Ben Goldacre versus Matthias Rath - Victory!
I am currently reading the excellent Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. If you want a taster I recommend this edited excerpt from The MMR Hoax that forms the penultimate chapter. This is not just about autism. Brain Gym, homeopathy, Gillian McKeith, Patrick Holford, fishoil - nearly all the usual suspects are featured. There is one glaring omission - Matthias Rath. This is the man who went to South Africa and persuaded people to switch from their anti-retroviral AIDS medication to his nutritional supplement, VitaCell. He was hoping to do a deal with the South African government whose presiedent, Thabo Mbeki, took the stance that poverty rather than HIV was the biggest factor in the AIDS epidemic in his country. He was supported by his health minister, Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang who blocked the supply of ARVs in favour of the healing properties of lemon, garlic and beetroot. Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang had previously met with Matthias Rath.
Ben Goldacre has written about Rath on his blog but some of the links are broken and Rath does not get a mention in Ben Goldacre’s book. Now we know why. For the last year Rath has been pursuing Ben Goldacre and the Guardian for libel. On Friday Ben Goldacre reported on his blog, Bad Science that
This libel case has drawn on for over a year, with the writ hanging both in my toilet, and over my head. Although fighting it has been fascinating, and in many respects a great pleasure, it has also taken a phenomenal amount of my time, entirely unpaid, to deal with it. For the duration of the case I have also been silenced on the serious issues that Rath’s activities raise, the chapter on his work was pulled from my book, and I have been unable to comment on his further movements around the world.
He also told us that Rath had finally dropped his case. So instead of a chapter, Rath will now be the subject of a book.
For my part, I will probably now write a swift book on Rath and South Africa, as a way to make all the fascinating extra information I’ve had to dredge through useful to others, and to try and recoup something so that my time was not wasted. It will be meticulously well referenced and carefully written.
Today it was front page news in the Guardian with extensive features inside. Two articles by Ben Goldacre and an excellent leader article. Full marks to the Guardian for backing Ben Goldacre. They have been awarded interim costs of £220,000 and will be pursuing Rath for the rest of the estimated half a million pounds it has cost them to defend this action. Let us hope that the damage to his reputation and his wallet will make him less of a threat to human health. Just how reprehensible Matthias Rath is can be judged by these witness statements from South Africa also published by the Guardian today. Here is one testimony to Rath’s crimes.
Mandla Majola is the coordinator of the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) in Khayelitsha, a township outside Cape Town. TAC educates people about HIV and Aids:
“Matthias Rath arrived in Khayelitsha in around 2005. He opened three offices where his vitamins were distributed from. Posters were put up on the bridge, at the taxi rank and bus and train stations. The people’s understanding of Rath’s message was that antiretrovirals (ARVs) were toxic and that he was encouraging people not to take them, but to take his vitamins instead. They also understood him to be saying that his multivitamins were a cure for HIV. The posters with his messages confused people. People who were sick, but had not yet started taking ARVs became reluctant to start and others stopped the regimen. I am aware of many cases of people who have been confused by Rath and Sanco and who have lost their lives because of them.”
The Guardian also features another hero in this case, veteran anti-apartheid campaigner and HIV positive Zackie Achmat who founded the Treatment Action Campaign.
And just to bring this back on topic does anyone remember Jaquelyn McCandless MD, the retired sex therapist who became an autism expert when her granddaughter was diagnosed and is now a DAN! practitioner and author of the book, Children with Starving Brains? She has also been busy in Africa recruiting HIV positive women for a “study” into the effects of low dose naltrexone on AIDS. Two years ago she was in Liberia but that cannot have worked out because the study has moved to Mali.
Naltrexone is a recognized treatment for alcohol and drug abuse and according to Wikipedia has also been suggested as a treatment for erectile dysfunction in men and smoking in women and Crohn’s disease. Low dose Naltrexone has also been suggested for multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, cancer, autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or ankylosing spondylitis, and central nervous system disorders. And it has also been suggested as a treatment for, you’ve guessed it, Autism.
Another brave maverick doctor with a quack cure for everything heads for Africa. I wonder if Ben Goldacre wants to write another book.

Comment by isles | September 14th, 2008
Congratulations to Mr. Goldacre!
Do US readers need to order through amazon.co.uk, or will Bad Science eventually turn up on amazon.com?
Comment by Mike | September 14th, 2008
The book is half price on Amazon UK, so even with the postage to America it could be a bargain. Or you could write to Ben: bad.science@guardian.co.uk
BTW, on a minor point of information, it is Dr Goldacre not Mr. He works full time in the National Health Service as well as writing for the Guardian. Unlike the purveyors of quackery he does not use his medical qualifications to inflate his authority.
Pingback by One small additional reason to despise Matthias Rath: he sues over good, honest journalism « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science | September 14th, 2008
[...] 6: Now Action for Autism has also blogged about Matthias Rath, as has Black Triangle. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)When an IT department is [...]
Comment by AoA Quoter | September 15th, 2008
Glad to hear that someone on another front is standing up to quacks and charlatans that use confusing language and lack of evidence for their own profit versus the good of the many.