[8][2][9][10] Olivia Laing, writing for The Guardian, said "Singh and Ernst are scientists and their mainly dismissive conclusions are based on extensive, though bizarrely unfootnoted, research.

Laing criticized the book for a lack of "acknowledgement of the problems of funding adequate trials" and "discussion of the equivalent risks and inadequacies of conventional medicine" such as the side effects of pharmaceutical drugs.

[8] In a review for Nature, Toby Murcott described the book as "thoroughly researched and clearly written" where the authors, in discussing the available randomized clinical trials for each of four treatments, "make repeated claims that they provide the truth, and have even included this word in the title of every chapter.

"[11][12] In a review of the book for Complementary Medicine Research, John Kapp said that although he did not agree with their conclusion, Ernst and Singh "deserve praise for bringing a vital subject to the attention of the public in a clear and readable way."

[10] Writing for the British Journal of General Practice, Jeremy Swayne (former dean of the Faculty of Homeopathy[13]) said the book was "thorough and clever" and that it "provides excellent counsel about the shortcomings of CAM (and there are many, if you take the whole nebulous field into consideration), and its susceptibility to popular and commercial exploitation.

"[9] Donald Marcus reviewed the book for The New England Journal of Medicine and found the writing to be "clear and vivid" with historical anecdotes that "provide a valuable perspective on the subject."

The presiding judges commented that "this litigation has almost certainly had a chilling effect on public debate which might otherwise have assisted potential patients to make informed choices about the possible use of chiropractic".