The charity has responded to this review to say that they "do not agree" with its contents.

This article is mostly a list of things that the charity did, so it’s hard to see how they could disagree with that. Did the dog not engage in coprophagia? Was the dog actually much older than the trainers said? Is the wealth of modern scientific evidence not against dominance training? Did the head trainer not promote a sexist YouTuber?

The author has every right to leave a negative review online. I strongly feel that the charity should not be training assistance dogs for autistic people. They shouldn't even be accredited.