Page 1624 - Week 08 - Thursday, 28 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Berry: You are not reading the same speech again, are you?
MR STEVENSON: That is an interesting point. Apparently some people were not listening to it. Is that right? In these three court cases the judges found, after looking impartially at all the evidence, that fluoride was a hazardous chemical and a carcinogen. Did you hear that yesterday, Wayne, and what does it mean to you as someone who is supposed to be responsible for the health of the people? What does that mean, Wayne? No comment.
So let us have a look at the sort of information that is spread by the Australian Dental Association and the Australian Medical Association. They are grimly trying to hang onto reputations which, in the dentists' case, have been shot full of holes. The president of the Queanbeyan division of the Australian Dental Association said this morning on the Pru Goward show in response to the statement that approximately 15 countries have removed fluoride, "It is the ADA's understanding that it was done on grounds of civil liberties, not health".
That is what the head of the Queanbeyan ADA said today on radio. That is absolute disinformation. The truth of the matter is that West Germany was one country that removed fluoride, taking into account legal and health grounds - most importantly health grounds. The consul-general of West Germany has written to the Australian Dental Association complaining strongly about the disinformation of that statement and here we go again getting more of the same. Right?
Mr Berry: We sure are.
MR STEVENSON: That is the best you can say, is it not, Wayne? It is not becoming of you. In Sweden the same thing happened. The matter was looked at from health and legal aspects. The health aspects were very important. In Holland it was largely as a result of the researches by Dr Hans Moolenburgh and 10 other medical doctors that fluoride was removed from the water supply. What do we get? We get disinformation from those who should accept the responsibility for telling the truth to the people. These are the supposedly impartial witnesses that Bill Wood talks about.
Mr Wood: Are you likely to change your mind?
MR STEVENSON: I will look at the evidence, let me tell you. I will look at all the evidence.
Mr Wood: I will do that too. Are you likely to change your mind?
MR STEVENSON: Are you likely to change yours?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .