"In the case of the BCA, the contrast that Singh himself makes is between the BCA's position as the 'respectable face' of a medical profession, and its willingness 'happily' to promote 'bogus' treatments for which there is 'not a jot of evidence'. It is difficult to regard this merely as an accusation of gullibility." 
 
On the contrary, I think it's very easy - and indeed, the natural reading - to take Singh's point here to mean "the BCA presents itself as a respectable professional body, and yet at best is as naive and gullible as a religious sect that promotes exorcism". 
 
Similarly, Eady's suggestion that "happily" rules out "naively or inncoently believing in their efficacy", rather than implying it is frankly surreal. See: "the child happily walked off with Myra Hindley", etc. 
 
Singh's piece makes the point, based on the evidence, that the BCA are either naively promoting stuff that doesn't work, or are liars. It leaves it up to the reader to decide which. 
 
Eady's interpretation of the piece was that it ruled out the possibility that they were idiots; this is obviously wrong, was rightly overturned, and I can't see how anyone could possibly defend it...