Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
185 bytes added ,  15:24, 27 February 2011
m
Fixed citation
Line 88: Line 88:  
*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>
   −
*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"/> 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 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]
    
==Versions of this article in other languages==
 
==Versions of this article in other languages==
reviewer
820

edits

Navigation menu