That is what happens when you read actual reports, they are so often inconclusive - but that is genuine science and evidence-based medicine for you.
I notice that this was a metastudy - an analysis of the available data in published studies on the subject, and a review of the conclusions reached in the 241 studies which reached the required standard for inclusion. That saved you the time you could have spent reading those 241 studies yourself, so your time has not gone to waste, but was spent reading an expert analysis. You should be grateful to HumptyDumpty for saving you that expenditure of effort, not complaining that she has wasted your time.
It is explained "214 studies met full inclusion criteria for one or more of the objectives. No randomised controlled trials of the effects of water fluoridation were found. The study designs used included 45 ‘before and after’ studies, 102 cross-sectional studies, 47 ecological studies, 13 cohort (prospective or retrospective) studies and 7 case-control studies. Several studies were reported in multiple papers over a number of years."
I think I shall stop wasting MY time reading someone who only wants studies which prove their pet theory, and which don't reach the valid and honest conclusion that the data so far shows that the evidence is inconclusive. Goodbye.
Expensive free range chicken was tasteless!
Preston Davey, another baby P.


