[pronut-hiv] Matthias Rath continues to spread false allegations

["ProNut-HIV" <pronut-hiv@healthnet.org>]

Aidsmap

Matthias Rath continues to spread false allegations about South
Africa's Treatment Action Campaign despite high court ruling
against him

On March 3rd, the Cape High Court ruled unanimously in favour of the
Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) in a court case against the mega-dose
vitamin salesman Matthias Rath and his associates, ordering Rath to
desist from spreading spurious allegations about the activist group. In
response, and true to form, the Matthias Rath Foundation this week
flagrantly disregarded the High Court's verdict, issuing a press
release that claims not only to have won the case, but that the High
Court had actually agreed with all of Rath's false and malicious
statements about TAC, adding some new libel for good measure. 

Fighting for its reputation as well the lives of South Africans 
TAC brought the case to the court over eight months ago, because its
treatment literacy work with communities in South Africa was being
hindered by an ongoing smear campaign orchestrated by Rath. German-born
Rath operates primarily out of California and sells vitamins at
exhorbitant prices over the internet. But he has set up clinics in Cape
Town where he distributes potentially dangerous high doses of vitamins
in what TAC considers unlicensed clinical trials. He also runs a massive
advertising campaign in newspapers in South Africa, in which he claims
that his vitamin formulas are "natural" cures for AIDS and that
antiretroviral therapy is poison. 

After TAC lodged a complaint against Rath with the Advertising
Standards Authority of South Africa (ASASA), Rath began to attack TAC,
accusing the organisation of being a drug company front and paying
people to demonstrate. In addition to the newspaper ads, Rath spread
misinformation through pamphlets and posters in the Western Cape, as
well as on the internet, making numerous false claims, that according to
TAC press releases "are causing confusion in communities and support
groups of people living with HIV/AIDS," leading to a reluctance to start
or adhere to antiretroviral treatment. The Rath Foundation often takes
actual medical reports (including at least one story published on
aidsmap), and twists facts to make them appear to support his spurious
claims. 

Rath's campaign has done great harm among the vulnerable poor in a
country with a vacuum in government leadership in the fight against AIDS
in South Africa (with President Mbeki still studiously avoiding
admitting that he was wrong about HIV causing AIDS). The fact that the
Minister of Health has made statements that seem to blur the distinction
between sound nutrition research and policy with the dangerous
pseudo-science espoused by Rath and other AIDS denialists, has only made
matters worse. This is particularly galling because South Africa's
comprehensive plan for HIV & AIDS care already contains the best
available nutritional assistance, which South Africans with HIV can
freely receive. 

The judgement 
TAC's court case, which was supported by the South African Medical
Association (SAMA) was an urgent request for a temporary interdict to
stop the Rath Foundation's misinformation campaign, so it is
disappointing that it took the court eight months to reach its
judgement. Nevertheless, it is impossible to construe the judgement as
anything other than a victory for TAC. Some excerpts follow: 

"The evidence shows that as a matter of deliberate policy the applicant
[TAC] has not received money from drug companies either directly or
indirectly and it has implemented mechanisms to preclude any such
eventuality." (p. 14) 

"The TAC has strenuously campaigned and litigated against
pharmaceutical companies with substantial success. It is difficult to
understand why a front organisation would display such hostility towards
its principal." (p. 12) 

As a result of the interdict, Rath and his associates may no longer
claim that TAC is a front for or funded by the pharmaceutical industry
or that it receives funds from pharmaceutical front organisations in
return for promoting antiretroviral medicines or that it targets poor
communities as a market for the drug industry in order to promote the
interests of pharmaceutical companies. 

The reaction? 
In a statement that TAC's Nathan Geffen says is "so mad that it's
funny," the Rath Foundation asserts that the court reached exactly the
opposite conclusion, and that the court found all its libel about TAC to
be truthful. Furthermore, the statement asserts that "the democratically
elected government of South Africa is being forced by pressure groups -
largely financed by foreign money - to distribute toxic ARV drugs to
millions of AIDS patients... [and to] spread to disease and death among
the people." 

TAC has initiated further litigation which asserts that Rath has broken
the law by 1) establishing medical practices in Cape Town even though he
is unregistered with the Health Professions Council of South Africa; 2)
distributing unregistered medicines (at the doses he prescribes,
vitamins cannot be considered natural supplements); and that he has
conducted an experiment on humans, with AIDS denialists David Rasnick
and Sam Mhlongo, without Medicines Control Council approval. 

For more information of this ongoing saga see TAC's website.