Changes

3 bytes added ,  16:34, 22 May 2011
m
Line 86: Line 86:  
*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 court 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, 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 court 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 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 which by then amounted to £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  voiced an interest in writing a "meticulously referenced" work on Rath and South African [[HIV/AIDS denial]].<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 book ''Bad Science'', omitted from the first edition due to the litigation, was reinstated in later editions and is also made available on his website.
+
*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 which by then amounted to £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  voiced an interest in writing a "meticulously referenced" work on Rath and South African [[HIV/AIDS denialism]].<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 book ''Bad Science'', omitted from the first edition due to the litigation, was reinstated in later editions and is also made available on his website.
     
reviewer
820

edits