Medical data is for informational purposes only. You should always consult your family physician, or one of our referral physicians prior to treatment

.

1

The following letter was written November 11, 1985 in re-

sponse to repeated feedback of negative and false statements stem-

ming from the Arthritis Foundation, the Better Business Bureau and

the below addressed office of the Food and Drug Administration.

Donors, arthritics, and physicians would send The Rheuma-

toid Disease Foundation/The Arthritis Trust of America copies of

these scurrilous memos.

On receipt of this letter, Harold Davis -- or at least his office -

- quit the practice of forwarding the Arthritis Foundation lies and

half-truths.

A letter to the Arthritis Foundation attorney, thankfully, seemed

to be effective in stopping the practice at its source.

Although many of the premises discussed herein are now moot,

the summary (1) demonstrates to some extent the nature of the

problem of introducing treatments contrary to large pharmaceutical

company interests, and (2) well handles the problem often faced by

physicians whose patients wish to try metronidazole; i.e., there is no

evidence that metronidazole is or ever has been carcinogenic.

About the Philanthropic Section of the Better Business

Bureau & the Arthritis Foundation!

Harold Davis

Consumer Safety Officer

Office of Consumer and Professional Affairs

Center for Drugs and Biologics, HFN-17

Department of Health & Human Services

Public Health Service

Food and Drug Administration

Rockville, MD 20857

Dear Mr. Davis:

Please reference your October 10, 1985 letter with Arthritis

Foundation and Council of Better Business Bureau, Inc. attachments,

appended hereto, and written to J.M. Blount, Jr. M.D.

You say therein that you do not take a position on the Rheuma-

toid Disease Foundation. If so then why -- in your second to last

paragraph of your letter -- do you quote unresearched falsehoods

and distortions from the Council of Better Business Bureau, Inc.?

And why do you append falsehoods and distortions designed by the

Arthritis Foundation and the Better Business Bureau?

Where did you get the idea that “Apparently, the foreign studies

did not bear out Dr. Wyburn-Mason’s contention that clotrimazole

was effective against arthritis?”

According to our information, both double-blind studies by P.J.

Wojtulewski (including follow-on unpublished studies) and open

studies by Roger Wyburn-Mason showed an extremely high success

rate when treating Rheumatoid Disease with clotrimazole.

Indeed, the rate was so high that this foundation, through the

Department of Rheumatology at Bowman Gray School of Medi-

cine, is now funding additional double-blind studies using

clotrimazole.

I would greatly appreciate the source(s) of your incorrect infor-

mation, that clotrimazole was shown to be ineffective.

You also state that clotrimazole is a 1% cream for dermatologi-

cal use. Clotrimazole is not just a 1% cream used for dermatological

purposes, but also a vaginal tablet used widely for a certain kind of

yeast/fungus Candida albicans infection (Page 1856,1985 PDR). In

vitro, it has antibacterial, antiyeast/fungus, anti-amoebic qualities. To

constantly quote that it is a “just a 1% topical cream” merely repeats

the distortions initially laid down by the Arthritis Foundation (four

years ago) to discredit us; said distortions later followed by the

Council of Better Business Bureau, Inc. unethical behavior.

As to whether or not the drug is available for use in the United

States -- which you say it is not -- please refer to the Physicians’ Desk

Reference where you will learn that it is available for use as indicated.

[It is now available through compounding pharamacists in a form

designed for arthritis treatment. Ed.] The reason we are running

scientific studies with its use is to determine if it satisfies FDA

requirements for safety and effectiveness in our fight against Rheu-

matoid Diseases. [See http://arthritistrust.org, newsletters: Winter

1985 & June 1993. Ed.]

As to the Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. attachment:

All of their memos start by stating that The information contained

herein has been compiled from sources deemed to be reliable and,

while not guaranteed, is believed to be factual and accurate. It is not

intended to recommend or deprecate, and is furnished to assist you

in exercising your own judgment.

A worthy goal, but unfortunately the remainder of their memos

go on to distort in such a fashion that, through deprecation, and half

truth, they can adversely influence judgment.

Referencing their March 1985 report entitled “Quackery and

Unproven Remedies”: lets take up this question of the oft repeated

Arthritis Foundation’s title “Quackery and Unproven Remedies”.

The illogical presumption by organizations that seek to main-

tain their power-base is that anything that is “unproven” is also

“quackery.” By that reasoning, every medical advance in history has

first been classified as quackery. Indeed, according to the U.S. Office

of Technology Assessment publication (1978), “Assessing the Effi-

cacy and Safety of Medical Technology,” 80-90% of all

insurance-approved-medical-board-practices are unproven.

Look at the standard treatments used by practicing

rheumatologists, the very same professionals who advise both the

Arthritis Foundation and the National Institute of Arthritis, Diabetes

and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

According to their peers, in Clinics in Rheumatic Diseases,

(W.B. Saunders, 1983), the use of gold shots is at best a marginal

scientific presumption, having failed double-blind standards, but being

accepted nonetheless -- and in any case is proved by such studies to

be ineffective after 30 months. In the case of use of penicillamine, the

same peer source states that there is absolutely no scientific evidence

for use of penicillamine.

So here we have a situation where the Council of Better Busi-

ness Bureaus, Inc. quotes those who -- by their own standards --

habitually use “quackery” and “unproven” treatments; those who

admittedly do not know how to treat Rheumatoid Disease, and who

nonetheless continue to take money from folks for such non-treatment

while at the same time persuading the sick not seek alternative treat-

ments. Isn’t that the actual definition of a quack? One who cannot

cure, but who convinces the patient to periodically pay money for a

worthless treatment and to not seek help elsewhere?

In turn, you, Harold Davis of the Department of Health &

Human Services, swallowing the quacks pseudo-scientific propa-

ganda, and claiming not to take a stand, continue to pass along

®