The medical information and procedures contained in this book are not intended as a substitute for
consulting your physician. All matters regarding your physical health should be supervised by a medical
professional. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Walker, Morton
      DMSO:nature’s healer/Morton Walker. p.   cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-101-66234-2
      1. Dimethyl sulphoxide—Therapeutic use. I. Title. RM666.D56W337    1993
615’.783—dc20
92-34981
 
    CIP
Copyright © 1993 by Dr. Morton Walker
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Acknowledgments
Preface
 
1. The Painkiller With a Problem
 
2. DMSO’s Controversial History
 
3. The Therapeutic Principle of DMSO
 
4. General Medical Uses for DMSO
 
5. The Toxicity and Side Effects of DMSO
 
6. The Potent Potion for Sports Injuries
 
7. Arthritis Therapy With DMSO and Diet
 
8. Adapting DMSO for Foot and Leg Problems
 
9. Using DMSO in Head and Spinal Cord Injuries
10. DMSO Therapy for Mental Disabilities
11. The DMSO-Cancer Connection
12. Infectious Diseases Respond to DMSO
13. Misreporting of DMSO for Scleroderma and Interstitial Cystitis
Epilogue
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Notes
Bibliography
IndexTo that singular humanitarian who loves people, Chrystyne M. Jackson,
publisher of Explore magazine, who has saved more people’s lives with
counseling, lectures, referrals, and publications than have most individual
physicians who use conventional medical practices.Acknowledgments
My appreciation is extended to the medical consultant for a first edition of this
book. Ten years ago, William Campbell Douglass, M.D., then of Sarasota,
Florida, put together a three-day medical conference comprised of experts on
dimethyl sulfoxide. They came to Sarasota from around the United States and six
foreign countries and brought specialty knowledge of DMSO with them. They
shared this knowledge with each other, and I was the medical journalist who
recorded their information, produced magazine and clinical journal articles, and
eventually the first edition of this book. The present second edition is an update
and then rewrite of that initial published effort.Preface
The American Medical Association (AMA) held a leadership conference the
weekend of February 14, 1981, and one of its speakers was Otis R. Bowen, M.D. Dr. Bowen is former governor of Indiana, a leader in medicine, management, and
politics. In his presentation to the AMA, he shocked the assembly by admitting
that he took the law into his own hands and used an illegal drug to ease his wife’s
pain while she was dying. Beth Bowen died January 1, 1981, after months of agony
from multiple myeloma, a type of bone cancer. Dr. Bowen, who was preparing to step down from the governorship at the time,
turned to dimethyl sulfoxide, or DMSO, to ease his wife’s intense pain. He had
obtained the liquid solvent from a veterinarian and found that it relieved his wife’s
suffering “in minutes,” he said. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) forbids the use of DMSO in humans
except in treating a rare urinary bladder condition. Even in the face of the
government ban, Dr. Bowen did what he knew was right for his wife by
administering intravenous DMSO. “Why can’t dying persons, with severe pain,
have easy prescription access to it?” he asked in his speech. “The only excuse I
could find was that, after prolonged use and heavy dosage, it caused an occasional
cataract in dogs only.”
Before you’ve read very far into this book, you’ll probably be asking
questions similar to Dr. Bowen’s. It won’t be difficult to identify with the patients
involved here, some of whom have been forced to take treatment into their own
hands by turning to DMSO. In fact, DMSO has 
not
 been found unsafe for humans. Any side effects are
merely minor irritations. DMSO stops bacterial growth. It relieves pain. As a
vasodilator, the drug enlarges small blood vessels, increasing the circulation to an
area. It softens scar tissue and soothes burns. DMSO’s anti-inflammatory activity
relieves the swelling and 
inflammation of arthritis, bursitis, tendinitis, and other
musculoskeletal injuries. And it does many more good things of a therapeutic
nature for anyone who is injured or ill. I recommend that you use DMSO strictly under the supervision of a doctor
who is skilled in its application. Only the pure pharmaceutical grade should be
employed, not the crude industrial grade. DMSO is both a drug and a good solvent. Industry values it for removingpaints and varnishes, and dissolving certain plastics such as rayon, polyvinyl
chloride, polyurethane, methacrylate, and acrylic. It doesn’t affect cotton, wool,
nylon, leather, or polyesters. More important, it benefits human body cells, tissues, and organs in unique
ways. DMSO is the twenty-first century’s newest healing principle with a very
wide range of usefulness. It represents an entirely different means of treating
diseases—not as an ordinary drug that works for a given disease, but as a holistic
ingredient that brings whole-body cellular function back to normal. Dimethyl sulfoxide has had a battered thirty-year history. But because of the
general public outcry about its ban, DMSO has become a household word and a
medical-political cause célèbre. Those of us who have been using the drug for
twenty-six to twenty-eight years never dreamed that it would become a focal point
in the continuing battle between individual freedom and the power of government. My colleagues and I have been criticized, ridiculed, and even persecuted in
some medical circles for promoting and using DMSO. But I, and others like me,
came to the conclusion, having observed establishment medical thinking for forty
years, that the only way a truly revolutionary treatment principle can be brought to
the patient is by appealing to the general population through the information media. That is the purpose of this book. Much of my material will appear anecdotal to the scientist, but such language
is what the public understands best. And sometimes a hundred patient stories,
heard by a sensitive and intelligent physician, are as good as or better than a
double-blind research project. Double-blind studies are often just that—everyone
involved is blind and stays that way until, many years and thousands of patients
later, it is discovered that the particular drug doesn’t work or is too toxic to
warrant its use. Good current examples of toxic drugs are the arthritis agents Motrin, Tolectin,
Nalfon, and Naprosyn. They all underwent extensive double-blind testing. All are
weak organic acids and prostaglandin inhibitors—like aspirin. About as effective
as aspirin, these four drugs have two 
distinct differences: they are more toxic than
aspirin and cost ten to thirty times more money. So much for double-blind studies. Whether you agree or disagree with current claims, it’s likely you’ll affirm that
if a drug has been proven safe, doctors should be free to use this agent when they
believe it will help their patients. With all the extremely potent and dangerous
drugs on the market, it is absurd to keep such an effective product as DMSO from
pharmacy shelves. Certainly not all of the claims for DMSO will prove to be valid, but in myopinion, many of them have already shown themselves to be true. And the most
dramatic use of the medication is likely yet to be discovered. Another purpose for my book is to point out the myriad applications of this
unique substance. Once DMSO is legalized for use in all states and ethically
produced for topical, parenteral, and oral administration, people won’t have to
smuggle the feed-store grade and the crude industrial grade into their homes to
paint on their arthritic joints. DMSO will eventually find its place in the armamentarium of American
medicine. We who believe in the substance want to see it happen sooner than later. The clinical evaluation of DMSO began in the United States in 1963 and now, in
1992, the FDA still has not approved the drug for more than one use. This
situation gives rise to some underlying questions you may find running throughout
this book. How do we get the FDA to see beyond its blind spot? How can we
either bring DMSO to the people or declare the substance useless once and for
all? You will find lots of answers in these pages. DMSO needs even more public
pressure than has been leveled at the regulatory process already. We want doctors
to be able to prescribe DMSO without fear of censure from the medical world or
the hospitals that employ them. If this doesn’t happen, it appears that little will be
done to ensure that a pure, medical grade of DMSO will be made available for
patients. In writing this book, I have found a distinct reticence by doctors to have their
names mentioned in connection with DMSO. Often they provided me with glowing
case reports of successes with the drug treatment, but their fear of colleague
criticism prevented my revealing their identities. I had to discard such reports, and
there were hundreds of them. DMSO has the largest potential number of uses ever documented for a single
chemical. My wish is that this book will bring more of them into the public domain
than has been allowed to this point. It should be well understood by everyone at
the outset that I don’t say the substance is some kind of miracle cure. More
properly, DMSO is a very effective and versatile compound that has been
successfully adapted 
for a number of health problems. I want to get it into the
hands of more people so that they may be relieved of discomforts and diseases for
which DMSO is appropriate. I hope you will agree that mine is a worthy goal. Morton Walker, D.P.M. Stamford, ConnecticutCHAPTER 1
The Painkiller With a Problem
In the late spring of 1980, Eva Lee Snead, M.D., then a family practice specialist
in San Antonio, Texas, learned that her friend, thirty-two-year-old psychologist
Marjorie Saloman, was supposed to undergo a hysterectomy, the removal of her
uterus. Mrs. Saloman’s genital system problem arose from a stenosis of the
cervical os. This condition is a narrowing or stricture at the mouth of the neck-like
opening to the uterus where it extends into the vagina. The psychologist described to Dr. Snead how several unsuccessful attempts at
cervical dilatation had been attempted by her gynecologist. He tried to relax the
cervix by injecting local anesthesia at its lower quadrant. Such an anesthetic
technique usually is simple and effective, but this particular block had been no
help to the woman even after many tries. Mrs. Saloman’s gynecologist admitted
that for her the attempted cervical dilatation was a complete failure. The pain had been so great for this patient that when the dilatation instrument
was inserted she had fainted. Her gynecologist quickly removed the instrument
because the anesthetic was not allaying the pain. None of his attempts to relieve
the problem worked; surgical removal of the uterus was the next procedure of
choice. Dr. Snead asked her friend to wait a week before having the hysterectomy, if
delay was agreeable to the gynecologist. Complying with this request, Marjorie
Saloman had her physician telephone Dr. Snead to learn the medical reasoning
behind it. Having some prior experiences with DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide) treatment, Dr.
Snead persuaded him to combine the substance with vitamin E and apply it
topically to the patient’s cervical area. Dr. Snead wanted to try to reduce the
woman’s scar tissue and adhesions, which DMSO is able to do. “I was lucky enough to run into the gynecologist on the day that we were going
to apply the DMSO,” Dr. Snead wrote me, “and he inserted the substance himself
with the vitamin E. Before five minutes were over, his instrument slipped into the
cervix without any sensation felt by the patient.”
A month later, the gynecologist rechecked the woman’s constricted cervix andfound it was still overly narrow. He repeated the application of DMSO and
vitamin E, and after a few minutes was able to insert the instrument to stretch the
opening without any problem. This time it was a highly successful procedure, and
the hospital appointment for surgery was cancelled. The patient wore a device that was inserted to keep the cervical canal’s wall
stretched. In the meantime, Dr. Snead placed her friend on megavitamin therapy
using high doses of nutrient substances to restore health to surrounding tissues. One month after the device had been inserted, the woman was again checked
by her gynecologist who found the cervical os perfectly expanded. He was able to
insert probes without first applying DMSO or anesthesia and without the patient
feeling any discomfort. Marjorie Saloman had definitely been saved from having a
hysterectomy. Yet Dr. Eva Lee Snead had her medical license revoked for repeatedly
employing DMSO and other forms of complementary medicine—what some have
labelled “quackery” but that rightly may be considered alternative methods of
healing. The state of Texas is not predisposed to allowing deviations from the
medical mainstream. And, as you will see, use of dimethyl sulfoxide by forward-
looking physicians is out of the medical mainstream. *   *   *
Lorae Avery, Ph.D., director of The Health Center, Inc., an acupuncture and
nutrition clinic in Auburndale, Florida, expressed her amazement to me at the
effectiveness of DMSO in eliminating pain. She saw excellent results when
physicians working for The Health Center applied the substance externally to
patients. One of them was sixty-five-year-old Anna Goldeman, who had been
suffering for years with bursitis of the right shoulder. She went to The Health
Center for relief of the bursitis in November, 1980, and was gratified by the results
of DMSO treatment. More dramatic than the patient’s alleviation of her shoulder pain was 
the
easing of a discomfort that had begun four years previously. Mrs. Goldeman had
undergone amputation of the left hip high in the groin, which resulted in “phantom
limb pain.” After amputation of a limb, or a portion of it, the amputee may
experience strange sensations as though the part were still there. This feeling of
phantom pain is generally considered to be a stump hallucination. It arises from
various types of nerve stimuli, resulting in burning, tingling, pricking, tickling, or
really severe pain. Such sensations are not uncommon for an amputee and are notreadily treatable. With application of DMSO to her right shoulder, phantom limb pain with its
constant twitching went out of Mrs. Goldeman’s left groin. She no longer sensed
that she still had an extremity. Now she could feel more at peace with her
situation. Dr. Avery said, “We did not attempt to treat the phantom limb pain; our
physicians were concerned with the bursitis. Yet, the phantom pain disappeared
coincidentally from application of DMSO to the woman’s shoulder. Thus, what
happened is, DMSO applied to one part of the body caused phantom pain to go
away in another part of the body. And it’s permanently stayed away.”
Checking back with Dr. Avery over ten years later, I learned that Mrs.
Goldeman continues in comfort knowing that DMSO is available to cease her pain
whenever needed. *   *   *
Murray Franklin, M.D., of Chicago, is a Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine
at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, as well as the medical director of
the Union Health Service, the largest prepaid medical plan in the state of Illinois. He received a supply of DMSO in the fall of 1980 and decided to try it for the
benefit of some patients for whom nothing else had worked. One of the people
receiving topical therapeutic applications was Lucas Sheinholtz, fifty-two, who had
been troubled with rheumatoid-osteoarthritis of both knees for more than a decade. Mr. Sheinholtz, hobbling with the assistance of two canes, arrived at Dr. Franklin’s
office complex to visit another physician. The patient had previously received
many injections of cortisone, which his regular physician administered routinely. But no appreciable improvement in his arthritis had been observed by either the
patient or his doctor. “I suggested to the man’s physician that we might paint some DMSO on both
of his painful knees,” Dr. Franklin said. “His right knee was 
swollen; the left knee
was not. The right knee was warm to the touch. The patient’s doctor agreed to a
therapeutic trial, and I applied DMSO in three applications. Since I was not fully
acquainted with how to use the solution, I allowed an application to dry and then
put it on again and again. Within fifteen to twenty minutes the patient said he felt
no pain and was able to walk practically without the use of a cane. “He returned in one week and described his pain in the left knee as having
disappeared completely,” said Dr. Franklin. “There just wasn’t any. The pain inthe swollen right knee had returned just a little. I applied the DMSO again and the
man got a similar result within a quarter of an hour. No more pain! I haven’t seen
him since and presume he is feeling fine.”
THE NEW MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGH FOR PAIN
The people have a new medical breakthrough for pain: dimethyl sulfoxide, called
DMSO. By itself or in combination with other medical ingredients, dimethyl
sulfoxide should be useful in treating almost every disease known to mankind. The
substance, a byproduct of pulp and paper manufacturing, has been employed
safely and successfully by millions of people around the world to control swelling;
reduce discomfort; take away inflammation; slow the growth of, and in many
instances kill, bacteria, viruses, and fungi. It heals burns and relieves sprains,
strains, and arthritic joints. It has worked effectively against cataracts, sports
injuries, scleroderma, myasthenia gravis, tuberculosis, and even lessened mental
retardation in people with Down’s syndrome. Cancer seems to respond well to DMSO. At Mount Sinai Hospital in New
York City, Charlotte Friend, M.D., has turned cancerous cells into harmless
normal ones in the test tube by putting them in touch with the DMSO solutions. Thus, DMSO cancer research is in progress. Reported in the 
Journal of Clinical Oncology
, in November 1988, twenty
cancer patients with extravasation of anthracycline (destructive secretions from
tissues of the toxic chemotherapeutic agent anthracycline onto the recipient’s skin
with the potential to form cancerous ulcers) were treated on a single-arm pilot
study with topically-applied 99 percent dimethyl sulfoxide and observed for three
months with regular examinations and photographs. DMSO was applied to
approximately twice the area affected by the extravasation and allowed to air dry. This was repeated every six hours for fourteen days. The initial signs of
extravasation included swelling, redness, and pain. The median 
area of damage on
the skin of these patients was 8.25 square centimeters (cm
2
) and a median of
twenty-five minutes elapsed between extravasation and application of DMSO. In no patient did extravasation progress to ulceration or require surgical
intervention, as is usual with this toxic chemotherapeutic agent for cancer. The
authors of this report suggest with 95 percent confidence that ulceration was likely
to have occurred in at least 17 percent of these patients. They go on to say that at
three months there was no sign of residual damage in half the patients, while apigmented indurated area remained in ten. The only side effects of DMSO
included a burning feeling on applications, subsequently associated with itch,
redness, and mild scaling. Slight blisters occurred in four patients, and six reported
a characteristic breath odor associated with oysters. The oncologists stated that
topical DMSO appears to be a safe and effective treatment for the cancer-related
condition, anthracycline extravasation. 1
DMSO tends to prevent the formation of scar tissue, or to dissolve it once
present. The contracture (drawing together) of scar tissue ordinarily left after a
burn doesn’t take place. Chilean physicians have published their results of using the substance, which
indicate that it reduces the incidence of heart attacks or angina pain. It has been
credited with preventing damage to heart muscle when tested in animal
experiments. As with its use in stroke, DMSO may be lifesaving if employed early
in heart attacks. Investigation is continuing. Studies in Chile also show DMSO to be a penetrant across the blood-brain
barrier. It carries drugs effective against certain forms of mental illness directly
into the brain. Placed into the nostrils, DMSO can open blocked sinuses within a few
minutes. It transports antibiotics right into the middle ear to lessen infections. It does the
same against viruses and reduces the symptoms of herpes zoster (shingles) and
herpes simplex (fever blisters). The viruses are hit with antiviral drugs by the
DMSO transport. Furthermore, the herpes II venereal disease is greatly relieved by
application of DMSO directly to the genitalia. Periodontists in Poland have cleared up gum disease and reduced tooth decay
and their associated pain by painting DMSO on the involved areas. Some
pioneering dentists are dropping it into empty tooth sockets after extractions,
especially those for wisdom teeth. It stops post-extraction swelling. A 1987 paper coming out of Russia described the treatment of patients having
generalized periodontitis with indomethacin in a suspension of dimethyl sulfoxide. Periodontitis is disease of the structures supporting the teeth such as the gums,
periodontal membrane, and alveolar bone. The action of bacteria on food debris
accumulated around the margins of the gums causes the formation of plaque,
which eventually forms a hard deposit, tartar (or calculus). This accumulates in the
gingival crevices (the spaces between the gums and the surface of the teeth), which
become abnormally enlarged to form gingival pockets. It’s an early stage of
periodontal disease.In chronic gingivitis, the gums are marked by chronic inflammation, and they
become swollen and bleed easily. Calculus accumulates in the gingival pockets,
causing bleeding and ulceration. Untreated, the plaque spreads to the underlying
periodontal membrane and alveolar bone, which are destroyed. In this stage of
chronic periodontitis, the teeth become loosened and eventually fall out. Periodontal disease is the major cause of tooth loss in middle-aged and elderly
people. It is brought on by poor oral hygiene and also by ill-fitting dentures and
badly made artificial crowns and fillings. The early stages of periodontitis are
treated by scaling to remove the calculus and polishing to remove the plaque,
combined with careful oral hygiene. In advanced disease the gingival pockets are
surgically removed by gingivectomy (gum excision). Now periodontal disease is being treated with indomethacin and DMSO, in
combination. Indomethacin is a drug with anti-inflammatory, antifever, and pain-
killing properties, but containing no corticosteroids. Its mode of action, like that of
certain other anti-inflammatory drugs, is not known. 2
Before this Russian publication, clinical results from the treatment of a
hemorrhagic form of periodontosis were reported from Bulgaria. The clinicians
used a complex herb extract and 15 percent DMSO to rid their patients of
periodontal disease. 3
American podiatrists have found DMSO effective for the treatment of painful
corns, calluses, ingrown toenails, bunions, hammertoes, heel spurs, and even the
inflammation of gouty big toes. DMSO appears to control gout pain after just
seven days of application. Inflammations such as pink eye from viral invasion go away after a few
applications of DMSO. All this happens in a way that medical scientists have yet to fully understand. They don’t know how DMSO actually works. For this 
reason primarily, DMSO is
not approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for any
other human medicinal use except as a treatment for interstitial cystitis, a condition
that causes scarring and gradual shrinkage of the bladder. Bruce H. Stewart, M.D., of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and Sheridan
Shirley, M.D., of the University of Alabama, administered DMSO to 213 patients
and found it quickly healed the bladder condition despite the fact that the patients
had not responded to traditional treatment. Before the success of DMSO, people
suffering with interstitial cystitis faced either major surgery of the bladder, or even
its complete removal. They suffered from the urge to urinate as frequently as
every ten minutes.Unlike criteria laid down for studying the use of DMSO for other conditions,
the study on interstitial cystitis was done following an elementary protocol. The
patients were ill, didn’t improve spontaneously, and all forms of treatment were
ineffective. They then received DMSO and improved markedly. DMSO had
eliminated the patients’ health problems and won approval by the FDA for use in
bladder treatment—but only for interstitial cystitis. THE FDA OBJECTION TO OTHER DMSO USES
“The fundamental problem from the point of view of the FDA is the quality of the
scientific information that is available to support the various claims that are made
for DMSO,” said J. Richard Crout, M.D., Director of the Bureau of Drugs with the
Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Crout made his statement at a hearing before
the House Select Committee on Aging, 96th Congress, held March 24, 1980. Dr. Crout continued, “I want to make it clear that the Food and Drug
Administration has approved DMSO for the indication for which there is evidence
that meets the statutory standard. We are prepared to approve it for any other
indications when the evidence comes along that it does meet that statutory
standard.”
In brief, the drug can be approved if clinical researchers show substantial
evidence of its effectiveness by providing the FDA with well-controlled trials. The
“possibility” that DMSO is effective, according to the present statute, is simply
not enough. For this reason, the only thing holding up FDA approval of DMSO for
any of the substance’s indications is the availability of well-controlled trials that
meet statutory standards, said Dr. Crout. There is a basic conflict between 
the
quality of the scientific evidence available and the statutory standard for approval. This fundamental confrontation is best illustrated by a new drug application
(NDA) submitted in 1978 by Research Industries Corporation of Salt Lake City,
Utah, the major producer of a human medicinal grade of DMSO in 50 percent
concentration called Rimso-50. Research Industries Corporation wanted to extend
the use of its product and market it for the symptomatic relief of pain and
ulceration in the fingers of patients with scleroderma. Scleroderma is a rare
collagen disorder that results in thickening of the skin from the swelling of fibrous
tissue. It most often involves the hands, especially causing ulcers on the fingers,
and less frequently on other tissues in the body. After detailed review by the
FDA’s Bureau of Drugs staff and its Arthritis Advisory Committee, the NDA was
refused on the grounds that the available clinical trials did not yet demonstrate thatDMSO was effective for scleroderma. Medical science’s current investigative
techniques using double- or single-blind studies seemed inadequate for evaluating
the effectiveness of DMSO in this instance. Research Industries Corporation relied principally on one particular study to
demonstrate DMSO’s effectiveness against scleroderma. This study had each
patient dip only one hand into a solution of DMSO. The untreated hand was
observed as a control. Both hands had ulcerations of the skin of the fingers, and
investigators thought that DMSO’s effectiveness in healing sclerodermatous ulcers
would clearly be shown by what happened to the two hands. Dr. Crout described what happened. “There was a general improvement trend
in the healing of ulcers of the fingers in many patients, and in a few this was quite
striking. Interestingly, however, this improvement occurred in both hands in these
patients with scleroderma; that is, both the treated and untreated hands tended to
heal.”
Now, DMSO is different from any other known medical substance in that it is
easily absorbed into the body. Paint an amount the size of a silver dollar anywhere
on your upper body and in thirty seconds you’ll taste it on the tip of your tongue. It penetrates the skin and travels through the blood stream that fast. The officials of the Research Industries Corporation argued that both hands of
the affected patients healed because DMSO worked equally well on the hand in
touch with the liquid and on the control hand. Simply, DMSO healed the control
hand by traveling through the blood stream to the ulcer site. Absorption of the
substance into the body from 
the treated hand was inevitable because of its unique
power of penetrability. Current techniques utilizing the scientific method as it is
understood today cannot be applied to the study of DMSO. Dr. Crout said, “Our staff and advisory committee felt, to the contrary, that
improvement of the untreated hand raised the strong possibility that the general
improvement trend in the whole trial was attributable to a nonspecific effect of
DMSO. Everyone agreed that the trial showed that DMSO may be effective, but
few felt that the trial proved the point. “Because the statutory standard for approval of a drug is substantial evidence
of effectiveness as shown by well-controlled trials, not simply the possibility of
effectiveness,” continued the FDA chief, “we are unable to approve DMSO for
this indication at this time.”
In order for a new drug to be recognized by the FDA it must conform to
section 505 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which holds that the standard for
effectiveness is “substantial evidence” of effectiveness. This means evidence mustcome from controlled clinical investigations conducted by experts qualified by
scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of drugs. Dr. Crout declared that applications for an investigational new drug (IND)
submitted for DMSO during the previous eighteen years were faulty. They had not
been assembled into scientifically designed studies. They had not followed that
certain discipline required by research. All INDs must go through a standard FDA
procedure to win approval. The prior investigational new drug applications
submitted by three pharmaceutical companies of national repute were poorly
prepared, said Dr. Crout, and the companies did not know how to present an IND
application to the FDA to show proper evidence of value in the use of DMSO. He
made this statement despite the fact that these same pharmaceutical firms had
previously won approval for other drugs. FLAWS IN FDA PROCEDURE
Of course, the pharmaceutical companies disagreed. The co-discoverer of the
therapeutic properties of DMSO, Stanley W. Jacob, M.D., Associate Professor of
Surgery at the University of Oregon Medical School, certainly disagreed. He
believed the advisory committee that made recommendations against FDA
approval of DMSO was biased against DMSO. Dr. Jacob told the House
Committee on Aging: “I am not at all satisfied that the FDA is giving DMSO a fair
shake.”
The DMSO researchers who worked with patients on a case-by-case basis
pointed out that the FDA advisory committee was negatively disposed. The
committee members had never themselves used DMSO as a therapeutic tool. And
this was admitted by Dr. Crout. The Honorable Claude Pepper, former Chairman of the House Select
Committee on Aging, was inclined to agree with the analysis made by Dr. Jacob. Congressman Pepper told Dr. Crout, “If there is a drug for which there was an
enormous amount of prospect of good that was being pressed upon you by three
drug companies who apparently thought the drug had enormous potential, in a case
like that, I would think that you would be eager to see if the claims that were made
could be justified. You would be looking for satisfactory proof that would square
with your conscience and your judgment that that product might give relief to a lot
of people and could be put on the market. “Now, the public—and I must say up to now I share the opinion—has the
impression that your agency in its desire to be careful and its desire not to letanybody be hurt, has denied perhaps a lot of people relief in fear that if they
allowed the thing to be approved as it was presented, that they might be hurt by it;
that yours is a negative attitude, that you don’t tell them what is wrong with the
application in an informal way so they can attempt to correct it and the like; that
you are not eager to see the users of the country that might profit from it get the
advantage of it,” said the Congressman. “You say, ‘It is no skin off my back,’ as the old saying goes, ‘if these folks
cannot comply with the technicalities. That is the law, it is none of our
responsibility. Let them get a better lawyer or somebody else. We are not running
it. We are just sitting up here trying to protect the public interest.’
“Are you sure that there is no justification for the public or even members of
Congress having that impression of our regard of your duties?” asked
Congressman Pepper. “Are you sure there is no foundation for that fear?”
Dr. Crout discounted such a possibility and implied that DMSO was having
difficulties because it was so unorthodox. He said it would be far easier for a new
drug to have its application approved if it was closer to something already in the
marketplace, such as a new antibiotic or tranquilizer that duplicates an existing
one. DMSO is a substance totally strange to medical science. It has a novel mode
of action not understood within the context of our current healing concepts. It is an
altogether new principle that will possibly revolutionize 
therapeutics once it is
studied in a more exacting way. For now, however, DMSO is not being studied in
accordance with the standard double- or single-blind procedures commonly used in
the scientific method. This is the present problem. And it is one that has perplexed
the medical community ever since DMSO was first discovered to have therapeutic
value to counter human injury and heal human disease. The existence of this new anti-inflammatory painkiller raises the questions:
How can it be established with certainty the degree to which DMSO does or does
not work for the numerous and varied conditions reported in the medical literature
by clinicians using it successfully? Are we able to break the logjam that enables a
federal agency to keep this drug from general use because its research studies
don’t conform to the regulations laid down by that same federal government for its
citizens’ protection? Does DMSO have a history of controversy among pioneering
health professionals and bureaucratic medical conservatives alike, because neither
group truly comprehends how radically this substance departs from known
principles of healing? Must DMSO remain controversial?CHAPTER 2
DMSO’s Controversial History
On November 10, 1980, United States Food and Drug Administration officials
entered the office of Dr. Stanley Jacob at the University of Oregon Health
Sciences Center. They were looking for research reports on possible damage to
human eyes from the use of DMSO. They had an administrative search warrant
issued by a federal judge and were prepared to rifle through and seize the files
kept by Dr. Jacob. William Zuber and Dr. Alan B. Lisook of the FDA were refused access to any
documents by Jacob even in the face of the federal warrant. Instead, Jacob’s
attorney, Jay Geller, answered the warrant point-by-point in federal court. Mr.
Geller said such reports or documents didn’t exist or, if they did, were not in
Jacob’s possession. Geller added that certain documents requested were privileged patient
information and not available even under court order except in cases where
patients give permission. Zuber and Lisook walked away with only one paper that
Jacob provided, a two-page memo on DMSO and its legal use in treating
interstitial cystitis. Otherwise, they got no response to questions they asked. Zuber
admitted he did not have any authority to question the physician, since the Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not give the FDA “access to people, just things.”
When Lisook asked Geller whether the reports had ever been in Jacob’s
possession in the past, Geller assured the investigators that they had not and that
no documents had been removed from the doctor’s office since the warrant was
issued. Zuber and Lisook then terminated the meeting, saying they didn’t believe
they could obtain any information “central to this warrant.”
Geller accused the FDA of harassing Jacob. He said much of the information
requested in this federal warrant was on record from previous hearings. Jacob said there was no evidence of damage to the human eye caused by
DMSO. “Allegations of hidden toxicity are false,” he stated. 1
Such controversy, with legal actions and reactions, has commonly surrounded
the puzzling painkiller dimethyl sulfoxide. Its exciting biological and medical uses
have made the substance one of the stormiest and most disputed drugs of our day.It lay dormant for nearly one hundred years after its discovery; now it had burst on
the medical scene amidst contention, discord, charges and countercharges—
literally a war of words intended to convince others of the truth. The loser in all this intraprofessional argument is the medical consumer. Patient advocacy doesn’t seem to exist when it relates to DMSO. Welfare for the
people has been abandoned. The facts remain undetermined with certainty;
guidance to help victims of illness make the wisest health decisions for themselves
has been ignored. Health professionals and medical bureaucrats apparently are
failing to fulfill their responsibilities to the public. THE SOURCE AND ORIGIN OF DIMETHYL SULFOXIDE
DMSO was first synthesized in 1866 by Russian scientist Alexander Saytzeff in
Kazan, on the Volga River in Central Russia. He saw that the substance was
colorless, had a garlic-like odor, felt oily to the touch, looked like mineral oil when
poured from the test tube, and left an aftertaste similar to clams or oysters. It had
laboratory curiosity value for Dr. Saytzeff and his fellow chemists because
dimethyl sulfoxide combined with almost any chemical he dropped into the liquid. It was an excellent solvent, useful as a degreaser, paint thinner, and antifreeze. For
about eighty years, the only publication advising scientists about the stuff was a
paper Dr. Saytzeff had submitted to an obscure German chemistry journal that
printed his article in 1867. After World War II, chemists started to show active interest in the substance. A number of papers appeared in chemical literature in 1948, showing DMSO to be
an excellent solvent. In 1959, a group in Great Britain demonstrated that the
solvent would protect red blood cells and other tissues against freezing conditions. Dr. H. Harry Szmant, Chairman of the University of Detroit’s chemistry
department, explained that the liquid has a tremendous capacity to dissolve
substances. It is a reagent that can speed up some chemical reactions a
“billionfold.”
“The unique capability of DMSO to penetrate living tissues without 
causing
significant damage is most probably related to its relatively polar nature, its
capacity to accept hydrogen bonds, and its relatively small and compact
structure,” he said. “This combination of properties results in the ability of DMSO
to associate with water, proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acid, ionic substances,
and other constituents of living systems. Of foremost importance to our
understanding of the possible functions of DMSO in biological systems is itsability to replace some of the water molecules associated with the cellular
constituents, or to affect the structure of the omnipresent water.”
2
Controversy began to surround DMSO in 1962 when Dr. Jacob first became
interested in how to safely freeze human kidneys and considered the solvent for
this purpose. He asked Robert Herschler, a chemical applications supervisor at the
Crown Zellerbach Paper Company, for some of the chemical. Crown Zellerbach
had plenty to spare, since DMSO is a byproduct of its paper-making process. For
five dollars a quart it can be produced commercially in crude form for refining into
human medicinal application. At their first meeting, Robert Herschler mentioned that he had difficulty
washing the stain off his hands when both DMSO and dye got on them. Dr. Jacob
recalls: “We painted DMSO on our skin and within fifteen minutes noticed an
oyster and garlic taste. The skin where the chemical had been was dry.”
The drying effect of dimethyl sulfoxide set off the DMSO explosion. Dryness
of a therapeutic agent makes it valuable in the treatment of burns, since moisture
tends to promote infection. Jacob and Herschler tried it on burned rats and found
those treated were quieter in behavior than the untreated. The drug relieved burn
pain. “From that point on, DMSO usage just spread like wildfire,” Dr. Jacob said
in an interview. In the United States DMSO is derived from 
lignin
, the cement substance of
trees. In Europe and other places it is synthesized from coal, petroleum, or other
organic substances. Collaborative efforts between Jacob’s staff representing the University of
Oregon Medical School and Herschler representing Crown Zellerbach Corporation
demonstrated in laboratory tests that DMSO would not only pass through the skin
and mucous membranes, but during passage would carry with it a certain number
of other substances. For instance, penicillin can be dissolved in DMSO and be
carried through the skin without a needle. Local anesthetic can be carried the same
way. In these early studies, DMSO was shown to relieve pain, reduce 
swelling, slow
the growth of bacteria, improve blood supply, soften scar tissue, enhance the
effectiveness of other pharmacologic agents, act as a diuretic, and function as a
muscle relaxant. It eliminated the pain of sprains, strains, and arthritis, and even
the pain of broken bones. Veterinarians used the substance, by prescription, for arthritic conditions or
injuries in animals. In arthritic greyhounds, an injection of either DMSO or
corticoid (a substance that has an action like a hormone of the adrenal cortex) willenable the animal to race again. In six months 60 percent of the corticoid-treated
dogs will have a recurrence, but less than 20 percent of the dogs treated with
DMSO show such recurrence. THE FDA ENTERS THE PICTURE AND CONTROVERSY
STARTS
The first report on the use of DMSO as a pharmacologic agent was written by
Jacob in 1963 and published February 1, 1964. It caused a flood of trials and wild
enthusiasm over the new “miracle” drug that carried other substances through the
skin and into all organs of the body. It was soon obvious that the chemical could
relieve inflammation and pain in many conditions, some heretofore untreatable any
other way. The first investigational new drug (IND) application for the clinical study of
DMSO in humans was submitted to the FDA on October 25, 1963, and
subsequently approved. Enormous interest in the drug developed rapidly, to the
point where it began to be used very extensively, especially for the treatment of
sprains, bruises, and minor burns. The drug was supplied at no charge to great
numbers of investigators in general medicine, specialty medicine, and to
paramedical professionals, including physiotherapists, a few dentists, nurses, and
the author of this book, a former practicing podiatrist. By 1965 an estimated 100,000 patients had received the medication. Studies
were being conducted but the FDA did not consider them to be well enough
controlled to document clearly that the observed benefits were actually due to the
drug. The New York Times
, in a lead editorial on April 3, 1965, called DMSO “the
closest thing to a wonder drug produced in the 1960s.” An international
symposium of medical scientists in Berlin, West Germany, in July 1965, was held
to exchange information on the effects of DMSO. Still, when three new drug applications (NDAs) on DMSO were submitted to
the FDA in 1965, all three were turned down. The pharmaceutical companies
Merck, Syntex, and Gibb submitted their NDAs 
with the statement that DMSO
was ready to be a prescriptive agent. The FDA denied their statement and
applications, and in fact published its own statement in the 
Federal Register
terminating all clinical use of DMSO. The agency cited toxicological studies
showing that high doses of the drug changed the refractive index of the eye lens in
experimental animals. That is, a change occurred in their focusing power and acertain cloudiness came over the lenses. The agency’s concern was that visual damage might occur in humans exposed
to DMSO. Researchers and bureaucrats didn’t know at that time that the eye
changes were limited to particular species. Nothing happens to monkeys or, most
important, to human beings. A year later this prohibitive policy was relaxed somewhat. The FDA permitted
new investigations for the clinical evaluation of DMSO in serious conditions, such
as scleroderma, persistent herpes zoster, and severe rheumatoid arthritis, for which
no satisfactory therapy is available. In September 1968 the FDA published a further revision, a relaxation of its
DMSO policy that allowed topical application to the skin for not more than
fourteen days for less serious disabilities such as acute musculoskeletal
conditions—for example, sprains, bursitis, and tendinitis. This relaxation of rules
was based on a toxicological study of people that provided a reassuring result: no
evidence of human eye toxicity due to DMSO was present. Yet, again, another NDA submitted by Gibb Pharmaceutical Company in 1971,
stating that DMSO was ready to be prescribed in the United States, was denied. An NDA, on the use of DMSO for scleroderma, was submitted by Research
Industries Corporation in 1978. The study was planned by Arthur L. Scherbel,
M.D., then Chief of Rheumatology at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, under
supervision of doctors at the FDA and consultants from the National Academy of
Sciences. Dr. Scherbel carried out these studies and saw changes in a treated hand,
as compared to an untreated hand. In three months there was a marked
improvement that was statistically significant. When Dr. Scherbel came to the
FDA for acceptance of his study, it was refused. The NDA was denied. By 1983, the NDAs tossed aside by the FDA included 1,500 medical studies
performed on approximately 120,000 patients with a variety of health problems. Moreover, four more international symposia were held by health scientists to
accumulate more information on DMSO. The second symposium conducted was
under the auspices of the New York Academy of Sciences, in March 1966 in New
York City. The third 
was sponsored by the University of Vienna, Austria, in
November 1966. The fourth and fifth were again in New York, under the
sponsorship of the New York Academy of Sciences, in January 1974 and
September 1982. All of these symposia reported favorably on the drug. Because of the ongoing differences among DMSO pioneers and the medical
bureaucrats, Charles C. Edwards, M.D., then Commissioner of Food and Drugs,
asked the National Academy of Sciences in 1972 to review all availableinformation on the effectiveness and toxicity of DMSO. He wanted the National
Academy members to provide the FDA with an independent judgment on these
matters. The Academy appointed a committee of experts, with six subcommittees, to
conduct the review. The committee ran an active review until 1974. The Academy
was actually a semi-governmental body, not really independent at all. As it
received its financing under an FDA contract, it tended to agree with the FDA
position on DMSO. Specifically, the report finally presented by the National
Academy of Sciences stated that there was inadequate scientific evidence of
effectiveness of the drug for the treatment of any disease, that the toxicity potential
was sufficiently great that the drug should remain an investigational drug, and that
controlled clinical investigations were necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness
of DMSO. In light of continued lack of evidence of eye damage in humans from the time it
laid down regulations against DMSO, the FDA has concluded that the regulation is
no longer necessary. Thus, finally, on September 21, 1979, the agency published a
Federal Register
 proposal to revoke the regulation. Yet, Jere Goyan, Ph.D.,
former head of the entire FDA, continued to make public statements about the
dangers of eye toxicity. It may have been to justify these statements that he sent
investigators to grab files wherever they could, searching for reports on DMSO
and its relation to the human eye. Also by 1983, the FDA had sixteen active investigational new drug
applications for DMSO on file. Conditions under study included scleroderma, joint
injuries, and spinal cord injuries. There were no active INDs for the study of
DMSO in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis, which seems
unusual as DMSO use for these conditions is the most popular. THE PUBLIC REBELS AGAINST THE FDA REGULATIONS
Despite the FDA restrictions on the use of DMSO, tens of thousands of 
Americans
still manage to obtain it. Some use a form of the medicine that has been approved
for veterinary use. Some resort to the industrial solvent. Others travel to DMSO
arthritis clinics in Mexico. The drug is passed from person to person, especially
among victims of arthritis. Even though there is no existing IND arthritis application pending before the
FDA, osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis are the two main health problems
being treated by layperson exponents of DMSO. The public is rebelling against theimposition of what it considers nonsensical regulations for limited use of DMSO. People ask, if it is safe enough for internal treatment of interstitial cystitis, why
isn’t it safe to paint it on the skin for arthritic joints? An underground market for supplying the substance has developed. Pharmacies sell the pure medical grade on a doctor’s prescription at a cost of
anywhere from fifteen to twenty dollars for four ounces. Technically, once a drug
gets FDA approval for certain uses—such as for interstitial cystitis—it is not
illegal in any state for a doctor to prescribe it for other purposes. The thriving nationwide black market in DMSO is also operating,
unfortunately, across the counters of hardware stores, in gasoline stations, at mail-
order houses, on the backs of trucks operating near shopping centers or parking
lots, and even out of ice cream parlors. For example, according to a published
article in the 
Chicago Tribune
,
3
 the industrial grade dimethyl sulfoxide solvent has
appeared in such unlikely spots as an ice cream parlor and a locksmith’s shop in
Chicago. A solvent retailer based in Seattle, Washington, offers a toll free mail-
order number and has opened stores in Milwaukee, Chicago, and Evanston,
Illinois. The sales pitch for the substance is careful not to make medical claims about
DMSO. “We’re selling this to you as a solvent; what you do with it is up to you. It’s against the law any other way,” one salesperson says. Billy Williams, president of the solvent retail firm, says that the DMSO he
sells is pharmaceutical grade. It’s safe, he assures people, though he technically
sells it as a solvent. “We’re marketing this stuff because it sells,” Williams said. “And we assume
people use it. We get orders from doctors, chiropractors, and dentists.” He opened
a packaging and distribution plant, and buys a pharmaceutical grade DMSO in
bulk from an undisclosed medical laboratory, then packages it into smaller bottles
in his Seattle plant. “We buy it third-hand from the medical lab,” Williams said. “They ‘back door’ it to us. “As to the medical usage, we can’t help but be aware that people actually are
using it to reduce the pain of arthritis. I have read many letters that people are
using it, because they imply that they have arthritis or muscle strain or a number of
medical disorders. “I know what we’re selling it for: we’re selling it for a profit. That sounds
crass, but that’s what people are in business for. The stuff works! We’re not
profiteering in the sense that we’re going to profit from somebody’s misery.”
Another typical source of public sale is a hairstyling salon in Chicago. Themanager said he stopped selling the solvent because of the controversy over its
legality. “I only sold it for a few days,” he said. He had purchased a case of
industrial DMSO from a Chicago police officer who had also supplied the ice
cream parlor. Research Laboratories, Inc. of Salt Lake City, Utah is often referred to by the
United States Food and Drug Administration when inquiries are made by
physicians and other health professionals for a source of dimethyl sulfoxide for
human therapeutic purposes. Research Laboratories sells a 50 milliliter (ml)
ampoule of DMSO to health professionals for injection purposes for $28.00. Specifically for the consumer, the finest source of acquiring DMSO products
is Dr. James Critchlow, proprietor of American Pharmaceutical Enterprises, Inc.,
P.O. Box 12543, Scottsdale, Arizona 85267; telephone (602) 998-4142 or call toll
free (800) 345-3391. American Pharmaceutical Enterprises (APE) provides a
deodorized, pharmaceutical grade of DMSO quite suitable for human therapeutic
application. A purified pint by mail order costs $60.00 and Dr. Critchlow’s
slightly lemon-scented DMSO Solvent Creme in a four-ounce jar is $29.95. He also furnishes DMSO products for medical doctors, osteopaths, podiatrists,
chiropractors, naturopaths, homeopaths, dentists, nurses, physical therapists, and
other types of health professionals who utilize DMSO as part of their therapeutic
reserves. Under the Critchlow company name, Phyne Pharmaceuticals, Inc., P.O. Box 12543, Scottsdale, Arizona 85261 or 14325 North 79th Street, Scottsdale,
Arizona 85260; telephone (602) 998-4142 and toll free (800) 345-3391, health
professionals are offered medical grade products for topical or internal
application. For instance, the Phyne Pharmaceutical pint quantity of liquid DMSO
is so pure that many doctors use it for intravenous infusions of patients. Product
prices are considerably less for health professionals when they purchase in
quantity. Federal studies, according to former FDA Commissioner, Jere E. Goyan,
indicate that industrial grade DMSO is not suitable for treating humans. It does not
have to pass the same quality control as the medical grade. When the solvent is
transferred to smaller containers, it increases the chances of impurity. The FDA
official warning states that the “risk that may accompany use of the industrial
grade . . . is its potential as a carrier chemical capable of delivering harmful
substances into the bloodstream if they are present in impure DMSO or on the
skin.”
“People are taking a risk whenever they use a substance of unknown quality
and effect,” Commissioner Goyan said. “It’s risky business to drink, inject, orapply to the skin any substance not intended for that purpose.”
The black market in DMSO, pure grade and industrial grade, continues simply
because the FDA keeps the drug off the market for any use except the treatment of
interstitial cystitis. Arthur Scherbel, former senior physician at the Cleveland
Clinic’s Department of Rheumatic Disease and Immunology, declared that the
FDA is holding back approval of the drug “for no good reason. People are using it
without proper guidance, and that is a mistake. The sooner it is released the
better.”
4
LEGISLATORS ACT ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE
No fewer than six resolutions to legalize the public use of DMSO and to override
the ruling of the FDA have been introduced into the United States Congress. United States Senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.) said: “Since I have no scientific
expertise, I cannot make an absolute statement that DMSO is indeed the wonder
drug of our century, but every bit of evidence I encounter reinforces the premise
that it is. “After over 1,200 scientific publications on the merits of DMSO, after
international symposia in Germany, the United States, and Austria—all concluding
that DMSO is safe and effective—after three separate pharmaceutical firms have
submitted four new drug applications to the FDA, DMSO is still not available to
Americans, though it is available in many other countries. I have urged the Senate
to support my legislation on behalf of all Americans who are suffering today from
diseases untreatable by any other known substance and those who may have need
of this drug in the future.”
The Honorable Wendell Wyatt (D-Ore.) reintroduced legislation in 
the United
States House of Representatives aimed at getting a fair hearing for DMSO. “Since
the FDA action against DMSO has been taken on the flimsiest of evidence,” said
Wyatt, “we have been unable to get even a hearing for DMSO. The whole issue
has been submerged under a bureaucratic cloud.”
The Congressman’s efforts, and the efforts of other members of the United
States legislature, have paid off. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) held a
Senate subcommittee hearing on the drug’s status at the FDA on July 31, 1980. Congressman Claude Pepper (D-Fla.) chaired a hearing (under the title “DMSO:
New Hope for Arthritis?”) before the House Select Committee on Aging on March
24, 1980.Since those hearings, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and
Human Services has been conducting an investigation into the regulatory
procedure DMSO has undergone at the FDA. Furthermore, some state legislatures have overridden the FDA ruling against
dispensing DMSO and altered state laws to allow its use by authorized health
professionals. Currently Texas, Washington, Montana, Oklahoma, Florida, Oregon,
Louisiana, and Nevada are the eight states in the nation that have authorized
prescribing the medication. Legalization of DMSO in Florida is another example of
the people rebelling against FDA regulations. The difference here was that the
legalization of DMSO in Florida was pushed by a legislator whose wife was
forced to travel to Mexico for DMSO treatments. In 1977, the Florida legislature legalized the drug for intravenous,
intramuscular, oral, and topical human therapy. The Florida law reads:
Section 1. No hospital or health facility shall interfere with the physician-
patient relationship by restricting or forbidding the use of dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO) when prescribed or administered by a physician
licensed under chapter 458 or 459, Florida Statutes, and requested by a
patient unless the substance as prescribed or administered by the
physician is found to be harmful by the State Boards of Medical
Examiners and Osteopathic Medical Examiners in a hearing conducted
under the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120,
Florida Statutes. Furthermore, no hospital or health facility shall remove
the staff privileges of a physician solely because said physician
prescribed or administered dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) to a patient under
the conditions set forth in this act. Section 2. No physician licensed under chapter 458 or 459, Florida
Statutes, shall be subject to disciplinary action by the State Boards of
Medical Examiners and Osteopathic Medical Examiners for prescribing or
administering dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) to a patient under his care who
has requested the substance unless the State Boards of Medical Examiners
and Osteopathic Medical Examiners, in a hearing conducted under the
provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, Chapter 120, Florida
Statutes, has made a formal finding that the substance is harmful. Section 3. The patient, after being fully informed as to alternative methodsof treatment and their potential for cure and upon request for the
administration of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) by his physician, shall sign
a written release, releasing the physician and, when applicable, the hospital
or health facility from any liability therefor. Section 4. The physician shall inform the patient in writing if dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO) has not been approved as a treatment or cure by the
Food and Drug Administration of the United States Department of Health
and Human Services for the disorder for which it is being prescribed. Section 5. This act shall not apply to conditions for which dimethyl
sulfoxide (DMSO) has been approved as a treatment by the Food and
Drug Administration of the United States Department of Health and
Human Services. Following passage of this new law, the potential for abusing it, spurred on by
paid advertisements of DMSO clinics as well as broad media coverage, prompted
the Florida Medical Association (FMA) to issue a statement in the form of a
“letter to the editor,” in October 1980, to all newspapers throughout Florida. A 
60
Minutes
 television broadcast had stimulated an almost daily stream of inquiries,
both by letter and telephone, to the FMA headquarters in Jacksonville, Florida. Most of the in-state queries were from the press, while the majority from out of the
state were from individuals with a variety of symptoms seeking a physician to
provide them with the “miracle cure” called DMSO. The FMA official position is
this:
Without an approved new drug application, the drug cannot be marketed or
distributed in Florida for indications other than the treatment of interstitial
cystitis. However, legally, a doctor may prescribe an approved drug for
other indications. The Florida Legislature passed a law in 1978 which permits a
physician to use DMSO after advising the patient of alternative treatment
and any potential for cure. The law requires that upon request to the
physician for DMSO treatment, the patient shall sign a written release of
liability to the physician and, when applicable, the hospital or facility. The
physician shall inform the patient if DMSO has been approved by the
FDA for the disorder for which it is being prescribed in writing.The Florida Medical Association does not condone going outside of
the approved and responsible mechanism for the introduction of a new
drug. As a matter of fact, physicians covered by professional liability
insurance under the FMA-sponsored plan have been warned regarding the
drug. They will not be covered by the plan if they use DMSO for any
symptom other than the relief of interstitial cystitis for which, as
previously stated, it is approved by the FDA. At the same time, FMA does encourage its physician members who
are interested to take part in the FDA investigational program in this and
other areas. Assistance is available for obtaining from the FDA an
Investigational New Drug Application (IND) plus sterile nonpyogenic
DMSO solution. In order to participate in this research, the physician must
agree to keep the necessary records. The DMSO solution will be supplied
free of charge and assistance given to the physician in developing the
necessary protocol. As to the law passed during this year’s legislative session allowing for
the manufacture, distribution, and sale of a DMSO ointment in Florida,
FMA has no direct knowledge and no participation in any way in this
matter. We are informed by officials in The Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) that they are in the process of developing
rules and regulations to govern the manufacture of such a product and that
at this time one formal application to do so has been submitted. We are also informed by personnel in the DHRS that there 
is a serious
question in their minds as to what constitutes a “safe” product for human
consumption. This question could lead to an Attorney General’s opinion
being sought prior to anyone being allowed to manufacture a DMSO
product in Florida. Consumer inquiries concerning DMSO or any other new experimental
drug should be directed to the FDA Bureau of Drugs, Advisory Opinion
Board HFD 35, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20852. Physicians interested in working in the experimental drug program should
contact the FDA Bureau of Drugs, Division of Oncology HFD 150,
Radiopharmaceuticals Branch, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland
20852. On January 28, 1981, the Public Health Committee of the General Assembly
of the State of Connecticut held a committee meeting to consider whether the stateshould encourage physicians to use DMSO to treat painful and sometimes fatal
diseases. A bill submitted by Wolcott, Connecticut Representative Eugene
Migliaro would relieve medical doctors of their professional liability if they
prescribed DMSO. Migliaro explained that the public may receive DMSO through
the mail. “We know that DMSO is not a cure,” Migliaro said. “And I understand the
things that can happen to you if you use it wrong. I’d like to protect it.
Dmso_Nature_s_Healer_-_Morton_Walker.txt
Summarize the following text section accurately and concisely. Maintain specific details and numerical information, and use anti-repetition mechanisms:

        The medical information and procedures contained in this book are not intended as a substitute for
consulting your physician. All matters regarding your physical health should be supervised by a medical
professional. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Walker, Morton
      DMSO:nature’s healer/Morton Walker. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-101-66234-2
      1. Dimethyl sulphoxide—Therapeutic use. I. Title. RM666. D56W337    1993
615’. 783—dc20
92-34981
 
    CIP
Copyright © 1993 by Dr. Morton Walker
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Contents
Title Page
Copyright
Acknowledgments
Preface
 
1. The Painkiller With a Problem
 
2. DMSO’s Controversial History
 
3. The Therapeutic Principle of DMSO
 
4. General Medical Uses for DMSO
 
5. The Toxicity and Side Effects of DMSO
 
6. The Potent Potion for Sports Injuries
 
7. Arthritis Therapy With DMSO and Diet
 
8. Adapting DMSO for Foot and Leg Problems
 
9. Using DMSO in Head and Spinal Cord Injuries
10. DMSO Therapy for Mental Disabilities
11. The DMSO-Cancer Connection
12. Infectious Diseases Respond to DMSO
13. Misreporting of DMSO for Scleroderma and Interstitial Cystitis
Epilogue
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Notes
Bibliography
IndexTo that singular humanitarian who loves people, Chrystyne M. Jackson,
publisher of Explore magazine, who has saved more people’s lives with
counseling, lectures, referrals, and publications than have most individual
physicians who use conventional medical practices. Acknowledgments
My appreciation is extended to the medical consultant for a first edition of this
book. Ten years ago, William Campbell Douglass, M. D. , then of Sarasota,
Florida, put together a three-day medical conference comprised of experts on
dimethyl sulfoxide. They came to Sarasota from around the United States and six
foreign countries and brought specialty knowledge of DMSO with them. They
shared this knowledge with each other, and I was the medical journalist who
recorded their information, produced magazine and clinical journal articles, and
eventually the first edition of this book. The present second edition is an update
and then rewrite of that initial published effort. Preface
The American Medical Association (AMA) held a leadership conference the
weekend of February 14, 1981, and one of its speakers was Otis R. Bowen, M.
The purpose of the book is to provide information about the therapeutic uses and benefits of DMSO, and to encourage the use of the substance in medical treatment.
What is the purpose of the book "DMSO: nature's healer"?
The author of the book is Morton Walker.
Who is the author of the book "DMSO: nature's healer"?
The main issue is that the FDA is requiring "substantial evidence" of effectiveness and safety, which is not available due to the lack of well-controlled studies.
What is the main issue with the FDA's approval process for DMSO?
The controversy surrounds the FDA's refusal to approve DMSO for any use other than treating interstitial cystitis, despite numerous reports of its effectiveness in treating various health problems.
What is the controversy surrounding DMSO?
DMSO is not approved for any use except in the treatment of interstitial cystitis, but many people are still obtaining it through various means, including buying it from pharmacies or obtaining it from other sources.
What is the current status of DMSO in the United States?