Editing Matthias Rath (section)

==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] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080616022015/http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=785054 |date=16 June 2008 }}. Retrieved 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] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061114071021/http://www.numico.com/NR/rdonlyres/9AE781C8-31EB-4D5D-AF55-20476B5B340C/273/CaseDrRath151100.pdf |date=14 November 2006 }} for defamation. Retrieved 19 September 2006.</ref>
*In 2002, the British [[Advertising Standards Authority (United Kingdom)|Advertising Standards Authority]] found that advertisements by Rath contained a series of [[false advertising|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] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061009021300/http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/Court_Cases/Rath/BritishASARulingAgainstRath.pdf |date=9 October 2006 }} against Matthias Rath for false and misleading advertising. Retrieved 19 September 2006.</ref>
*In 2002, the United States [[Food and Drug Administration]] notified Rath that he was promoting his vitamin 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>[https://web.archive.org/web/20030608222334/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. Retrieved 19 September 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'] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080623232422/http://www.aegis.org/news/dmg/2005/mg050807.html |date=23 June 2008 }}, by Elvira van Noort. Published in the ''[[Mail & Guardian]]'' on 30 August 2005. Retrieved 9 May 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>"Dr Rath Health Foundation / TAC / 1861", (9 Mar 2005). ''Advertising Standards Association of South Africa''</ref>
*In 2006, the [[High Court of South Africa]] found that Rath had defamed the [[Treatment Action Campaign]] (TAC), an AIDS nonprofit organisation, 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] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061009021224/http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/Court_Cases/Rath/JudgmentTACvRath-20060303.pdf |date=9 October 2006 }} ordering Rath to cease making defamatory and unfounded allegations against the Treatment Action Campaign. Retrieved 19 September 2006.</ref>
*In 2006, the 22 July issue of the ''[[British Medical Journal]]'' (BMJ) reported that Rath had gone on trial in Hamburg "for fraud" in relation to the death of Dominik Feld. The BMJ subsequently retracted its report "on legal advice" and apologised 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. Retrieved 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.’] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080304190940/http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=37846&c=1 |date=4 March 2008 }} Press Gazette magazine. Published 5 June 2007. Retrieved 10 April 2008.</ref>
*In 2006, Rath was prosecuted in Germany for distributing vitamins over the internet without a pharmaceutical licence, and for claiming on his 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://www.mopo.de/news/vor-gericht-vitamin-arzt-rath-muss-33000-euro-zahlen,5066732,5730210.html Vitamin-Arzt Rath muss 33000 Euro zahlen]</ref>
*In 2007, the [[German Federal Constitutional Court]] issued a ruling in favour of Rath, finding that the prohibition of the brochure and poster "Stop the pharmacartel" and "Stop the [[Codex Alimentarius|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.]{{dead link|date=January 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} Published 2007. Retrieved 16 April 2008.</ref>
*In 2008, the [[Law of South Africa#Court system in South Africa|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>{{cite news |url=http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=nw20080613124210476C691501 |title=TAC hails ruling on Rath|date=13 June 2008 |work=IOL News }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Debunking Delusions: The Inside Story of the Treatment Action Campaign |author=Nathan Geffen |publisher=Jacana Media |year=2010 |isbn=978-1-77009-781-0 |pages=164–7 }}</ref>
*In 2008 Rath sued [[Ben Goldacre]] and ''The Guardian'' for libel in three articles describing Rath's activities in South Africa.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jan/20/southafrica.aids |title=No way to treat an Aids hero |last=Goldacre |first=Ben |date=20 January 2007 |accessdate=5 July 2008 |location=London |work=The Guardian}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/jan/27/aids.badscience |title=Gambia's president may be weird, but Aids superstitions strike closer to home |work=The Guardian |date=27 January 2007 |accessdate=30 July 2008 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/feb/17/badscience.uknews |title=How money is not the only barrier to Aids patients getting hold of drugs |work=The Guardian |date=17 February 2007 |accessdate=30 July 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 [[AIDS denialism]] in general, based on material that 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 12 September 2008. Retrieved 20 September 2008</ref> A chapter about Rath in Goldacre's [[Bad Science (Goldacre book)|''Bad Science'']] that was omitted from the first edition due to the litigation was reinstated in the paperback edition in early 2009, made available on his website, and [[Creative Commons|licensed for free distribution]].[http://badscience.net/files/The-Doctor-Will-Sue-You-Now.pdf]