Page 4865 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
procedures. He did not have the understanding that scientists, academics and all reports of any repute will present a comprehensive review of the literature and seek to consider all factors. That is not Mr Prowse's style; he would not understand it. But it is no excuse to launch the attack that he did.
Mr Prowse's problem apparently arose when he read one excellent exposition of the fluoride issue, in which Professor Douglas cited research claiming health problems arising from fluoride use. Mr Prowse did not understand that, in the enormous volume of publications on fluoride, this was not to be taken as conclusive evidence. The fraud that Mr Prowse claimed was presumably based on the fact that the NHMRC working party, after an exhaustive survey, concluded that there was no evidence of health problems from the use of fluoride. The overwhelming weight of evidence was that fluoride is safe to use.
Mr Prowse must have been surprised at a public meeting last night, when Professor Douglas said that he had drafted that section of the NHMRC report. You can see how a lack of knowledge of scientific ways led to Mr Prowse's confusion and regrettable remarks. This was explained to Mr Prowse at that meeting last night. I expect that he will now make the appropriate apologies to the NHMRC and Professor Douglas.
MR SPEAKER: I would like one of the Temporary Deputy Speakers to take the chair. I am having trouble catching the eye of one of them.
MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jensen): I call Mr Prowse.
MR PROWSE (4.54): Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I am amazed at the audacity of Mr Wood to come out with the statement that he has just made, because it is quite true that I was at the meeting last night at which Professor Douglas admitted that he had painted himself into a corner by the fact that he had written both reports and he had forgotten that he had included in his first report these very, very important articles.
Mr Wood: That is a reprehensible statement. That is a gross distortion of what happened last night. That is disgraceful.
MR PROWSE: So, to prove Mr Wood wrong again and to get the evidence, at the end of the meeting I went to Professor Douglas and said, "Would you put on paper the fact that you did not review in depth those two articles that are in your reference list?", and he said, "Yes, but I hope to be able to get to answer all my correspondence". The point is that I stand by my original claim. I state here and now that I was actually supported in my belief last night at that meeting wherein Professor Douglas had forgotten, I would suggest, because it seemed at the time, on the evidence presented, that he had done it deliberately. It appeared
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .