I've heard that the AACMA have made an accusation against the character of Edzard Ernst. Specifically that he has “undeclared links to the pharmaceutical industry”. If you are wanting to do more than poison the well you should probably declare these publically.
As it stands the Alt-Med industry has a less than stellar track record when it comes to honesty in their claims and conduct and this is going to impact that record. It could go either way though. If you have irrefutable evidence of these financial links, publish them.
If, on the other hand, you don't have anything more than hearsay and rumors then you have done little more than added to the impression that alt-med organisations and supporters are little more than quacks and kranks that can't stand on the strength of the evidence.
Edzard has invited you to withdraw the statement and make an apology. From his position of knowing with certainty that there are no such links this is a fair demand. I, on the other hand, do not know with the same level of certainty. If you have evidence, make it public. If not, publically withdrawing the claim and issuing an apology is a fair expectation.
Update: The AACMA made an half-arsed attempt at a retraction. This isn't a public retraction and it's not an apology. The AACMA have the ethical standing of a Homeopath that knows it's all pseudoscience.