The protocol from the session of the Section of Medical Sciences of 7/8 October 1991
73/H - Dr. Jerzy NAKIELA - the reviewer: Prof. B. Semczuk - positive opinion.
Participants of the discussion: Prof. M. Hoffman, Prof. J. Steffen, - their doubts were caused by very modest scientific achievements and the habilitation thesis /assessed by the reviewer as satisfactory/
The voting results: 6 - voted for, 5 - voted against, 12 - abstained from voting.
I wonder how Prof. M. Hoffman and Prof. J. Steffen can competently express their opinions on my scientific achievements and my habilitation thesis not being specialists in the assessed field. In my opinion they are next false witnesses. It must be admitted that the presented discussion was on a very high scientific level, worthy of the Central Commission. I will only remind what was written in the review by a specialist, the Head of the Otolaryngological Clinic, Prof. Bolesław Semczuk - quotation: "His scientific achievements are not very numerous, however, in the context of research into the equilibrium system is is qualitatively valuable and essential" - the conclusions are for the reader to draw. The reviewer did not write anywhere in his opinion that he assessed the habilitation thesis as satisfactory.
I fight indefatigably for the truth in science. I have never referred to the science by the Pope John Paul II, but he taught us how to behave in our lives. I will quote now words of the homily by John Paul II said in Westerplatte in 1987 - quotation:"Everyone of you, young friends, find your own Westerplatte in your lives, some dimension of tasks which must be undertaken and fulfill, a good cause for which you must fight, a duty, an obligation from which one cannot evade, you cannot desert; last but not least, an order of truths and values which must be maintained and defend, like in Westerplatte; maintain and defend, in yourselves and around yourselves, defend for yourselves and for others."
I informed the Central Commission about the fact that the decision of 17 December 1991 is against the law and it must be considered invalid by law. My argument may have been acknowledged because in 1993 Prof. Ku¶ was appointed another reviewer of my thesis. I will quote now the opinion by Prof. Jan Ku¶ in its entirety.