Mr Tatchell’s home page link on “AIDS” is
http://www.petertatchell.net/AIDS/aids%20alternative%20therapies%20index.htm
and contains five articles, one of which is about positive thinking and another, from April 2001, possibly frivolous in intention as well as effect, demands that gay and AIDS societies must campaign for legalisation of cannabis. This is mostly because “it’s fun and it’s good for you”, specifically that “Research in the 1990s by Dr Lester Grinspoon at Harvard Medical School in the US shows that cannabis enables HIV-positive people to cope better with the stress of diagnosis and, by stimulating their appetite, reduces weight loss. It can also relieve the nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea often associated with HIV illnesses and combination therapy.” If this is not either bollocks or inferior to legally available treatments for the effects described then I will owe Mr Tatchell some kind of apology, but as it is I think he may take Dr Rath’s side in the argument.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/356/14/1423

Vitamins and Perinatal Outcomes among HIV-Negative Women in Tanzania
Wafaie W. Fawzi, M.B., B.S., Dr.Ph., Gernard I. Msamanga, M.D., Sc.D., Willy Urassa, M.D., Ph.D., Ellen Hertzmark, M.S., Paul Petraro, M.P.H., Walter C. Willett, M.D., Dr.P.H., and Donna Spiegelman, Sc.D.
ABSTRACT
Background Prematurity and low birth weight are associated with high perinatal and infant mortality, especially in developing countries. Maternal micronutrient deficiencies may contribute to these adverse outcomes.
Methods In a double-blind trial in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, we randomly assigned 8468 pregnant women (gestational age of fetus, 12 to 27 weeks) who were negative for human immunodeficiency virus infection to receive daily multivitamins (including multiples of the recommended dietary allowance) or placebo. All the women received prenatal supplemental iron and folic acid. The primary outcomes were low birth weight (

He doesn’t want them to die of AIDS: he wants their money.

Let us examine the facts, M’lud.

It has been linked to already, and paraphrased, but in case anyone didn’t bother reading, here is the actual text of the BMJ’s apology to Matthias Rath:

———————————————————–

Dr Matthias Rath: an apology

In a news item published in the 22 July 2006 issue of the BMJ (2006;333:166) and on the bmj.com website, it was reported that Dr Matthias Rath had gone on trial in Hamburg “for fraud.” In this context we suggested that Dr Rath stood accused of the serious crime of fraud in relation to the death in 2004 of Dominik Feld, a 9 year old boy with bone cancer; that he was culpably responsible for Dominik Feld’s death; and, in particular, that he had improperly pressured Dominik Feld’s parents into refusing to allow hospital doctors to amputate the boy’s infected leg in an effort to save him.

We now accept that the allegations we published were without foundation, and in the circumstances the BMJ wishes to set the record straight and to apologise to Dr Rath for publishing these allegations.

————————————————————————————-

So: the apology relates to a small number of specific and very serious allegations about Rath’s actions in the Dominik Feld case. The BMJ said Rath was being prosecuted for fraud and serious professional misconduct; they got the facts wrong; Rath sued and the BMJ settled for, I guess, Rath’s legal costs plus some damages.

Note: NOTHING there with any direct relevance to the credibility (or otherwise) of Vitamin C as an HIV therapy, Rath’s claims about vitamins, HIV, antiretrovirals, etc. etc. None of these things were at issue. If the libel case had been heard, these “wider issues” would never have been discussed as they would not have been relevant to the matters of fact of the case – i.e. were the specific statements in the original (now removed) BMJ article factually correct, or weren’t they? And if incorrect, were they libellous and damaging to Rath?

Now read the truly bizarre waffle relating to this in the Rath Foundation Website flyer linked to above:

————————————————————————————-

www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/pdf-files/future-london-march07.pdf

“In an open letter to Fiona Godlee, Dr Rath challenged the BMJ to clarify this important
issue ["the scientifically established facts about the health benefits of vitamins"] in court. Apparently in fear of such a hearing and the inevitable public debate, the BMJ applied the emergency brake. On February 15th, 2007 the court heard a motion filed by the BMJ that they be allowed to pay the staggering amount of £100,000 as damages for the defamatory statements they had published about Dr Rath. In return, the BMJ would avoid having to meet this pioneer of vitamin research in court and inevitably stand a comparison of the value of pharmaceutical drugs versus science-based natural health approaches.

Apparently the BMJ was afraid of the scientific truth.

THE DRUG INDUSTRY’S “WATERLOO”

With this move, the BMJ and pharmaceutically-oriented medicine, had just suffered a
“Waterloo” and revealed to the entire world that their claimed monopoly based on
patented pharmaceutical drugs was no longer defensible. On that day, after decades
of being neglected for their non-patentability, vitamins and other science-based natural health approaches reclaimed their rightful place in medicine. The BMJ and the pharmaceutical “gorilla” were running out of options.”

—————————————————————

You see how very easy it is to reach for the phrase “messianic delusions”…

Anyway, comparing these two pieces of writing shows us that Rath and his supporters are claiming, ludicrously, that the court case was actually going to be about the “vitamins vs medicines” issue – a breathtaking piece of sleight-of-hand. The Rath-ies are also using the judgement as a blanket “all my statements about vitamin treatments have now been vindicated ” sticker. (They haven’t).

It would be laughable if it didn’t seem that so many people in the Alt.Nutri-verse wanted to believe this fiction. Of course, claiming to have been “wholly and unversally vindicated” when a legal judgement relates to one very specific thing is an old tactic of blusterers of all stripes – Lord Archer springs to mind.

PS The Rath Foundation flyer is a truly riveting read, if you’ve got a few minutes – sort of “The Sun” for Vitamin Nuts. I can only presume that, following the BMJ’s cock-up, Patrick H and the rest of the Natural Health crew now see Rath as a sort of Shining Knight in Armour “slaying the dragon of pharmaceutical orthodoxy”. Their persecution complex is reaching alarming proportions if they are prepared to see someone as discredited as Rath as a saviour.

A final random thought – the whole Rath London event sounds rather like one of those Christian evangelist revival meetings. Is Matthias Rath the Billy Graham of Vitamin Peddling?

His comments do show just how far the deranged “legend” promulgated by the Nutri-gang about anti-HIV triple therapy has penetrated, though. We are all aware of examples of drugs which are often barely effective above placebo being relentlessly marketed (examples passim), but anti-retroviral therapy for the HIV-positive is NOT one of them. Everything I have ever read on this subject leads me to conclude that the triple therapy anti-retroviral (ARV) cocktails represent one of the greatest pharmaceutical achievements of the last half-century, and have saved (in the sense of “prolonged with acceptable quality of life”) countless lives of HIV-positive people – see Ben’s CDC graph above. Sure, the ARVs have nasty side-effects, but not dying a grim death from an AIDS-related illness is a hell of an upside.

I like to trash the Pharma greedheads and pill-peddlers as much as the next man, but their dirty tricks vis-a-vis ARVs relate to the way they initially displayed reluctance to cut the prices for the 3rd world. Which is also, NB, one of those examples in which collective shaming of the companies by citizen activism did real good – at least some of the “access vs. profit” issues have been surmounted after the PharmaCos saw the shitstorm of moral opprobium and bad PR they would bring on themselves if they stuck to maximizing corporate profits at the expense of millions dead in Africa.

Apart from anything else, the lives saved in the African context are hugely significant because you are often talking young people (20s and 30s) with families in their primary working and child-raising years. The impact on their lives and their kids’ lives of staying in good enough health to work and support their children through to adulthood are incalculable. Not to mention that treating pregnant HIV-positive women with ARVs usually prevents virus transmission to their unborn children.

So the ARVs may not be a “cure” for HIV/AIDS, but they’ll do until one comes along.

And anyone who thinks high-dose Vitamin C or some other cocktail of antioxidants is going to substitute for antiviral therapy is clearly on drugs of the hallucinogenic variety. Or in Rath’s case high on his own messianic delusions.

one reason why Rath attracts so much contempt is the fact that he lies to persuade people to buy his supplements. He lies about the purposes of the Treatment Action Campaign. He lies about the outcome of a court case between him and TAC. The only question in my mind is whether he is deluded enough to believe what he says, or whether he *wants* black Africans to die of AIDS.

March 30, 2007 at 10:08 pm
“Um, long time reader first time writer. And unfortunately I don’t agree with you all. Rath may not have a cure for AIDs but neither does conventional science. All I’m reading here is a lot of fury about a man who promises a cure but doesn’t deliver, just like conventiojnal science really. The only difference is that Rath’s alleged cure is cheaper.”

Firstly, what on earth do you mean by “conventional” science? Is there any other kind of science? I’m tempted to ask if you actually know what science is.
Secondly, kindly provide references or links to any “conventional” scientific study or report claiming a cure for AIDS/HIV.
Thirdly, whether you like it or not, science is humankind’s single greatest achievement and, almost certainly, our only hope for survival. If you prefer voodoo, witch doctors or intercessory prayer then good luck to you.

There is no evidence of similar quality re. Rath’s multi-vitamin treatments. There’s plenty of anecdotal ‘evidence’ of people dying of AIDS while using his multivitamins, but there aren’t reliable studies. Nonetheless, Rath continues to push his own pills while campaigning against treatments that have been shown to be effective.

To add insult to injury, I’m not convinced that Rath’s vitamins are cheaper than ART. South African manufacture of generics should allow the use of pills costing about $1/day (http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=51370). Treatment Action Campaign list Rath’s multivitamins as ranging from about R180/month ($29.95) to R3,500 – depending which regime you use (http://www.tac.org.za/newsletter/2005/ns19_04_2005.htm). It therefore looks like Rath’s treatments can therefore actually be more expensive than ART, or at least first-line ART (and that’s before you take into account the additional cost of unnecessary transmission of HIV from mum to baby, people dying unnecessarily early, etc).

Absolutely – I’ll wave my proverbial torch. In the case of Rath, I think there’s good reason to do so.

but out of interest, what would you say happened in 1995?

I’d also like to see the studies that prove his vitamin combination doesn’t work. We have plenty of those for any number of anti-HIV drugs after all.

And make no mistake I have no doubt his cure doesn’t work but all I’m seeing here is a bunch of villagers waving torches because he doesn’t have the decency to charge 100 times as much for his “non-cure”. When we have a cure for AIDs I’ll come back and edit this comment. Though I probably only have another 40 years in me so you’ll forgive me if I’m dead before then.

And no, alas, I wasn’t the joker…

Ken

Or – rewrite it in plainer English, so that what he’s saying becomes all the more horribly clear.

Printing costs shouldn’t be too high if we all promise to buy a set. Maybe we should keep the cards handy and give them to the appropriate quack, should we ever meet them.

This leads to the question what the categories should be… off the top of my head…

Non-accredited degrees “earned”
Peer reviewed publications
Daily Mail column inches per month
Woo Factor