Changes

*In 2002, the United States Food and Drug Administration notified Rath that he was promoting his supplements in a manner that violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, by making claims of efficacy without undergoing the appropriate scientific and regulatory review.<ref name="Quackery"/><ref>[http://www.fda.gov/cder/warn/cyber/2002/CFSANvitacor.htm Letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration] warning Dr. Rath that his marketing campaign is in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Accessed 19 Sept 2006.</ref>

*In 2002, the United States Food and Drug Administration notified Rath that he was promoting his supplements in a manner that violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, by making claims of efficacy without undergoing the appropriate scientific and regulatory review.<ref name="Quackery"/><ref>[http://www.fda.gov/cder/warn/cyber/2002/CFSANvitacor.htm Letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration] warning Dr. Rath that his marketing campaign is in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Accessed 19 Sept 2006.</ref>

*In 2005, the Advertising Standards Association of South Africa (ASASA) issued three separate rulings against Rath, finding that he had made false and misleading claims regarding the effectiveness of his supplements and describing his advertisements as "reckless in the extreme".<ref name="reckless">[http://www.aegis.org/news/dmg/2005/mg050807.html Matthias Rath's ads 'reckless in the extreme'], by Elvira van Noort. Published in the ''[[Mail & Guardian]]'' on August 30, 2005; accessed May 9, 2008.</ref><ref name="Quackery"/> Rath continued the advertisements, leading the ASASA to rule that, "in light of the gravity of [Rath's] breaches", he was required to submit all further advertising to the ASASA for prior approval.<ref>[http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/rath3.html Rulings against Matthias Rath for false and misleading advertising] by the Advertising Standards Association of South Africa, accessed 19 Sept 2006.</ref>

*In 2005, the Advertising Standards Association of South Africa (ASASA) issued three separate rulings against Rath, finding that he had made false and misleading claims regarding the effectiveness of his supplements and describing his advertisements as "reckless in the extreme".<ref name="reckless">[http://www.aegis.org/news/dmg/2005/mg050807.html Matthias Rath's ads 'reckless in the extreme'], by Elvira van Noort. Published in the ''Mail & Guardian'' on August 30, 2005; accessed May 9, 2008.</ref><ref name="Quackery"/> Rath continued the advertisements, leading the ASASA to rule that, "in light of the gravity of [Rath's] breaches", he was required to submit all further advertising to the ASASA for prior approval.<ref>[http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/rath3.html Rulings against Matthias Rath for false and misleading advertising] by the Advertising Standards Association of South Africa, accessed 19 Sept 2006.</ref>

*In 2006, the High Court of South Africa found that Rath had defamed the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), an AIDS non-profit organization, by publicly making false and misleading statements about the TAC. Rath was ordered to cease his defamatory remarks "to ensure that the TAC's continued participation in the debate is not hamstrung by defamatory and unfounded allegations."<ref name="Quackery"/><ref>[http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/Court_Cases/Rath/JudgmentTACvRath-20060303.pdf Judgement of the High Court of South Africa] ordering Rath to cease making defamatory and unfounded allegations against the Treatment Action Campaign. Accessed 19 Sept 2006.</ref>

*In 2006, the High Court of South Africa found that Rath had defamed the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), an AIDS non-profit organization, by publicly making false and misleading statements about the TAC. Rath was ordered to cease his defamatory remarks "to ensure that the TAC's continued participation in the debate is not hamstrung by defamatory and unfounded allegations."<ref name="Quackery"/><ref>[http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/Court_Cases/Rath/JudgmentTACvRath-20060303.pdf Judgement of the High Court of South Africa] ordering Rath to cease making defamatory and unfounded allegations against the Treatment Action Campaign. Accessed 19 Sept 2006.</ref>

*In 2006, the July 22 issue of the ''British Medical Journal'' (BMJ) published a news item reporting that Rath had gone on trial in Hamburg, Germany "for fraud" in relation to the death of Dominik Feld. However, the BMJ subsequently retracted the news item "on legal advice" and issued an apology to Rath, stating that the BMJ accepted that "the allegations we published were without foundation."<ref>[http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/333/7569/621-b Dr Matthias Rath: an apology.] ''British Medical Journal'', 23 September 2006. Accessed January 2007.</ref> A subsequent libel claim by Rath was settled by the ''BMJ'' for ₤100,000.<ref>[http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7595/656 News in Brief], from the ''[[British Medical Journal]]'', 2007;334:656 (31 March).</ref><ref>[http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=37846&c=1 'BMJ pays out to doctor over 'child death' story.’] Press Gazette magazine. Published June 5, 2007. Accessed April 10, 2008.</ref>

*In 2006, the July 22 issue of the ''British Medical Journal'' (BMJ) published a news item reporting that Rath had gone on trial in Hamburg, Germany "for fraud" in relation to the death of Dominik Feld. However, the BMJ subsequently retracted the news item "on legal advice" and issued an apology to Rath, stating that the BMJ accepted that "the allegations we published were without foundation."<ref>[http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/333/7569/621-b Dr Matthias Rath: an apology.] ''British Medical Journal'', 23 September 2006. Accessed January 2007.</ref> A subsequent libel claim by Rath was settled by the ''BMJ'' for ₤100,000.<ref>[http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7595/656 News in Brief], from the ''British Medical Journal'', 2007;334:656 (31 March).</ref><ref>[http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=37846&c=1 'BMJ pays out to doctor over 'child death' story.’] Press Gazette magazine. Published June 5, 2007. Accessed April 10, 2008.</ref>

*In 2006, Rath was prosecuted in Germany for distributing vitamins over the internet without a pharmaceutical licence, and for claiming on the website that the vitamins could cure cancer. Rath settled the case with a EUR33,000 fine, paid to an organisation helping disabled children, and amended the website. The judge noted that the case had not given an impression of "charlatanry", but rather of excessively aggressive marketing.<ref>''[[Hamburger Morgenpost]]'', 10 October 2006, [http://archiv.mopo.de/archiv/2006/20061010/hamburg/panorama/vitamin_arzt_rath_muss_33000_euro_zahlen.html Vitamin-Arzt Rath muss 33000 Euro zahlen]</ref>

*In 2006, Rath was prosecuted in Germany for distributing vitamins over the internet without a pharmaceutical licence, and for claiming on the website that the vitamins could cure cancer. Rath settled the case with a EUR33,000 fine, paid to an organisation helping disabled children, and amended the website. The judge noted that the case had not given an impression of "charlatanry", but rather of excessively aggressive marketing.<ref>''Hamburger Morgenpost'', 10 October 2006, [http://archiv.mopo.de/archiv/2006/20061010/hamburg/panorama/vitamin_arzt_rath_muss_33000_euro_zahlen.html Vitamin-Arzt Rath muss 33000 Euro zahlen]</ref>

*In 2007, the German Federal Constitutional Court issued a ruling in favour of Rath. The Federal Constitutional Court found that the prohibition of the brochure and poster "Stop the pharmacartel" and "Stop the codex-plans of the pharmacartel" by judgements of courts in Berlin in 2000/2001 was unjustified as it violated Rath's fundamental rights, e.g. the right of free speech.<ref>[http://www.judicialis.de/main.cgi?sid=mCssTAaOfSjvAmeb2WN4wmis;cont=text.cgi Judgement of German Federal Constitutional Court of July 12, 2007, no. 1 BvR 2041/02.] Published 2007. Accessed April 16, 2008.</ref>

*In 2007, the German Federal Constitutional Court issued a ruling in favour of Rath. The Federal Constitutional Court found that the prohibition of the brochure and poster "Stop the pharmacartel" and "Stop the codex-plans of the pharmacartel" by judgements of courts in Berlin in 2000/2001 was unjustified as it violated Rath's fundamental rights, e.g. the right of free speech.<ref>[http://www.judicialis.de/main.cgi?sid=mCssTAaOfSjvAmeb2WN4wmis;cont=text.cgi Judgement of German Federal Constitutional Court of July 12, 2007, no. 1 BvR 2041/02.] Published 2007. Accessed April 16, 2008.</ref>

[[category:physician]]

[[category:physician]]

[[category:pseudomedic]]

[[category:pseudomedic]]

{{Wikipedia|Wikititle=Eleanor_McBean|Year=2010|Month=11}}

{{Wikipedia|Wikititle=Matthias_Rath|Year=2011|Month=02}}