5th March 2007 Dear Mr Henshaw, Thank you for your letters of ...

homeopathic medicines without indications for use could be freely sold onthe European market. All EU Member States were required to implementthis Clause within a specified time period. Clause 16 permitted, but did notmake mandatory, the drawing up of “national rules” to allow homeopathicmedicines with limited indications for use to be sold within individualMember States. Several Member States implemented this latter clause quitequickly – last year it was implemented into UK law, 14 years after theoriginal Directive was ratified.The Prince did not influence this process, nor the MHRA’s announcementlast year.(iv)The Smallwood report was a political document and an attempt byThe Prince to shape public health policyPlease find at A a detailed response to the various points you make aboutthe Smallwood Report written by Christopher Smallwood himself. Inaddition, I provide some comments below.You say that “…this document, which was aimed at Ministers, was apolitical document…” There was never any suggestion that this report was“aimed at Ministers” and this was not the case.You state that : “…it was overseen by an accountant with no medicalbackground.” The report did not purport to be a medical document. It wasspecifically aimed at examining the costs and benefits of complementarymedicine, i.e. it was an economic analysis written by an economist (not anaccountant).(v)The Prince, through his Principal Private Secretary, wrote to ExeterUniversity to put Professor Edzard Ernst’s career in jeopardyYou say that “…as a result of Professor Ernst expressing his reservationsabout the Report to the media, the Prince, through his Principal PrivateSecretary, wrote a letter of complaint about the Professor to the ViceChancellor of Exeter University, alleging a breach of confidence.” Thisletter was not prompted by His Royal Highness and he was not even awarethat it had been written. The letter was sent at the express request of theTrustees of the Foundation for Integrated Health and it was made clear inthe letter that I was writing as the Foundation’s Chairman, as well as ThePrince’s Principal Private Secretary. A copy is attached at B. The Trusteeswere extremely concerned – two Professors in particular – at the apparentbreach of confidence by Edzard Ernst who had commented in detail to anewspaper about early drafts he had been shown, in confidence, by thereport’s author, Christopher Smallwood. The view was expressed byeminent practitioners and academics at a meeting of the Foundation’sBoard that it was highly unethical to comment publicly on draft reports inthis way. The Foundation’s trustees would be pleased to confirm this. Inother words it is entirely incorrect to suggest that the letter was “an attempt