You are right about the extreme bias of the consultation document and I and others have tackled the SHA about this and this discussion is ongoing and likely to be taken further. You might want to have a look at the following critique: http://www.appgaf.org.uk/reports/reports_sha_sep08/

The York reveiw is very clear about the poor quality of the evidence and this has been reiterated by the chair and members of the review committee a number of times in the medical press. Later reviews always refer to the York Review as the key review and both the UK MRC and the Australian MRC reports reviews are not as thorough. Since teh Ypork Review we now have much more evidence of the harmful effects of water fluoridation (see the USA National Research Council Report).

The economic evaluation is extremely flawed and even the authors caution against the level of benefit and also the potential savings. Given that the cost of the scheme is also higher than that used in the report basically the costings are a joke and are substantially higher than the £45.23 per carious lesion. This money will have to come from the existing dental care budget reducing the amount available for other dental care.

If we can stop this ludicrous policy from being implemented in Southampton – hopefully it will help others fight water fluoridation in other areas so thanks for your support.