Antivaxxers embrace the solvent DMSO as a cure-all

I realize that I tend to repeat things perhaps more than I should, but one message that can’t be repeated enough is how, in the age of COVID-19, everything old is new again with respect to the antivaccine movement and quackery. For example, the speed with which certain doctors first went COVID-19 antivax, “evolved” to become more generally antivax, and then finally embraced all manner of quackery for all manner of diseases actually startled even me. One good example is the anonymous “doctor” who goes by the ‘nym “A Midwestern Doctor” (AMD). Personally, I long ago dubbed him “A Midwestern Quack” (AMQ), which is a far more appropriate moniker for him/her/it. I also have a very strong suspicion that I know who AMD/AMQ really is, but no hard evidence; suffice to say for now that I’m 99% sure it is a man, and so I’ll refer to him as such. As I’ve discussed before, he’s already embraced all manner of quackery, but, wow, he’s really gone down the rabbit hole now in a post entitled The FDA’s War Against DMSO and America: The Forgotten History That Led to the FDA Again and Again Keeping the Things We Most Desperately Need Away From Us.

DMSO? Really? Yes, really:

Over the last month, I have been diligently working to alert the public to the decades of evidence demonstrating the remarkable therapeutic potential of DMSO. In turn, quite a few of my colleagues have shared patients are now asking them about DMSO, and a few are shifting their practice to focus on it (e.g., Pierre Kory has done so and is already having numerous amazing results).

Likewise, I’ve now received hundreds (often unbelievable) reports of it it being life changing for people (which can be read here), and it now seems there is a temporary supply shortage of DMSO because so many people (and their friends) have been buying the brands I recommended.

Ah, yes. Of course, AMD/AMQ is shilling for specific brands of DMSO. But what is DMSO?

I’ve used DMSO for a long time. The abbreviation is short for dimethyl sulfoxide—chemical formula (CH3)2SO—and it’s a commonly used solvent in molecular biology, not to mention industry and a number of other applications. It’s very useful in molecular biology, where it can dissolve many organic and inorganic compounds including fats, carbohydrates, dyes, resins, and polymers. It’s also often used as a cryopreservative for cell cultures, where it’s usually added to the cell culture medium at around a 10% concentration before the cells are frozen down and then put in liquid nitrogen for long term storage. DMSO is also commonly used as a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) cosolvent to improve yields, especially in long PCR, although it’s also is routinely used in most PCR amplification of cDNA libraries, DNA sequencing, column-loading buffers for poly(A)+ RNA selection, and in buffers for the transformation of competent E. coli (getting the bacteria to take up plasmid DNA and produce the gene product coded for by the cDNA in the plasmid), and transfection protocols in eukaryotic cells. Another common use for DMSO is as a solvent for compounds that are too insoluble in water. Frequently, stock solutions of such compounds can be stored in DMSO at a much higher concentration and then diluted with aqueous buffer when needed. There are also a number of chemical and industrial uses of DMSO, including as a solvent for synthetic fibers, paint, hydrocarbons, salts, and natural products, not to mention a common use for DMSO in which the hydrogen atoms have been replaced with the deuterium isotope, namely as a solvent for NMR analysis of chemical compounds that are insoluble in aqueous solution.

Yes, DMSO is a solvent that I’ve long been familiar with, having used it on and off in laboratories dating back to the late 1980s. Another characteristic of DMSO is that it is very readily absorbed through the skin. If you get it on your skin, you might well be able to sense a garlic-like taste in your mouth from its having gotten into the bloodstream. (Don’t ask me how I know that; also the chemical smells similar to garlic.) It’s a chemical that’s been used since the late 19th century, when it was discovered as a byproduct of the kraft process for making paper from wood pulp. Contemporaneously, Russian chemist Alexander Zaytsev figured out how to synthesized DMSO by oxidizing dimethyl sulfide, another kraft process byproduct, and his synthesis method is the basis for the manufacturing process still used today.

Since its discovery, DMSO has also been touted as a treatment for all sorts of things. Indeed, Quackwatch notes:

The Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a mammoth lumber company, holds a number of patents on DMSO for use as an industrial solvent or liniment for treating pain in horses. Crown Zellerbach licenses DMSO exclusively to Research Industries of Salt Lake City for marketing as a drug called Rimso-50. Topically-applied DMSO has the unusual ability to act as a “chemical hypodermic needle” which is to say that it is rapidly absorbed through the skin and can take with it other substances that ordinarily would not cross the skin’s barrier. Topically-applied DMSO produces a garlic-like taste in the mouth and a breath odor. Topical use can cause a rash, blistering, itching, hives, and skin thickening. Intravenous use can cause kidney damage and other adverse side effects.

DMSO was approved by the FDA in 1978 for only one purpose, the treatment of a rare bladder disorder, interstitial cystitis. However, scandal surrounded the FDA’s approval of DMSO and some still believe that a cloud hangs over iit. Stanley Jacob, MD, served as an supposedly unbiased medical monitor of DMSO between 1974 and 1979, but for three of those years (1974, 1978, and 1979), he was on the Research Industries board of directors. In addition to getting consulting and director’s fees, Jacob is said to have bought 50,000 shares of the company’s stocks. The medical officer charged with reviewing data from clinical trials of DMSO, K.C. Pani, accepted $36,500 in gratuities from Dr. Jacob during the time. A detailed account of the dubious FDA approval of DMSO is provided by Howard Rosenberg in “The DMSO Affair.” [1 ]

In the 1980s, DMSO gained fame as a “miracle cure” touted by alternative medicine practitioners after after the news show 60 Minutes portrayed the substance as a medical breakthrough in 1986. (You can even watch it if you want, as AMD/AMQ includes a video of the segment in his Substack DMSO is a Miraculous Therapy for Chronic Pain and Musculoskeletal Injuries.) Unsurprisingly, this promotion in “alternative health” circles, which began at least the 1960s if not earlier, continues today, a promotion that AMD/AMQ continues, claiming that DMSO can basically cure almost anything. Don’t believe me? Then listen to AMD/AMQ himself as he claims DMSO is good for almost anything that ails ya:

For those who have not read the series, thus far I have made the case that:

• DMSO treats many circulatory and neurological disorders (e.g., Reynaud’s and varicose veins) and profoundly transforms the outcomes of some of the most challenging conditions in medicine (e.g., strokes and spinal cord injuries)—to the point millions would have been spared from a life of disability or paralysis had it been adopted (discussed here).
• DMSO is a miraculous therapy for chronic pain, wounds (e.g., burns or surgical incisions), injuries (e.g., sports injuries) and all types of chronic pain (discussed here).
• DMSO is highly effective for treating a variety of challenging autoimmune disorders (discussed here).
• DMSO is highly effective for treating a variety of connective tissue issues such as scars and adhesions, collagen contractures, scleroderma, FOP (discussed here).
• DMSO is able to treat a variety of protein misfolding diseases (e.g., amyloidosis) including genetic disorders (e.g., Down Syndrome) which are classically considered to untreatable (discussed here).
• DMSO is incredibly safe, having only a limited number of known and manageable side effects alongside no risk of toxicity or death (provided it is used appropriately).
• There are thousands of studies that demonstrate both the safety and efficacy of DMSO (making it one of the most researched medical substances in history).

In contrast, most of the previously mentioned diseases have lackluster conventional options available for treating them, many of which are highly toxic, kill tens of thousands of Americans each year and simultaneously cause far more non-fatal injuries. Worse still, many of them simply are “untreatable” and have no option for what can be done with them.

Sound familiar? I also note that the “evidence” cited by AMD/AMQ consists mainly of anecdotes and cherry picked studies, many of which are cell culture and animal studies and few of which are well-designed clinical trials. For example, in this post referenced in his paean to DMSO, AMD/AMQ cites:

DMSO, in turn, has been shown to:

• Protect tissue from dying when its blood supply is cut off (e.g., in skin flaps, in the kidneys [replicated here], in the small intestine, in the liver, or in the heart—particularly when hydrogen peroxide is given concurrently as an oxygen donor), prevent a reperfusion injury when its blood flow is restored, prevent the formation of clots when blood flow is restored (e.g., in mesenteric veins), reduce the amount of permanently damaged tissue following a myocardial infarction and maintain the heart’s ability to circulate blood when its blood supply is cut off.
• Prevent heart damage caused by dietary copper deficiency and kidney failure caused by toxic mercury exposure.
• Increase the production of ATP in cells (e.g., minute concentrations of DMSO have been shown to increase metabolism by shunting metabolites from glycolysis to the mitochondrial Krebs cycle), which likely both accounts for some of DMSO’s protective effects and its anticancer effects.
• Prevent a rapid influx of calcium or sodium ions, a process which frequently occurs when a cell’s viability is threatened (and then results in the death of the cell).
• Prevent asphyxiation from being lethal (e.g., one study put rats into a pure nitrogen environment for 210 seconds, and found that 90% who received DMSO in advance survived compared to 15% of those that received saline).
• Protect cells from being destroyed by sonic disruption via an ultrasonic vibrator (with 78% of cells receiving 10% DMSO surviving compared to 13% of controls).

All of these studies are either cell culture studies or studies in rats or mice, many of them old. It’s all very interesting, but where’s the clinical evidence? Unwittingly, AMD/AMQ reveals how DMSO went from interesting to a favored quack cure-all back in the 1960s, when a surgeon named Stanley Jacob MD took an interest in it. (Yes, Dr. Jacob was featured prominently in that 1980s 60 Minutes segment.) It turns out that what got Dr. Jacob interested in DMSO was its ability to be absorbed rapidly through the skin and to take along with it substances dissolved in it. There are a number of red flags of quackery in the narrative shared by AMD/AMQ, red flags that should be obvious to anyone who’s read this blog a while:

Eager to share this discovery in 1961, he connected Stanley Jacob MD, a renowned surgeon with dozens of publications (in hours, he could produce first-rate papers that took others months to write) and professional memberships who taught at Oregon Health Sciences University (located across the river for Herschler). Jacob (whose brief biography can be read here), was searching for ways to preserve organs and had recently learned of DMSO’s ability to function as an anti-freeze agent. After Herschler shared DMSO’s unusual property, Jacob decided to test it by mixing it with iodine, noticed he could taste it, and realized that not only did DMSO bring things into the skin but also spread them throughout the body.

As this delivery method revolutionized pharmacology, Jacob immediately shifted his focus to it, and the next day topically applied it to his lab staff (the 1960s were a different time), many of whom then developed its characteristic odor. As DMSO dried the skin and wet skin often causes burns to become infected, he decided to test it on rats that were burned and saw a potential therapeutic effect, which then inspired Herschler to try it after a subsequent significant chemical burn. Since it gave immediate relief, Herschler then tried it on a sprained ankle in a lab assistant (where it also gave immediate relief) and then for an arthritic thumb (where it also gave immediate relief).

This early data convinced Jacob to put all his focus into DMSO (which was possible since his intellectual capacity allowed him to rapidly produce the high quality lectures required for his actual job). In turn, after many sleepless nights, and many tests on himself, Jacob became certain DMSO would revolutionize medicine. In turn, he began carrying DMSO on him to give to anyone in need (the 1960s were a different time), and quickly had numerous miraculous cures (e.g., headaches, sports injuries, cold sores, sinusitis, crippling rheumatoid arthritis), Simultaneously he also realized making a standardized dose was almost impossible because people’s response to it was so variable and the timing often was critical (e.g., it only prevented adhesions in rats if given before surgery but not after).

Let’s see:

• Red flag #1: “…in hours, he could produce first-rate papers that took others months to write.” Seriously? Whenever I see this sort of thing, I know a couple of things. First, such papers cannot possibly be about original research; that is, unless the original research is not being counted as part of the time necessary to write the paper. Seriously, it takes me weeks or months to write a paper, and in some cases years. (This 2017 paper from my lab, for instance, was the result of a least a 18-24 months of work.) Seeing this sort of claim makes my skeptical antennae start twitching furiously.
• Red flag #2: All the anecdotes about Jacobs applying it to his lab staff, trying it out on a chemical burn, sprained ankle, and an arthritic thumb, all of whom said it gave them significant relief. Seriously, not only are these all anecdotes but they’re anecdotes designed to maximize placebo effects given that these people’s boss was trying out a new compound and asking them if it helped? A subconscious desire to please the boss could very well augment any placebo effects.
• Red flag #3: Jacobs started just giving DMSO to just about anyone who had a problem and reporting “numerous miraculous cures” but somehow rapidly recognizing that the dose couldn’t be standardized “because people’s response to it was so variable and the timing often was critical.” Funny, that it’s noted that it only decreased adhesions (scar tissue) in rats if given before the injury (surgery) that caused the scarring.

Now here’s the hilarious thing. Remember the thalidomide scandal? Also remember that thalidomide was never approved in the US, mainly because a scientist at the FDA, Frances Oldham Kelsey, kept insisting on safety data for the drug (trade name Kevadon, but the same compound as thalidomide) and pointing to animal studies that suggested problems. She did this despite unrelenting pressure from the drug company trying to market the drug. After it came out that thalidomide caused characteristic birth defects, Kelsey was a hero; President John F. Kennedy even awarded her the Distinguished Civilian Service Medal from President John F. Kennedy in 1962. I told the tale nine years ago, when Kelsey passed away at the age of 100. In any event, the thalidomide scandal led to the passage of the Kefauver-Harris Amendments to the law authorizing the FDA, empowering the FDA to require high quality evidence not just of safety (which is all that was required before) but of efficacy, and this evidence had to come in the form of high quality clinical trials. This led to the current system of phase I, II, III, and IV clinical trials in force today. The amendments also included a requirement for informed consent of study subjects and codified good manufacturing processes, as well as the requirement that adverse events be reported. This has been, with some tweaking over the years, the law of the land regarding how the FDA approves drugs for specific indications. Overall, these amendments were a very good thing; that is, unless you’re AMQ:

All of this led to a few major problems.

First, Kelsey’s actions dramatically increased the prestige of the FDA, both emboldening the agency and simultaneously leading to many other jealous officials wishing to get the recognition she did for stopping the next thalidomide (which DMSO conveniently fit the profile of). Because of this, the pace of new drugs entering the market dramatically slowed, and ever since then, a consistent complaint of Congress has been the FDA blocking medical therapies the public needs.

Secondly, it galvanized the FDA into rapidly establishing its authority and creating numerous divisions to “police” questionable drugs without the organization being structured to effectively or appropriately administer that authority (which led to perpetual mismanagement, chaos, and frequent abuse of that power).

Third, the FDA chose to define “well-controlled” as a double-blind trial (to the point they clung to this specific argument in 1980 when Congress and the Senate grilled them over their decision to stonewall DMSO).

Of course, in AMQ’s mind, instead of being a good thing, the Kefauver-Harris Amendments gave the FDA the power to “suppress” alternative “cures” like DMSO, which to him is a bad thing. Interestingly, by AMQ’s own account Frances Oldham Kelsey herself appears to have bent over backwards to allow testing of DMSO after the Kefauver-Harris Amendments had passed, but had these reservations:

On March 18, 1964, he and DMSO’s stakeholders attended a meeting at the FDA, where Frances O. Kelsey told them they wanted to do everything possible to permit further testing of DMSO, but simultaneously were worried about being overwhelmed by a large number of DMSO drug applications (particularly since DMSO could be combined with so many other drugs).

I recognize from the remainder of the account a rush inspired more by hype than evidence, as a number of drug companies vied to get DMSO products approved and marketed for all manner of indications. Again, when a substance (or drug) is claimed to be beneficial for such a huge range of conditions (including cancer), chances are very good that it’s not really effective against any of them, or at least against the vast majority of them. In any event, in 1965 the FDA, citing data that DMSO altered the refractive index of the eyes in rats, banned further clinical trials, a ban that was lifted in 1980. One notes that AMQ, aside from claiming that the studies didn’t show this, also dismisses such an effect rather blithely as something that “at worst could make someone need glasses.” One wonders if AMQ would be so sanguine about any other pharmaceutical drug or vaccine besides DMSO being found to cause such an effect. It probably didn’t help that DMSO was being used to deliver cocaine and other illicit drugs through the skin and was falsely touted as a cancer cure, a claim that AMD echoes. (The full story can be found in an article from 1983, which notes that there was no good evidence then that DMSO had anticancer effects. There still isn’t, at least as of 2016, when a study that found that DMSO can suppress inflammatory cytokines also noted that there was no good indication or evidence that it had anticancer effects, although the authors did say that further research was warranted.

In any event, the only indication for which DMSO was ever approved by the FDA was for the treatment of a rare bladder disorder, interstitial cystitis, and that was in 1978—and also not without some questionable issues:

However, scandal surrounded the FDA’s approval of DMSO and some still believe that a cloud hangs over iit. Stanley Jacob, MD, served as an supposedly unbiased medical monitor of DMSO between 1974 and 1979, but for three of those years (1974, 1978, and 1979), he was on the Research Industries board of directors. In addition to getting consulting and director’s fees, Jacob is said to have bought 50,000 shares of the company’s stocks. The medical officer charged with reviewing data from clinical trials of DMSO, K.C. Pani, accepted $36,500 in gratuities from Dr. Jacob during the time. A detailed account of the dubious FDA approval of DMSO is provided by Howard Rosenberg in “The DMSO Affair.” [1 ]

A conflict of interest at the FDA? Normally that would be the sort of thing a quack like AMQ would rail at the FDA, and rightly so. Normally.

I also find it amusing how there actually is a point AMQ makes that I sort of agree with, but not exactly, when he rails against what he calls “RCT fundamentalism,” or the demand for large randomized controlled trials. Generally, I tend to phrase it as “evidence-based medicine” (EBM) fundamentalism, in which RCTs are valued over everything. The reason is that context matters. I tend to complain about EBM fundamentalism when it’s used to attack the evidence base for interventions that do not easily lend themselves to a double-blind RCT, such as masking, or for which a double-blind RCT would be unethical (e.g., for the vaccine schedule or, arguably, for gender-affirming care for gender dysphoria). For the approval of a new drug for a specific indication, though, RCTs are arguably the best tool we have for determining efficacy and safety.

The bottom line is that DMSO only appears to produce any benefits for interstitial cystitis and, maybe forms of autoimmune arthritis, and it’s not even clear if it works for those indications. Meanwhile, as was the case in the 1960s, quacks like AMQ tout it for anything that ails ya, even cancer, cherry picking animal and cell culture studies, sprinkling in anecdotes, and twisting history to portray it as a miracle cure being “suppressed” by the The Man (i.e., the FDA). More often than not, it’s people like Mildred Miller promoted DMSO for a basically everything. I note that she was eventually convicted of Medicare fraud. I see a lot of commonalities between quacks like Miller and AMQ, the difference being that I’m guessing that AMQ takes only cash (or credit card) on the barrelhead, thus avoiding the problem of potentially being caught defrauding insurance companies and federal health programs.