We already responded to 7sur7, so what's the difference? The ommission of refuting that point in our lawyer's letter whilst touching on everything else in the article is already being used to attack us. That is happening as we speak.
If its 1000% false like you say then it's an easy fix and we could quickly shut down this narrative, that otherwise may cause us harm. If its all bullshit, how would refuting the claims play into their hands? We refuted all the other claims presented...
