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.
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.
R
pointing out
wrote
R
pointing out
wrote
R
pointed out
wrote
R
dangerous nonsense
"dangerous nonsense"
D
s
R
an order
a complaint
R
into investigating
to initiate an investigation file on
R
Though
Although
R
funding
fund