Matthias Rath - Revision history

Heimdall: Changeset 07:30, 20. Jul. 2011, Iskandar added

2011-07-22T07:33:42Z

Changeset 07:30, 20. Jul. 2011, Iskandar added

Heimdall: Typo

2011-05-23T20:33:38Z

Typo

Heimdall: /* Matthias Rath and AIDS */

2011-05-22T16:35:23Z

Matthias Rath and AIDS

Heimdall: /* Legal cases */

2011-05-22T16:34:59Z

Legal cases

Heimdall: /* Matthias Rath and AIDS */

2011-05-15T21:05:50Z

Matthias Rath and AIDS

Heimdall: /* Rath as a politician */

2011-03-27T18:42:58Z

Rath as a politician

Heimdall: OtherLang DE

2011-03-10T22:09:43Z

OtherLang DE

Heimdall: /* Weblinks */

2011-03-10T19:11:56Z

Weblinks

Halbmond: adjustment of versions

2011-03-10T12:58:11Z

adjustment of versions

Show changes

Halbmond: /* Legal cases */

2011-03-09T17:58:56Z

Legal cases

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ==Overview cellular medicine==
-[[Cellular medicine]] as propagated by Rath has proved to be ineffective in scientific studies. In industrial nations like Germany, vitamin deficiency calling for treatment is a very rare problem and needs to be verified in order to justify a substitution of vitamins actually absent by vitamin-containing agents. Only in such cases the vitamins actually missing should be substituted. An overdose of vitamins may cause grave undesirable side-effects. This is especially the case with liposoluble vitamins.
+[[Cellular medicine]] as propagated by Rath has proved to be ineffective in scientific studies. In industrial nations like Germany, vitamin deficiency calling for treatment is a very rare problem and needs to be verified in order to justify a substitution of vitamins actually absent by vitamin-containing agents. Only in such cases the vitamins actually missing should be substituted. An overdose of vitamins may cause grave undesirable side-effects. This is especially the case with liposoluble vitamins. It was even established in big epidemiological studies that ingestion of vitamins and micronutrients leads to a decrease in life expectancy for cancer patients.<ref>Myung SK et al.: Effects of antioxidant supplements on cancer prevention: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Annals of Oncology 2010</ref><ref>Bjelankovic G et al.: Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008</ref>.
 Cellular medicine may been seen as Rath's interpretation of [[orthomolecular medicine]] (OM) which is based on the ideas of Linus Pauling.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 ==Overview cellular medicine==
-[[Cellular medicine]] as propagated by Rath has proved to be ineffective in scientific studies. In industrial nations like Germany, vitamin deficiency calling for treatment is a very rare problem and needs to be verified in order to justify a substitution of vitamins actually absent by vitamin-containing agents. Only in suc cases the vitamins actually missing should be substituted. An overdose of vitamins may cause grave undesirable side-effects. This is especially the case with liposoluble vitamins.
+[[Cellular medicine]] as propagated by Rath has proved to be ineffective in scientific studies. In industrial nations like Germany, vitamin deficiency calling for treatment is a very rare problem and needs to be verified in order to justify a substitution of vitamins actually absent by vitamin-containing agents. Only in such cases the vitamins actually missing should be substituted. An overdose of vitamins may cause grave undesirable side-effects. This is especially the case with liposoluble vitamins.
 Cellular medicine may been seen as Rath's interpretation of [[orthomolecular medicine]] (OM) which is based on the ideas of Linus Pauling.
 Pauling himself has been criticized for making immoderate claims.<ref>Barrett, SJ (2001-05-05). [http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html "The dark side of Linus Pauling's legacy], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackwatch Quackwatch]</ref> Rath's attempts to render some scientific semblance to his own vastly exaggerated claims, however, are obstructed by the fact that even Pauling's work does not support them. His employment with the Linus Pauling Institute ended in discord and he sued the institute for interfering with his business activities.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/12/matthiasrath.southafrica</ref>
 ==The case Dominik Feld==

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 ,000 persons are said to die from AIDS in South Africa every day. Hogan also promised to see to the prohibition of vitamin treatments of HIV positive persons. This refered to the business activities of Rath, amongst others, who had enforced advertising campaigns for his vitamin treatments in South Africa for years. Already in 2005, WHO and UNICEF had cautioned against this method of treating AIDS.<ref>http://data.unaids.org/Media/Press-Statements01/ps_rath_30mar05_en.pdf</ref><ref>http://data.unaids.org/Media/Press-Releases03/pr_rath_11may05_en.pdf</ref><ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20071020134733/http://www.gwup.org/aktuell/news.php?aktion=detail&id=271</ref>
-This new South African Health policy ended a ten year era of [[HIV/AIDS Denialism]] which was maintained by the former president Thabo Mbeki and his Minister of Health Manto Tshabalala-Msimang.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thabo_Mbeki#AIDS</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_South_Africa</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/17/mbeki-south-africa-aids</ref> Tshabalala-Msimang became known as Dr.&nbsp;Garlic because she propagated treating AIDS patients with [[garlic]], beetroot, and olive oil instead of antiretroviral pharmaceuticals.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5319680.stm</ref> When the new SA president Kgalema Motlanthe took office, he displaced Tshabalala-Msimang and transfered her to a less important position in his cabinet. AIDS activists celebrated this with a party in front of the parliament. Tshabalala-Msimang was blamed for having caused the death of hundreds of thousands of AIDS victims.
+This new South African Health policy ended a ten year era of [[HIV/AIDS denialism]] which was maintained by the former president Thabo Mbeki and his Minister of Health Manto Tshabalala-Msimang.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thabo_Mbeki#AIDS</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_South_Africa</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/17/mbeki-south-africa-aids</ref> Tshabalala-Msimang became known as Dr.&nbsp;Garlic because she propagated treating AIDS patients with [[garlic]], beetroot, and olive oil instead of antiretroviral pharmaceuticals.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5319680.stm</ref> When the new SA president Kgalema Motlanthe took office, he displaced Tshabalala-Msimang and transfered her to a less important position in his cabinet. AIDS activists celebrated this with a party in front of the parliament. Tshabalala-Msimang was blamed for having caused the death of hundreds of thousands of AIDS victims.
 '''Aftermath:''' The rejection of effective AIDS therapies in South Africa has caused the avoidable death of 330,000 AIDS victims between 2000 and 2005.<ref>http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/researchers-estimate-lives-lost-delay-arv-drug-use-hivaids-south-africa.html</ref><ref>http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/news/news.asp?id=34133</ref> According to a study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, a further 35,000 newborns were infected because they were denied prophylaxis with Nevirapin.<ref>Pride Chigwedere, George R Seage III, Sofia Gruskin, Tun-Hou Lee, Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa.JAIDS 2008 doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31818a6cd5 Online: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2008/11/26/harvard-universityreport.pdf</ref> In 2000, pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim offered to supply the medicament Nevirapin free of charge to avoid mother-child infection, but the offer was dismissed. Only two pilot projects were permitted. Furthermore, donations by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tubercolosis and Malaria for the province KwaZulu Natal were blocked for more than a year according to Pride Chigwedere, who had treated HIV patients in Simbabwe prior to his occupation with the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:34, 22 May 2011
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.

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 ,000 persons are said to die from AIDS in South Africa every day. Hogan also promised to see to the prohibition of vitamin treatments of HIV positive persons. This refered to the business activities of Rath, amongst others, who had enforced advertising campaigns for his vitamin treatments in South Africa for years. Already in 2005, WHO and UNICEF had cautioned against this method of treating AIDS.<ref>http://data.unaids.org/Media/Press-Statements01/ps_rath_30mar05_en.pdf</ref><ref>http://data.unaids.org/Media/Press-Releases03/pr_rath_11may05_en.pdf</ref><ref>http://web.archive.org/web/20071020134733/http://www.gwup.org/aktuell/news.php?aktion=detail&id=271</ref>
-This new South African Health policy ended a ten year era of [[HIV/AIDS denial]] which was maintained by the former president Thabo Mbeki and his Minister of Health Manto Tshabalala-Msimang.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thabo_Mbeki#AIDS</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_South_Africa</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/17/mbeki-south-africa-aids</ref> Tshabalala-Msimang became known as Dr.&nbsp;Garlic because she propagated treating AIDS patients with [[garlic]], beetroot, and olive oil instead of antiretroviral pharmaceuticals.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5319680.stm</ref> When the new SA president Kgalema Motlanthe took office, he displaced Tshabalala-Msimang and transfered her to a less important position in his cabinet. AIDS activists celebrated this with a party in front of the parliament. Tshabalala-Msimang was blamed for having caused the death of hundreds of thousands of AIDS victims.
+This new South African Health policy ended a ten year era of [[HIV/AIDS Denialism]] which was maintained by the former president Thabo Mbeki and his Minister of Health Manto Tshabalala-Msimang.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thabo_Mbeki#AIDS</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS_in_South_Africa</ref><ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/17/mbeki-south-africa-aids</ref> Tshabalala-Msimang became known as Dr.&nbsp;Garlic because she propagated treating AIDS patients with [[garlic]], beetroot, and olive oil instead of antiretroviral pharmaceuticals.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5319680.stm</ref> When the new SA president Kgalema Motlanthe took office, he displaced Tshabalala-Msimang and transfered her to a less important position in his cabinet. AIDS activists celebrated this with a party in front of the parliament. Tshabalala-Msimang was blamed for having caused the death of hundreds of thousands of AIDS victims.
 '''Aftermath:''' The rejection of effective AIDS therapies in South Africa has caused the avoidable death of 330,000 AIDS victims between 2000 and 2005.<ref>http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2008-releases/researchers-estimate-lives-lost-delay-arv-drug-use-hivaids-south-africa.html</ref><ref>http://www.aerzteblatt.de/v4/news/news.asp?id=34133</ref> According to a study published in the Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, a further 35,000 newborns were infected because they were denied prophylaxis with Nevirapin.<ref>Pride Chigwedere, George R Seage III, Sofia Gruskin, Tun-Hou Lee, Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa.JAIDS 2008 doi: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31818a6cd5 Online: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2008/11/26/harvard-universityreport.pdf</ref> In 2000, pharmaceutical company Boehringer Ingelheim offered to supply the medicament Nevirapin free of charge to avoid mother-child infection, but the offer was dismissed. Only two pilot projects were permitted. Furthermore, donations by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tubercolosis and Malaria for the province KwaZulu Natal were blocked for more than a year according to Pride Chigwedere, who had treated HIV patients in Simbabwe prior to his occupation with the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 In June 2005, the Dr.&nbsp;Rath Health Foundation established a small political party by the name of ''Allianz für Gesundheit, Frieden und soziale Gerechtigkeit''(Alliance for Health, Freedom and Social Justice) (AGFG) in Germany which is headed by Rath's PR manager Lutz Kliche. Rath used to be a vice chairman initially.
-Core of the party platform are hypotheses of [[cellular medicine]] in combination with Rath's far-reaching [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]]. He views the denial of admission for his products as proof of a so-called "Pharma Dictatorship" which controled politicians and scientists all over the world and acted as a puppet master. On his website and in leaflets, he contends "the pharma cartel declared war on health and life of the entire mankind". He further insinuates that "vitamins and other naturopathic medicines" were suppressed and defamed out of greed, to sell "ineffective drugs" which just treated the symptoms to earn more money at the expense of customers. Excerpts from professional articles, leaflets, and news items are presented in the way of ostensible proof.
+Core of the party platform are hypotheses of [[cellular medicine]] in combination with Rath's far-reaching [[Conspiracy Theory|conspiracy theories]]. He views the denial of admission for his products as proof of a so-called "Pharma Dictatorship" which controled politicians and scientists all over the world and acted as a puppet master. On his website and in leaflets, he contends "the pharma cartel declared war on health and life of the entire mankind". He further insinuates that "vitamins and other naturopathic medicines" were suppressed and defamed out of greed, to sell "ineffective drugs" which just treated the symptoms to earn more money at the expense of customers. Excerpts from professional articles, leaflets, and news items are presented in the way of ostensible proof.
 This aggressive strategy was prohibited by court order in 1998. In the reasons for the judgment, the court of Berlin stated:

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:09, 10 March 2011
Line 89:		Line 89:


−	==~~Versions of this article in other languages==~~	+	{{OtherLang\|ge=Matthias Rath\|en=Matthias Rath}}
−	*deutsch: [http://www.psiram.com/ge/index.php?title=Matthias_Rath Matthis Rath]

	==Weblinks==		==Weblinks==

@@ Line 112: / Line 112: @@
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Rath
 * http://skepdic.com/rath.html
-* http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/#more-1088 und [http://badscience.net/files/The-Doctor-Will-Sue-You-Now.pdf]
+* http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/#more-1088 and [http://badscience.net/files/The-Doctor-Will-Sue-You-Now.pdf]
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/12/matthiasrath.aids
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/12/matthiasrath.aids1

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 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, 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==