Do I detect some scholastic sophistry at TDS in headline clickbait?

This is reposted, with specific N.O. additions, across the way. These are the main points below:

Do I detect some scholastic sophistry at TDS in headline clickbait?  There are three aspects here ... the subject material itself, the way it does NOT accord with the headline:

https://dailysceptic.org/2023/06/16/nurses-are-free-to-criticise-lockdowns-and-vaccines-regulator-confirms/

... but in fact makes clear that such has NOT been the case ... freedom to criticise ... and the third aspect is a most valuable statement he did make:

Much to the disappointment of my supporters, the NMC decided to proceed with the investigation and, as if to prove what has become a dictum, that “the process is the punishment” I was kept waiting eight months for a decision. However, finally, a decision was conveyed to me this week that I had “no case to answer” for which I was very grateful.

It's all in that paragraph.  The medical profession is a vast collection of disciplines and to look at those participating in practices ranging from criminal gender mutilation to late term abortion to the use of intubation and the "remsthingy" drug whilst suppressing "I've a" and HCQ and going after anyone criticising it on medical advice from brave medicos ... that does not mean that all medicos are Drs Mengeles or similar. 

Many are though and it's a bit like Russian roulette when faced by a medico whether he/she is one of Them or is a perfectly decent person with mouths to feed at home ... silent but not agreeing with the horrors perpetrated by the "profession" 2020 to 2023.  

You just can't know, except in the overall demeanour and way the person handles the patient. Not a satisfactory arrangement.

Coming back to Dr. Watson, my beef is not with what happened within his profession but with his clickbait headline, which I've had to unclickbait for readers. To my mind, it's a scurrilous method of "sneaky gain of hits" and the ultimate responsibility lies with both the moderator/admin and the platform provider itself.

Yes, there really is that aspect of ggl for example where there is reason not to allow quite defamatory statements ... and yet how can they police it across the world? I'd say through algorithms and key weasel words picked up by bots but what is defamatory and what is fact? Almost all major institutions seem to be plagued by Wokery today ... which is anti-fact.

But generally it's the moderator held responsible, e.g. Kathy Gyngell and yet, as a fellow moderator, how can she know every word Dr. Watson wrote?  How many minutes are there in the day? It really depends on someone else picking up on and flagging but here's the crux ... do they report her like a naughty schoolgirl or do they put it to her, herself?

On the other hand, where does Dr. Watson get off with clickbait like that?  Too much more of that sort of thing and it will start to reflect on Kathy.  Just as what Julia or I ultimately click through determines the tone of that blog.