Criticism The report was criticized by leading alternative medicine expert Edzard Ernst, pointing out that it was inaccurate, grossly misleading and pointing out that "its conclusions were written before the authors had searched for evidence that might match them". The editor of The Lancet Richard Horton pointed out that the report contained dangerous nonsense. As a consequence of Ernsts' response, Charles's secretary Sir Michael Peat pushed Exeter University into investigating Ernst for misconduct. Ernst was eventually exonerated, but his department was disbanded due to lack of funding and  he was forced to take early retirement. The role of Prince Charles  has been scrutinized as a result of the affair .
Criticism The report was criticized by alternative medicine academic researcher Edzard Ernst, pointing out that it was inaccurate, misleading and pointing out that "its conclusions were written before the authors had searched for evidence that might match them". The editor of The Lancet Richard Horton pointed out that the report contained dangerous nonsense. As a dire consequence of Ernst's response, Charles's secretary Sir Michael Peat filed an order to Exeter University into investigating Ernst for misconduct. Though Ernst was exonerated, his department was disbanded due to stoppage of funding and then so he was forced into early retirement. The role of Prince Charles ' royal office has been scrutinized as a result of the interference .
R
leading alternative medicine expert
alternative medicine academic researcher
D
grossly
R
consequence of Ernsts'
dire consequence of Ernst's
R
pushed
filed an order to
R
Ernst was eventually exonerated, but
Though Ernst was exonerated,
R
lack
stoppage
A
then so
R
to take
into
A
' royal office
R
affair
interference