You didn't present anything I haven't heard before. The fluoride paradox is not at all new. And being "moved" is not something that I will ever allow myself to apply in an objective examination of the facts. It would defeat the purpose of critical thinking.
You cannot freely mix arguments about the damage from relative levels of fluoride with complaints about the morality and ethics. The union protecting the scientists who were fired due to politics is admirable and exactly what unions are for, however that is an ethical and political issue, not a medical or scientific one. The EPA employs over 18,000 people, over half of them being scientists, researchers, and analysts. The NTEU has about 1500 union members, and any professional in the EPA is invited to join, not just scientists. Even if every single member of the union opposed artificial fluoridation, it still wouldn't be a majority (about 16%, if my rough math is correct, just regarding scientists. If we include all the employees, like the union does, we go down to 8%). No one is questioning the union's work in protecting their members. What is under review are the arguments regarding safe levels of fluoridation.
I mentioned earlier that I agreed with the doctor, but did not agree that what he said could be universally applied. If you check in the EPA site, the NTEU site, and most serious research sites, you will find the phrase "Dose Response Analysis" used over and over again. All the research is about the safe levels of fluoride. Some places have naturally occurring sources of fluoride already in the water. Other places has secondary sources, such as toothpaste, that are used regularly enough to not merit additional fluoride in the water. Not all of them do, however. In places where there isn't the effective dosage of fluoride available from secondary sources, the fluoride in the water is the only place where it will come from.
Much like the vaccination argument, the question isn't whether or not there are side-effects. Of course there are. No medication exists without side-effects. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the risks.