Changes

Rath has been involved in a number of legal cases.

Rath has been involved in a number of legal cases.

*In 2000, the Court of Almelo in the Netherlands ordered Rath to stop making unfounded, false, and defamatory statements about the Dutch pharmaceutical company Numico.<ref name="Quackery">[http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=785054 "Quackery quashed, but Rath's legacy lives" Donaldson A and Huisman B, The Times, SA, 14 June 2008] Accessed 16 June 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.numico.com/NR/rdonlyres/9AE781C8-31EB-4D5D-AF55-20476B5B340C/273/CaseDrRath151100.pdf Press release describing Dutch court decision against Dr. Rath] for defamation, accessed 19 Sept 2006.</ref>

*In 2000, the Court of Almelo in the Netherlands ordered Rath to stop making unfounded, false, and defamatory statements about Dutch pharmaceutical company Numico.<ref name="Quackery">[http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=785054 "Quackery quashed, but Rath's legacy lives" Donaldson A and Huisman B, The Times, SA, 14 June 2008] Accessed 16 June 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.numico.com/NR/rdonlyres/9AE781C8-31EB-4D5D-AF55-20476B5B340C/273/CaseDrRath151100.pdf Press release describing Dutch court decision against Dr. Rath] for defamation, accessed 19 Sept 2006.</ref>

*In 2002, the British [Advertising Standards Authority found that advertisements by Rath contained a series of misleading and false claims and ordered the claims removed.<ref name="Quackery"/><ref>[http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/Court_Cases/Rath/BritishASARulingAgainstRath.pdf Ruling by the British Advertising Standards Association] against Matthias Rath for false and misleading advertising, accessed 19 Sept 2006.</ref>

*In 2002, British Advertising Standards Authority ruled that advertisements by Rath contained a series of misleading and false claims and ordered the claims removed.<ref name="Quackery"/><ref>[http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/Court_Cases/Rath/BritishASARulingAgainstRath.pdf Ruling by the British Advertising Standards Association] against Matthias Rath for false and misleading advertising, accessed Sept 19, 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 2002, the United States Food and Drug Administration notified Rath 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, for having 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 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.<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 that vitamins could cure cancer on his website. Rath settled the case with a EUR 33,000 fine, paid to an organisation helping disabled children, and amended the website.<ref>''Hamburger Morgenpost'', October 10, 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/Bundesverfassungsgericht_1-BvR-2041-02_Beschluss_12.07.2007.html 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 pharma cartel" and "Stop the codex-plans of the pharma cartel" by judgement 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/Bundesverfassungsgericht_1-BvR-2041-02_Beschluss_12.07.2007.html Judgement of German Federal Constitutional Court of July 12, 2007, no. 1 BvR 2041/02.] Published 2007. Accessed April 16, 2008.</ref>

*In 2008, the Cape Town High Court issued an interdict barring Rath from advertising his products as a treatment for AIDS, and stating that the clinical trials he has been running in black townships are illegal. The ruling also found that "Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang and her department had a duty to investigate Rath's activities."<ref>[http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=nw20080613124210476C691501 IOL News for South Africa and the World]</ref>

*In 2008, the Cape Town High Court issued a verdict barring Rath from advertising his products as a treatment for AIDS, and stating that clinical tests he had been running in black townships were illegal. The ruling also ruled that "Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang and her department had a duty to investigate Rath's activities."<ref>[http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=nw20080613124210476C691501 IOL News for South Africa and the World]</ref>

*In 2008 Ben Goldacre and ''The Guardian'' were sued for libel by Matthias Rath for the content of three articles describing Rath's activities in South Africa.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/20/southafrica.aids No way to treat an Aids hero]</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/27/aids.badscience 'Gambia's president may be weird, but Aids superstitions strike closer to home’] The Guardian. Published January 27, 2007. Accessed July 30, 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/17/badscience.uknews 'How money is not the only barrier to Aids patients getting hold of drugs’] The Guardian. Published February 17, 2007. Accessed July 30, 2008.</ref> In September 2008, Rath dropped his suit and was ordered to pay costs, an interim amount of about £220,000.<ref name="FallofRath">[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/12/matthiasrath.aids2 Fall of the vitamin doctor: Matthias Rath drops libel action], by Sarah Boseley. The Guardian, UK, 12 September 2008</ref> Goldacre has expressed interest in writing a "meticulously referenced" work on Rath, and South African [[HIV/AIDS denialism]] in general, based on material which had been excised from his column during the litigation.<ref>[http://www.badscience.net/2008/09/matthias-rath-pulls-out-forced-to-pay-the-guardians-costs-i-think-this-means-i-win/ 'Matthias Rath drops his million pound legal case against me and the Guardian'] badscience.net. Published September 12, 2008.  Accessed September 20, 2008</ref> A chapter of Goldacre's ''Bad Science'', omitted from the first edition due to the litigation, was reinstated in the paperback edition in early 2009, made available on his website, and licenced for free distribution.[http://badscience.net/files/The-Doctor-Will-Sue-You-Now.pdf]

*In 2008, Ben Goldacre and ''The Guardian'' were sued for libel by Matthias Rath for the contents of three articles describing Rath's activities in South Africa.<ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/20/southafrica.aids No way to treat an Aids hero]</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/27/aids.badscience 'Gambia's president may be weird, but AIDS superstitions strike closer to home’] The Guardian. Published January 27, 2007. Accessed July 30, 2008.</ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/feb/17/badscience.uknews 'How money is not the only barrier to Aids patients getting hold of drugs’] The Guardian. Published February 17, 2007. Accessed July 30, 2008.</ref> In September 2008, Rath dropped the lawsuit and was ordered to pay costs, an interim amount of about £220,000.<ref name="FallofRath">[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/12/matthiasrath.aids2 Fall of the vitamin doctor: Matthias Rath drops libel action], by Sarah Boseley. The Guardian, UK, 12 September 2008</ref> Goldacre has expressed interest in writing a "meticulously referenced" work on Rath, and South African [[HIV/AIDS denialism]] in general, based on material which had been excised from his column during the litigation.<ref>[http://www.badscience.net/2008/09/matthias-rath-pulls-out-forced-to-pay-the-guardians-costs-i-think-this-means-i-win/ 'Matthias Rath drops his million pound legal case against me and the Guardian'] badscience.net. Published September 12, 2008.  Accessed September 20, 2008</ref> A chapter of Goldacre's ''Bad Science'', omitted from the first edition due to the litigation, was reinstated in the paperback edition in early 2009, made available on his website, and licenced for free distribution.[http://badscience.net/files/The-Doctor-Will-Sue-You-Now.pdf]

==Versions of this article in other languages==

==Versions of this article in other languages==