The anti-masonry in this article stems from sheer ignorance. I know nothing about a subject, I collect a bunch of articles on it and just vomit them in a quasi-random order. I don't state a concrete hypothesis/problem, although I imply that it would be "to maintain the establishment's interests", I don't have any evidence, yet I suggest a vague course of action that looks like a solution to the mysterious problem.

Those who have been victims of freemasonry are unlikely to have their voices heard in an environment where secret societies are not held accountable or scrutinised.

Who are these victims and where is the evidence that justifies their status? If freemasonry were a secret society this journalist, myself, and many others would not have heard about it. How is freemasonry not held accountable or scrutinised? Accountable for what and scrutinised for what?

The logic of the journalist is the following: there is a problem, she is unable to find evidence for it or properly define it, so the solution to the problem is to discover the problem. Using this reasoning, a myriad of problems can be created out of thin air between any entity X and Y. In this article, X happened to be freemasonry, and Y medicine. Even the journalist acknowledges that X and Y can take other values, and that she lacks evidence, and uses a style that reflects that: probably, perhaps, unlikely etc. I could assign X to be the journalist and Y to be global warming, and conclude that we perhaps should investigate the rumoured enormous carbon footprint of the journalist.

In a transparent and democratic society, perhaps someone should...

...think about the right to individual privacy and of association, and that if they have evidence that the law is not respected, they should build a case and sue. Also, they should think of their own ethos as journalists, that their purpose is to get the facts straight and then tell a story, and not spread rumours, or build their phrasing in order to barely avoid calumniation.