You're right, it's 7 points. However, that means there are still considerable issues (both medical and ethical) with the mass-ingesting of fluoride, which lends more credibility to Mercola's paranoia than your skepticism, in my opinion. And regardless of that, you are still ignoring all the main issues brought up with TVP.
You acknowledge that you got the number wrong, which is good, but the smaller problem. The bigger problem is that the number was not, in either case, an impact concluded by the meta-analyses, it was merely the average impact of high flouridation in the studies included.
> However, that means there are still considerable issues (both medical and ethical) with the mass-ingesting of fluoride
No, it doesn't. Again, the source you cite does not conclude that there is any adverse effect. The meta-analysis, according to it's authors, indicates only that there may be an adverse effect.
Even the follow-up study by the authors (linked from your source; meta-analyses rarely support strong conclusions about fact, but often provide direction for further research) seems to indicate some effect, especially at high dosage levels but again, mostly is an indicator for further research, not a basis for concluding a clearly quantified effect.
Without a qauntifiable effect tied to actual flouride levels, it's not clear if there is any probl with the actual flouridation practice in the United States. Almost every substance is harmful in excess, even ones where moderate amounts are better than none.
