So what of the actual published scientific references provided, did they provide compelling evidence of prion risks in Dentistry, were 1000’s of nvCJD cases springing up over the last 20 years of monitoring by the CJD surveillance unit in clusters associated with Dental treatments, did these references confirm the imposed changes prevented prion transmission in any measurable way?

Well the short answer is NO, NO and NO !!!

The longer answer needs a thorough dissection of the provided references, but more significantly looking at the many references that weren’t included, which is beyond the scope of this GDPUK article today, but frankly any small group of objective scientists could tear it apart very easily. Indeed it’s major failing, as any researcher will tell you, is that it has now become clear that HTM 01-05 was NOT based upon a comprehensive review of the scientific literature on cross-infection studies, protocols and evaluations of methods, but a partial and therefore biased and misleading reference list. Any reputable scientific publisher simply would reject it as a paper.

So in reverse order, the Ugly part of HTM 01-05 is it’s poor evidence-based approach and where it does quote some selective references, it still ignores negative findings within it’s own documents, which I exampled in my BDJ letter (http://tiny.cc/WDconcerns ) , see the last reference of a DH document raising a concern about proteins being baked onto instruments by the hot WD cycle.

The Bad part of HTM 01-05 is the process as a whole lacking probity and not even following wider DH “best practice” protocols, that encourage implementing Impact Assessments, Pilots and independent Third-Party scrutiny – this has been a DH sponsored Policy-Based imposition upon the Dental Profession and if nothing else, it should learn that such experimentation should be done before National imposition, so the flawed process has led to a flawed outcome.

The Good part of HTM01-05 is that it has significantly raised awareness of Cross-Infection Control issues and made dental teams look ever-closer at what they do, why they do it and is it really effective in protecting patients and staff.
Another good aspect is the DH has made some minor changes to HTM01-05 already, stating originally that it was a live document and would be reviewed in 2 years time, to now showing at least some willing to consider some changes before then, as evidenced by a CDO newsletter ( http://tiny.cc/CDOmarch2010 )

So what next ?