Natural groundwater contains fluorine compounds. Running streams and rivers contain fluorine compounds. Black tea has a very high quantity of fluorine compounds.

Dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis are much more common in areas WITHOUT water treatment (such as much of rural India) than in places WITH water treatment. There is a recommended daily quantity of fluorine compound intake, and many groundwater wells in the US actually have to have fluorine compounds REMOVED in order to bring them down to the recommended levels.

Flourine is like anything else — the dose makes the poison. In low doses, it is beneficial, but get too much and you are looking at having issues. Just like aspirin. Just like plain water. Drink too much plain old water, and you could die from disruption of brain functions.

The fact that high doses of fluorine compounds cause fluorosis is not evidence that fluorine compounds have no benefit.

Many places don’t need to treat their water with added or removed fluorine because it already has near the recommended amount.

Don’t think for a second that water in Europe doesn’t contain fluorine compounds. It does.

How to determine if the science is good or bad? By looking at methods and results. And if you are looking at methods and results anyway, do you still need to know where did the money come from? Absolutely not. Bad science remains bad even when good people pay for it, and vice versa.

That’s why vaccine example is so important. If you want to know are vaccines good or bad, you have to study if vaccines actually save lives or not. That’s the only thing that really matters. But you cannot do that by following the money. You only can do that by studying actual health statistics. Following the money just leads you astray.

Following the money is much easier than studying the issue in-depth, that’s why your argument is so appealing. But if you want to follow the money, you cannot do it only when you like the results, you have to do it all the time. That’s how science works.

As for your further arguments on the evils of money, let me remind you just one thing: before money were invented, you just killed the other guy and took his things. (Yes, I know about barter economy. It gave birth to a common measure of value (AKA money) very quickly.)

Last question: why the head of the coal industry lobby in America might disagree with climate change? Answer: why do we care? He’s not a climatologist, he should keep his opinion to himself. End of story.