The anti-inflammatory science behind DMSO is real. The leap to curing COPD isn't. A pulmonologist explains what the internet gets right; and where it can go dangerously wrong.
Really interesting article. This is what I always think when I hear claims that cures for things like cancer are being hidden - we’d be the first people shouting it from the rooftops.
It’s difficult to believe that doctors, who in most cases genuinely care about their patients, wouldn’t be making sure that kind of information was shared.
And it’s great that you actually went and did a proper deep dive into what the evidence says, rather than just dismissing it outright as pseudoscience.
Those doctors who say they would be shouting its benefits from the rooftops if it worked are being naive in the extreme, do they not see how the medical industry works here, for example when doctors warned to be careful of a practically untested vaccine for Covid, they were often simply sacked or struck off, in fact had they been heeded thousands would have been spared what all evidence now tells us was the most harmful vaccine ever. DMSO is cheap and its LD50is low, if it was effective all efforts would he made by the medical industry to ban it, wake up doctors, we do not live in that oretend world where people would be rewarded for findin a cure for cancer, sadly they woukd more likely be dissappeared. In fact if it was really effective one woukd expect to see many articles like this one.
My urologists used to recommend DMSO bladder instillations for interstitial cystitis, but guidance has since been updated to discourage first-line use because of harsh side effects and toxicity concerns when administered alongside lidocaine. I’ve seen alternative practitioners recommend ozone insufflation, which can also be harmful. It’s a jungle out there.
I will read this, but informed by the first paragraph that the auther is determined to be dismissive, the reason I say that is that he starts the article by calling DMSO an industrial solvent, while this is true it sets a tone, it is dismissive, for he could also have described it as a substance that is a proven and often used medicinal ingredient.
What about starting an article by saying" Many think that drinking more of a substance x than they already do can be hugely beneficial to some people, substance x is an industrial solvent, (and it is often called water)"
DMSO does have legitimate medical applications ( FDA-approved for interstitial cystitis, used as a cryoprotectant in stem cell banking, and sometimes used as a penetration enhancer in compounded medications). For these use cases it's pharmaceutical-grade, delivered via a controlled route, under clinical supervision.
Lung disease patients nebulizing it at home are sourcing industrial-grade product and inhaling it directly into their lungs. Contaminant exposure via nebulization is a real safety concern. This is different from Rimso-50 for bladder instillation.
Calling it an "industrial solvent" wasn't a rhetorical cheap shot. It's an accurate description of what's actually entering people's airways when nebulized.
Maybe, but would you have said that it was dangerous to nebulise the DMSO that is available to the public because it was not of pharmaceutical quality. I doubt it because it could be construed that pharmaceutical grade would be OK.
But considering all the pollutants that are already in the air which we breath in, and would be incorporated in anything we nebulised, the odd 0.01% of impurity in two or three mils of DMSO involved in nebulising is not a lot. I am not saying it is a good idea to nebulise DMSO, but whether intended or not calling it an “industrial solvent” without qualifying that that is as opposed to pharmeceutical grade DMSO does look like propaganda like rhetoric to me, intended ir not.
Maybe, but would you have said that it was dangerous to nebulise the DMSO that is available to the public because it was not of pharmaceutical quality. I doubt it because it could be construed that pharmaceutical grade would be OK.
But considering all the pollutants that are already in the air which we breath in, and would be incorporated in anything we nebulised, the odd 0.01% of impurity in two or three mils of DMSO involved in nebulising is not a lot. I am not saying it is a good idea to nebulise DMSO, but whether intended or not calling it an “industrial solvent” without qualifying that that is as opposed to pharmeceutical grade DMSO does look like propaganda like rhetoric to me, intended ir not.
Really interesting article. This is what I always think when I hear claims that cures for things like cancer are being hidden - we’d be the first people shouting it from the rooftops.
It’s difficult to believe that doctors, who in most cases genuinely care about their patients, wouldn’t be making sure that kind of information was shared.
And it’s great that you actually went and did a proper deep dive into what the evidence says, rather than just dismissing it outright as pseudoscience.
Thank you. Hoping to counter the current DMSO promoters who have large follower counts and convincing rhetoric.
Those doctors who say they would be shouting its benefits from the rooftops if it worked are being naive in the extreme, do they not see how the medical industry works here, for example when doctors warned to be careful of a practically untested vaccine for Covid, they were often simply sacked or struck off, in fact had they been heeded thousands would have been spared what all evidence now tells us was the most harmful vaccine ever. DMSO is cheap and its LD50is low, if it was effective all efforts would he made by the medical industry to ban it, wake up doctors, we do not live in that oretend world where people would be rewarded for findin a cure for cancer, sadly they woukd more likely be dissappeared. In fact if it was really effective one woukd expect to see many articles like this one.
My urologists used to recommend DMSO bladder instillations for interstitial cystitis, but guidance has since been updated to discourage first-line use because of harsh side effects and toxicity concerns when administered alongside lidocaine. I’ve seen alternative practitioners recommend ozone insufflation, which can also be harmful. It’s a jungle out there.
Interesting I haven't run into much ozone specific content yet, but will be on the lookout.
Ozone and colloidal silver seem to be marketed for all sorts of dubious claims.
I will read this, but informed by the first paragraph that the auther is determined to be dismissive, the reason I say that is that he starts the article by calling DMSO an industrial solvent, while this is true it sets a tone, it is dismissive, for he could also have described it as a substance that is a proven and often used medicinal ingredient.
What about starting an article by saying" Many think that drinking more of a substance x than they already do can be hugely beneficial to some people, substance x is an industrial solvent, (and it is often called water)"
DMSO does have legitimate medical applications ( FDA-approved for interstitial cystitis, used as a cryoprotectant in stem cell banking, and sometimes used as a penetration enhancer in compounded medications). For these use cases it's pharmaceutical-grade, delivered via a controlled route, under clinical supervision.
Lung disease patients nebulizing it at home are sourcing industrial-grade product and inhaling it directly into their lungs. Contaminant exposure via nebulization is a real safety concern. This is different from Rimso-50 for bladder instillation.
Calling it an "industrial solvent" wasn't a rhetorical cheap shot. It's an accurate description of what's actually entering people's airways when nebulized.
Maybe, but would you have said that it was dangerous to nebulise the DMSO that is available to the public because it was not of pharmaceutical quality. I doubt it because it could be construed that pharmaceutical grade would be OK.
But considering all the pollutants that are already in the air which we breath in, and would be incorporated in anything we nebulised, the odd 0.01% of impurity in two or three mils of DMSO involved in nebulising is not a lot. I am not saying it is a good idea to nebulise DMSO, but whether intended or not calling it an “industrial solvent” without qualifying that that is as opposed to pharmeceutical grade DMSO does look like propaganda like rhetoric to me, intended ir not.
Maybe, but would you have said that it was dangerous to nebulise the DMSO that is available to the public because it was not of pharmaceutical quality. I doubt it because it could be construed that pharmaceutical grade would be OK.
But considering all the pollutants that are already in the air which we breath in, and would be incorporated in anything we nebulised, the odd 0.01% of impurity in two or three mils of DMSO involved in nebulising is not a lot. I am not saying it is a good idea to nebulise DMSO, but whether intended or not calling it an “industrial solvent” without qualifying that that is as opposed to pharmeceutical grade DMSO does look like propaganda like rhetoric to me, intended ir not.