Criticism The report was criticized by alternative medicine academic researcher Edzard Ernst,  wrote that it was inaccurate, misleading and wrote that "its conclusions were written before the authors had searched for evidence that might match them". The editor of The Lancet Richard Horton wrote that the report contained "dangerous nonsense". As a dire consequence of Ernst's response, Charles' secretary Sir Michael Peat filed a complaint to Exeter University to initiate an investigation file on Ernst for misconduct. Although Ernst was exonerated, his department was disbanded due to stoppage of fund 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.
Criticism The report was criticized by alternative medicine academic researcher Edzard Ernst, who wrote that it was inaccurate, misleading and that "its conclusions were written before the authors had searched for evidence that might match them". The editor of The Lancet Richard Horton wrote that the report contained "dangerous nonsense". As a dire consequence of Ernst's response, Charles' secretary Sir Michael Peat filed a complaint to Exeter University to initiate an investigation file on Ernst for misconduct. Although Ernst was exonerated, his department was disbanded due to stoppage of funding and he was forced into early retirement. The role of Prince Charles' royal office has been scrutinized as a result of the interference.
A
who
D
wrote
R
fund and then so
funding and