Page 4866 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
last night that it was not deliberate, that he just had not had the time to do the job properly. I will come back with my statement, therefore, that the NHMRC stands condemned by that action, and I will repeat it ad infinitum, Mr Wood, because it has not been done correctly.
The circumstance is that this report is a fraud because it did not consider the information presented in Professor Douglas' work previously. He had presented these findings and then he ignored presenting them to the NHMRC committee, or he forgot, or he did not do the job properly, or something. But I am saying that my original statements stand. I presented my case last night and Professor Douglas backed down and said, "You are painting me into a corner" because I had him on wood. He had done the wrong thing, and he admits it.
Mr Wood: That is a nonsense.
MR PROWSE: He admits it by the fact that he could not answer the questions. He did not even remember what the reports were. Based on his lack of research into this - I will just wait until Mr Wood can hear this - he has influenced the committee of this Assembly, I would suggest, on purpose because he did not research deeply these two articles that are of absolutely immense importance to its findings because they are the only two reports that we have found that have been done in a scientific manner, reported in scientific literature or carried out over a 14-year period.
There has been no rebuttal of those findings, except that they could not find the reports. That is what the NHMRC has said. That is not okay. I would ask you to look at this with a little open-mindedness, Mr Wood. I think you have become very closed on this issue. You do not like somebody pressing the buttons that indicate to you that you have taken the wrong road. When I get from Professor Douglas the report for which I asked last night I will present it to the committee. If I find that he has researched it thoroughly I will back down on my accusation that he has not looked at the question properly, but I certainly will not back down on my estimation that he has purposely tried to influence the political decision of this Assembly.
DR KINLOCH (4.58): This is a very contentious issue. I would just like to report on last night's meeting which was very thoughtful, long, interesting and provocative, and at which were some of the main protagonists - for and against fluoride - and people trying to decide where they stand on this matter.
I would like to commend Professor Douglas for a long and thoughtful exposition to which we listened with great interest. He accepted a number of very powerful criticisms from a number of people. I thought he dealt with those in a thoughtful way, and the people who presented the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .