On January 20, Disinfolab finally (and only as a result of legal warning) published the ‘right of reply’ exerted by ARCHumankind, SADF, and their director, as regards their previous report and corrected some of their factual errors.
Disinfolab’s publications and documents ‘contain a mix of groundless misinterpretations (I), false allegations (II), and vague accusations (lacking any specific content; III). Not at any time was my point of view solicited regarding the published statements – an obligation required by journalistic deontology.’
In our common reaction we note that the ‘reply is accessible only through a PDF link in small characters, difficult to spot, at the end of your report. Further, our amendments are not correctly introduced in your text. And, of course, you failed to inform all the people that you avow to have misinformed with the factual truth provided in our reply. One registers the acknowledgement itself with satisfaction; however, intellectual and other forms of honesty would have demanded a far more proactive, corrective attitude on your part.’
In the reaction to our ‘right of reply’, we stress that: ‘Most obviously absent is a mention of those books, interventions and reports that you qualified – among various others pejorative terms – as ‘malicious’. The insults in question, of course, and again, lacked even a single quote or concrete element to back them up. All the same, vague accusations are still accusations – and they need to be either clearly substantiated or clearly disavowed. You did not disavow your attacks at all – let alone clearly.
We conclude our reply stating that ‘It is hard to think of a clearer definition of disinformation than that presented by your tactics. You have presented a long and well-publicized report filled with erroneous information and numerous, groundless defamations which even now in your ‘reply’ you dare not try to substantiate. And now as you were forced to react to the world of facts you tackle this task this in the most dishonest manner.’
