Sir, is evidence-based dentistry only applicable in certain situations when evidence, of sufficient quality, supports its implementation?

NICE are considering recommending an end to antimicrobial prophylaxis because there is insufficient evidence of its effectiveness, so how long would it take for NICE to analyse the evidence on vCJD transmission in dental settings and provide recommendations based on this scientific approach rather than 'plausibility', 'prudence' and 'possibility' as mentioned in the CDO's letter of 19 April 2007, referring to SEAC's statement in 2006?

Early prophylactic principles appeared entirely plausible too, when first introduced, but since then evidence-based dentistry has become de rigeur. However, it does seem that EBD only applies when a mysterious set of conditions compel its application – politics, time etc. How else can you explain changes in clinical practice, as in the case of vCJD, being advised on early evidence from mice experiments? The research concerned makes no allowances for whether the mice were NHS or private, their individual practice infection control policies or even how many hours CPD on cross infection control they had undertaken in their current five year cycle.

It only needs to come to the attention of the general media and then it wouldn't be long until we'd have a situation similar to the MMR/autism fiasco.