Page 1842 - Week 09 - Wednesday, 18 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
be realistic and helpful, Dennis. You are putting yourself, may I argue, in the difficult situation of being perceived not to be an objective member of the committee if you push this matter too far. That is, you are going publicly to debate a group of doctors and dentists from one side of the issue. I can quite see you feel you have the right to do that, but perhaps you equally have a right then and a responsibility to debate another group on the other side of the issue; that is, if you like, to turn it into a debating matter.
I think that the committee of five needs now in the public eye to be not only objective, but to be seen to be objective. We must be very careful in the coming months to do the very best we can. I do not doubt your goodwill in this matter, and we have had good talks about it, as you know. So, Dennis, all praise to your courage and determination but I do feel that on this one it is a brick wall you are trying to plunge through and I urge you to withdraw your motion.
MR PROWSE (4.39): I agree that I cannot see the logic presented by Mr Stevenson on this matter as far as his debate is concerned. It will go ahead whether the fluoride is in the water or not. I really am at a loss to see his logic. However, I propose that we vote for his amendment on the basis that what we have at the moment is a situation where those who abreact to fluoride and all other members of this community are at the moment going through an elimination process of that toxin. Whenever there is a substance, be it milk or be it any other substance that we find an abreaction to, we eliminate it for several weeks after the substance has ceased to be given internally. So we have an elimination of fluoride going on at a rapid rate in all members of the community, but particularly amongst those who abreact to it. What I seek is time for this elimination process to proceed so that the symptoms displayed by those who do abreact will disappear. The urticaria, the skin itch, the other problems associated with fluoride poisoning will leave these people. Of course, when we switch the fluoride back on again - - -
Mr Stevenson: They will reappear.
MR PROWSE: They will reappear. They will return, and in most cases they will come back with an intensity that is abnormal. This is the way we test for abreactions. So what I am suggesting is that, if we give sufficient time for these people to eliminate then hit them with this poison again, they will report to the medical profession with this as a symptom. It will be recognised, particularly if the Government does the right thing this time and advises the people that there are possible abreactions within the community and they notify the health care people, particularly the doctors who are not trained to look for - I will just wait till Mr Berry finishes.
Mr Berry: You are wasting your time if you wait.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .