Important note: Information in this article was accurate in 2005. The state of the art may have changed since the publication date.
Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg) - June 24, 2005
Marianne Merten
The TAC started interdict proceedings two months ago, after it was repeatedly described as "a front company for pharmaceutical multinationals" and as "peddling death and disease" in posters and pamphlets distributed in Cape Town's townships and in advertisements in national newspapers.
The legal steps followed the banning of full-page Rath Health Foundation adverts by the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa earlier this year. In its ruling, the authority said there had been insufficient expert evidence to back the foundation's claims.
At the time, the foundation had established an informal clinic in Khayelitsha to disburse vitamins with an uncanny resemblance to anti-retroviral medication.
This week TAC official Mark Haywood said that, while it was impossible to forecast the court's decision, it was clear that Rath's arguments were "full of sound and fury", but without firm footing in the law.
"The real question for us is: How far will they [the full Bench led by Judge Siraj Desai] go? We want to stop all allegations against the TAC that involve outright lies."
He said the TAC hoped for a ruling that would end not only allegations that the TAC was backed by inter-national pharmaceutical companies, but also Rath's claims that the grassroots HIV/Aids treatment organisation paid people, using cash and sandwiches, to attend marches.
Judge Desai, Judge Essa Moosa and Judge Willem Louw this week heard from lawyers for Rath and the Traditional Healers' Organisation that the TAC did not have a reputation worth protecting. But as TAC advocate Geoff Budlender pointed out, no proof was submitted to substantiate the funding allegations or other claims.
While acrimony entered final arguments on Tuesday, supporters of both sides again demonstrated outside the court under the gaze of several policemen. Tensions had run high at earlier court appearances.
The court case has reflected the often heated public debate on the role of vitamins, nutrition and anti-retroviral medication that has festered for years in the wake of the health ministry's repeatedly ambiguous pronouncements.
050624
MG050604
Copyright © 2005 - Daily Mail & Guardian. For information about the content or for permission to redistribute, publish or use for broadcast, contact the publisher.
AEGiS is a 501(c)3, not-for-profit, tax-exempt, educational corporation. AEGiS is made possible through unrestricted funding from Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS, Elton John AIDS Foundation, the National Library of Medicine, Pacific Life Foundation and donations from users like you.
Always watch for outdated information. This article first appeared in 2005. This material is designed to support, not replace, the relationship that exists between you and your doctor.
AEGiS presents published material, reprinted with permission and neither endorses nor opposes any material. All information contained on this website, including information relating to health conditions, products, and treatments, is for informational purposes only. It is often presented in summary or aggregate form. It is not meant to be a substitute for the advice provided by your own physician or other medical professionals. Always discuss treatment options with a doctor who specializes in treating HIV.
Copyright ©1980, 2005. AEGiS. All materials appearing on AEGiS are protected by copyright as a collective work or compilation under U.S. copyright and other laws and are the property of AEGiS, or the party credited as the provider of the content. .