[afro-nets] TAC Briefing: The harmful activities of Matthias Rath

[Gregg Gonsalves <Greggg@GMHC.org>]

TAC Briefing: The harmful activities of Matthias Rath
-----------------------------------------------------
(Also see below: Rath's false allegations against TAC)


Defend science, Defend government's antiretroviral programme

18 April, 2005

The last few months have seen an unprecedented and deliberate
smear campaign against the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) [in
South Africa] and its members, as well as the Medicines Control
Council. However, the real aim of these attacks is to reinvent
HIV denialism and to undermine the treatment of people who need
antiretrovirals (ARVs).

Although, this is a frustrating side-show to our work of treat-
ment literacy, reducing medicine prices and improving health fa-
cilities, it is important. About 500,000 people need treatment
with ARVs. Fewer than 100,000 people have access. This deliber-
ate confusion is a direct attack on the public health message -
get tested, get treated and always use condoms for sex. The Rath
Foundation is preying on vulnerable people with life-threatening
illnesses with two aims: to sell their products and to support
the HIV denialists who have caused enormous damage to our coun-
try.

TAC has evidence that Matthias Rath runs unregistered medical
practices in Cape Town townships and conducts unauthorised, un-
ethical and dangerous experiments on people with HIV. Yet gov-
ernment has failed to stop him.


A defamation campaign to market vitamins

Matthias Rath, a wealthy vitamin salesman, began an advertising
campaign in South African newspapers over a year ago. His adver-
tisements claim Rath is a scientist who discovered natural
health solutions to health problems. They also defamed the Medi-
cines Control Council (MCC), accusing it of being a front for
the pharmaceutical industry because it aimed to regulate the
safety and efficacy of complementary and traditional medicines.
As the year progressed, Rath's advertisements became more outra-
geous. He eventually began claiming that antiretrovirals for
treating AIDS were toxic and that multivitamins are a treatment
for AIDS.

Consequently, TAC and a private individual, George Stacey,
lodged a complaint against Rath with the Advertising Standards
Authority of South Africa (ASASA) against Rath's false claims.
Rath proceeded to run defamatory attacks on TAC, accusing us of
being a drug company front and paying people to demonstrate.
ASASA ruled that Rath's claims were unsubstantiated and must be
withdrawn. Rath then ran adverts in Sowetan and other newspapers
defaming ASASA, accusing it also of being a drug company front.
Most of these adverts continued defaming TAC. Rath and the news-
papers that run these adverts are in breach of ASASA's ruling.
Furthermore, Rath continues to spread these defamatory attacks
via pamphlets and posters in the Western Cape, as well as on the
Internet.

Rath's defamation campaign and vindictive pamphlets and posters
which contain numerous false claims are causing confusion in
communities and support groups of people living with HIV/AIDS.
TAC members are expressing concern that people who need to com-
mence antiretroviral treatment are reluctant to start and people
on antiretroviral treatment might not adhere.

The WHO, UNICEF and UNAIDS have condemned Rath's misrepresenta-
tions of their advice on nutrition. In a new pamphlet distrib-
uted on 16 April in Khayelithsa and on his website, Rath accuses
"drug interests within the WHO and other UN bodies" of "directly
attacking" his foundation's "groundbreaking work".

Rath's strategy is to defame anyone who points out his marketing
strategy and lies. Usually he accuses them of being a drug com-
pany front. Ironically, his multivitamin prices, as sold on the
Internet, are extortionate. His basic vitamin tablets cost US$
29.95 (ZAR 180) per month. The more expensive combinations of
tablets can cost up to ZAR 3,500 per month. By comparison, local
pharmacies sell an expensive brand-name multivitamin product at
ZAR 62 per month.

TAC would not ever wish to limit the right to free expression
and fair comment in our society. We have relied on freedom of
expression rights to carry out our work. We encourage full dis-
cussion on the risks and benefits of antiretrovirals. However,
the right to free expression and fair comment does not include
the right to defame other persons, and particularly not in an
inflammatory and inciting manner.


Illegal Medical Practices

The purpose of these defamatory attacks is to market Rath's vi-
tamin brands. He has established facilities in Khayelitsha,
Nyanga and Mandela Park (Hout Bay) where people purporting to be
doctors distribute his multivitamins in his name. TAC confirmed
that Rath is not registered with the Health Professionals Coun-
cil of South Africa (HPCSA) and therefore it is illegal for Rath
to run this practice.


False Claims

In treating patients, Rath's agents claim that antiretrovirals
should not be taken and that multivitamins are a treatment for
HIV/AIDS. This is clear from his advertisements, and from the
affidavit given to the HPCSA. This is a breach of the Medicines
Act.


Illegal Experiments on People

TAC has handed the Health Professions Council of South Africa
and the police an affidavit with evidence that Rath is conduct-
ing experiments on people. An advert placed in The Mercury on 15
April and a pamphlet distributed at a meeting addressed by the
Minister of Health in Khayelitsha on 16 April provides further
evidence that experimentation has taken place. Either Rath does
not have permission to conduct these experiments from the MCC or
the MCC has acted illegally by giving him permission. It is our
strong suspicion that the former is the case. Implicated in this
scandal are AIDS denialists Sam Mhlongo and David Rasnick. The
Mercury confirmed in a telephone conversation with TAC that they
had confirmed with Rasnick and Mhlongo that they were involved
in this experiment. TAC has obtained samples of Rath's multivi-
tamins. They are marketed so that a reasonable patient would be-
lieve them to be medicines in replacement of approved antiretro-
viral medication, not as food supplements, and some of his
brands only contain German descriptions of their contents.


Dangerous and unethical treatment of patients

Rath and his agents are acting dangerously and unethically for
the following reasons:

* He and his agents are providing patients with false medical
advice that could lead to them not taking antiretrovirals when
they require them and consequently they could die.

* Assuming Rath's products contain what they state, he is pre-
scribing some vitamins in excess of their recommended daily al-
lowance (RDA), and vitamin C far beyond safe levels. According
to the US National Institutes for Health (NIH), amounts greater
than 2,000 mg per day cause diarrhoea. Rath has prescribed the
affidavit deponents more than twice this limit. While diarrhoea
might be a relatively minor ailment in otherwise healthy people,
it is life-threatening for people with advanced HIV disease.

* Multivitamin supplements are supplied to people with HIV in
the public health sector for free. This is because there is some
evidence that they delay the onset of AIDS. There is no reason
for Rath to establish separate vitamin dispensing depots in
townships in order to use poor people for his marketing cam-
paign.

Rath's agents draw blood from patients and take photographs of
them in their underwear, apparently for use in his marketing. No
proper counselling is accompanied with these actions. No proper
informed consent is given.


Rulings and findings against Rath

Rath has numerous rulings and findings against him in South Af-
rica, Europe and North America

* The Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa has or-
dered Rath to withdraw his unsubstantiated claims. The British
Advertising Standards Authority has forced Rath to remove his
advertising for treatments as they were unsupported by evidence
and misled the public. (f. 2) The Food and Drug Administration
in the USA has cautioned Rath for advertising some of his prod-
ucts in contravention of US law. (f. 3)

* The South African Medical Association, the Southern African
HIV Clinicians Society, UNAIDS, WHO and UNICEF have condemned
Rath's misrepresentations. The Western Cape Government has is-
sued a condemnation of people undermining the antiretroviral
rollout which, without mentioning his name, is clearly aimed at
Rath. (f. 4)

* The Swiss Study Group for Complementary and Alternative Meth-
ods in Cancer have found no proof that any of Rath's products
have any impact upon human cancer. (f. 5) A British Medical
Journal article has examined the claims made about one of Rath's
products and found no evidence to support them. (f. 6)

* Rath was ordered by a Dutch court to stop making improper al-
legations against a company called Numico. (f. 7)

* Rath is being investigated in Germany in connection with the
death of a boy. The boy had cancer but was taken off chemother-
apy and treated by Rath with multivitamins. Rath used the boy to
market his medicines. The boy subsequently died. (f. 8)


Institutional failure to deal with Rath

TAC has lodged complaints against Rath's activities with ASASA,
the Health Professionals Council of South Africa (HPCSA) and the
Medicines Control Council (MCC). Only ASASA has consistently
fulfilled its mandate. The HPCSA has laid a charge against Rath
with the police, but the case is not moving forward. The MCC has
failed to answer in writing two lawyers letters written by TAC
requesting that they take action against Rath. In a number of
telephone conversations between MCC and TAC, no clear commitment
to action has been taken. A written response was promised by an
MCC lawyer, but seems to be stuck in the registrar's office.

Rath can act with impunity because an environment has been cre-
ated that sanctions AIDS denialism and quackery. The Minister of
Health, in contradiction of ANC and government policy, was
quoted supporting Rath in Business Day (f. 9). At a meeting in
Khayelitsha on 16 April, she was asked by dozens of members of
the Khayelitsha community to condemn Rath. She refused to do so.
We are sure that if government unequivocally condemned Rath and
appropriate action was taken against him, his activities would
cease and he would become irrelevant. The MCC proceeded to liti-
gate against Rath (f. 10), but it was alleged to TAC by an MCC
member that they were stopped from continuing litigation by the
Minister of Health.

The overt support of Rath by some in SANCO, NAPWA and the Tradi-
tional Healers' Organisation demonstrates that there is an alli-
ance to undermine TAC and government's antiretroviral programme.
Anthony Brink the denialist who claims to have the support of
President Mbeki and Minister Tshabalala-Msimang.

TAC is litigating to stop Rath's defaming us. We have taken ac-
tion to stop his unethical medical practices. If the MCC and
HPCSA fail to close down Rath's medical activities by 27 April,
TAC will proceed with further litigation to do so.


Footnotes

1 Some of the affidavits are presented here anonymously although
the deponents have not requested this. However, TAC believes it
is prudent to withhold their names until papers are filed.

2 
http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=30238&from_index=by_sector&dates_of_adjudications_id=all

3 http://www.fda.gov/cder/warn/cyber/2002/CFSANvitacor.htm

4 http://www.tac.org.za/newsletter/2005/ns23_03_2005.htm
and http://www.tac.org.za/news/ns010405.htm

5 http://www.swisscancer.ch/dt_fr/content/orange/pdf/skak/04_rath_e.pdf

6 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/317/7165/1069
and BMJ 1998;317:1069-1071

7 http://www.report-scams.cc/MLMAdv25.htm

8
http://www.swr.de/report/archiv/sendungen/041115/02/frames.html
and
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/true_story_dominik.htm 
l

9 Business Day, 13 April 2005.

10 http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org.za/press_release/p2_18oct04.html

[END OF PRESS STATEMENT ON RATH'S DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES]



Rath's false allegations against TAC

Rath and his agents allege that TAC is involved in money laun-
dering operations to receive drug company funds. Anyone who has
followed TAC's campaigns against the pharmaceutical industry
over the last six years will realise these allegations are ab-
surd. Rath also alleges that TAC pays people to demonstrate.
These allegations are false and defamatory.

False allegation: TAC receives "millions" from the Rockefeller
Foundation which is a pharmaceutical company front.

TAC has received less than ZAR 500,000 from the Rockefeller
foundation. But more importantly the Rockefeller foundation is
not a drug company front and Rath's pamphlets confuse the Rocke-
feller Foundation with the Rockefeller family's financial inter-
ests. The Rockefeller Foundation has an excellent reputation as
a funder of progressive health, food security and cultural pro-
jects. The Foundation's money is from the original corpus and
standard investments upon it. The original corpus was fully
funded in 1929! Numerous respectable organisations, including
the World Food Programme and Health Systems Trust accept money
from the Rockefeller Foundation.

False allegation: TAC was involved in a money laundering scheme
with the European Coalition of Positive People (ECPP) in order
to get drug company funding.

On 20 June 2000 TAC signed a funding contract with the ECPP for
ZAR 180,000. This was to fund a salary for our national co-
ordinator. The contract, which is in our court papers, states
that a condition of the TAC entering the funding arrangement is
that "No funding shall come from, directly or indirectly, from
any pharmaceutical company." The TAC only accepted ZAR 120,000
of the ECPP contract amount. This was because we became dissat-
isfied, after the arrangement was entered into, with the public
stance of the ECPP on access to affordable medicines. It became
apparent that this position differed significantly from ours. We
came to the view that the ECPP's position was too similar to
that of the pharmaceutical industry, which we opposed, and was a
policy position unlikely to lead to greater access to life-
saving medicines. We therefore declined to accept the remainder
of the grant from the ECCP, or to accept any further funds from
them. When our national co-ordinator resigned, TAC secretariat
member Mark Heywood informed the ECPP on behalf of the National
Executive Committee that the TAC would not be accepting the re-
mainder of the money. No evidence has ever been shown that this
money was from the pharmaceutical industry and TAC took reason-
able measures to ensure that it was free of drug company inter-
ests.

False allegation: TAC was involved in a money laundering scheme
with the Treatment Action Group (TAG) to get drug company money.

TAG, a US based treatment advocacy and education organisation,
does indeed take money from pharmaceutical companies. However,
it is aware of TAC's policy of not taking pharmaceutical money
and specifically raised money from the following sources to sup-
port a joint community treatment literacy programme with TAC:
NIH, Irene Diamond Fund, Royal S. Marks Foundation Fund, AIDS
Action Baltimore, and UNAIDS. None of these sources are known to
be drug company fronts.

False allegation: TAC receives drug company money through the
AIDS Foundation of South Africa.

The AIDS Foundation of South Africa raises money from numerous
sources to donate to different AIDS organisations. Its director,
Debbie Matthews, is aware of TAC's policy of not taking drug
money. The Foundation's sources for TAC funding are listed in an
affidavit by Matthews. None of these are known to be drug com-
pany fronts.

False allegation: TAC pays people to demonstrate.

This allegation is utterly vindictive. TAC has never paid anyone
to demonstrate. As is standard with most organisations involved
in public mobilisation in South Africa, we provide people with
basic refreshments (to prevent dehydration and illness while
marching) and transport.

[END OF RATH'S FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TAC]