Changes

*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.<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/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 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>