hormonal medication which would have corrected the retardation of growth experienced by a number of exposed Rongelap children, especially cases three and five, lO14 194 Early reports noted what appeared to be growth 46