Dr. Philip Levine

Newark Beth Israel Hospital
201 Lyons Ave.

Newark, Nd.

Dear Phil:

 

Levine" was deleted deliberately because I found that the table already gave you
too much credit. This was necessary to counteract the propaganda created

by your numerous articles which appeared to be designed to give the false
impression that you did the original work on the subtypes of Rh and which had
begun even to deceive me. Actually the only thing original in your table
which you showed me was the arrangement of the results, the popularization of
the percentages of positive reactions which, by the way, I had already worked
out, and your Hr serum. As a matter of fact, I have found the table to be
very confusing, and so I have discarded it and rearranged the data as shown in
my paper in the Proceedings, so you need not fear that people will ever refer
to table 52a in my book. I might mention that the tahle is changed from yours,
so that it is no longer recognizable because it gives some recognition to work
by people other than Levine, which would not occur in a publication by Levine.

With regard to the type 3 serum, too much credit is given to you in table
52a. In my paper in the Archives of Pathology for August, 1941, which you
persistently choose to ignore, on page 11, I described this work and reported
that among 220 persons I found 13 1/2 per cent negative reactions. I also
remarked that “among 28 bloods tested with both sorts of reagents,.13 were
agglutinated by both serums (this is now called type Rhy) and 11 by neither
serums (Rh negative) while only 4 were agglutinated (usually weakly or only
moderately) by Rh antiserums but not by the patient's serum (now called type
Rh2}." You will note that even at that time I noticed that the Rh! serum
reacted weakly on the Rho bloods in comparison with the reaction with the Rhy
bloods, and this suggested to me the presence of two different agglutinins in
the serum, but after discussing the matter with Dr. Landsteiner I decided not
to refer to this idea and subsequently forgot it until your report concerning
two agglutinins in such sera refreshened my recollection.

You finally corrected your deliberate oversight of my Rhz antiserum in
one of your racial papers. When do you plan to correct your oversight of my
introduction of the use of the group substances in neutralizing isoagglutinins
in human serum? Before you continue finding fault with the actions of others,
why don't you learn to respect and acknowledge the work of others besides
yourself?

In conclusion I feel that my chapter on the Subtypes of Rh gives you more
credit that you deserve. If you feel otherwise, there is nothing I can do
about it.

Your work on the subtypes of Rh bears the same relation to my work as my
work on transfusion reactions in pregnancies bears to yours, with two important
differences:
1) Your original work on transfusion reactions in pregnancy was based
on one case. This was systematized by me in my subsequent paper with Peters, and
in the Archives of Pathology. On the other hand, in my original work on the
subtypes of Rh, the results were already fairly well organized. Your study
7 334 bjoods merely helped to clarify the situation with regard to the rare
lood Rh'.

2) I have always given due credit to the paper by Levine and Stetson. I
am afraid you cannot say the same about yourself with regard to the proper
acknowledgment of my work. Also, I have more than generously acknowledged your
confirmatory work on the subtypes of Rh while you have completely ignored my
work on jsoimmunization in pregnancy.

If you wish you may show this letter to the Committee on Maternal Health
and the Blood Transfusion Association since you seem to enjoy running to them
with your imaginary complaints.

Sincerely yours,

A.S. Wiener