I lived in Bellingham Washington for over 22 years and lived close to the Georgia Pacific Paper Mill. Living there the air would smell so bad and the fumes so toxic, we were advised to stay indoors at time. When the company moved the cost to remediate the site was in the millions and would take over a decade according to the local paper. So when Amandha Vollmer wrote a book all about the wondrous hidden gem, DMSO or dimethyl sulfoxide, made from paper mill production, I smelled a rat. The first line in her book reads “Who could imagine that a simple extract from trees could be one of the most powerful healers of all time?” She has a lovely picture of hand drawn trees on the from of the book and touts how to manage your aliments with this seemingly innocent byproduct made from wonderful all natural trees. She makes it sound like you go into the forest, tap a tree like extracting maple syrup and presto! You have fresh, pure, all natural DMSO. In 2020 I was so convinced by her book and "research" that I not only purchased the book but she even signed the book for an extra $20. And bought a gallon of DMSO, an industrial solvent thinking I could have it in my arsenal of healing remedies to store so I can be kept out of the Medical Industrial Complex. Boy was I wrong. I was duped and lulled into buying this snake oil with the industries studies and research papers.
Nothing could be further from the truth. This is an industrial solvent of the most toxic industry yet that crosses the blood brain barrier within seconds. Do you really want to take a chance that and slather it all over your body, absorbing it instantly? And for the record, after releasing this article, I received the following message from Fred, apparently on Amandha's marketing team. So much for her cries of being the most censored person on the internet. She has a huge following and even departments to her business.
Here is the direct copy:
You have a new message in form: Contact form
First Name
Fred
Last Name
Luchetti
Email
FredLuchetti@protonmail.com
Subject
Removal of Amandha Vollmer from your blog
Message
"I am here representing the marketing department of Amandha's business and I want to impress upon you the urgency of removing any mention of Amandha, her book "Healing with DMSO" or any products or claims that Dr. Vollmer is alleged to have made, from your blog: https://purifywithin.com/blog-robin-stebbins-purify-within/dmsodisastor. I am the first line of approach, ignoring my request will result in lawyers coming on board to address this problem. Your comments are simply scare tactics not based in any science and if you had done the research you would find that DMSO is widely used in the practice of traditional medicine BECAUSE it is a transdermal agent. Any attacks on our business will be met with severe legal consequences this is the only warning we are going to send out." Fred Luchetti
Looks like I am directly over the bullseye. Thanks Fred for the feedback. Let's keep reading to find out more about DMSO and its disastrous effects.
DMSO is a toxic chemical byproduct of the paper making process. The Paper Mill Industry would have to pay a hefty fee to dump the liquid byproducts as they are deemed harmful to the environment. As in they destroy marine and aquatic life as well as the ecosystem of the land and water. And to make matters worse, paper production is considered to be one of the worst polluting industries on the planet, producing more toxins in air, and on land and water than any other product production and as a result, they have to pay heavy costs to dump the toxic wastes producing the paper creates.
We will start with the paper making process and why it's important to note that nothing coming out of this industry would be beneficial (including toilet paper, paper towels, napkins etc). Wood is ground into a pulp, which is then treated with various chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide, and bleached with chlorine dioxide (yes the “miracle mineral supplement” the alternative community seems to love to poison themselves with) hydrogen peroxide and sodium hydroxide to break down the lignin, extract cellulose fibers and make the fibers soft, malleable and bright white. This production causes extreme harm to the air, water and soil by discharging airborne toxins such as dioxins and furans, the most toxic substances known to affect human and environmental health.
Pulp mill liquid wastes are a source of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, neurotoxins and other dangerous contaminants. One of these liquid solvent byproducts is DMSO. Prior to the 1960’s the paper mill industry would have to incur a cost to dispose of the various industrial solvents. So what are a bunch of fat cat paper mill owners supposed to do? Sit around and pay to dump their toxic waste when they could sell it back to the public at a profit?
The industry got together and hired “scientists” and a "medical doctor" to come together and look at the liquid wastes they had to dispose of and try and find a way to sell it back to the public as a health tonic. Similar to the Fatcat Playbook of the Aluminum and Phosphate Fertilizer Industries and their healthy fluoride byproduct and of Crude Oil Production and their toxic iodized salt byproduct and of Rubber Tire Production and their poisonous Zeolite and Zinc byproducts. Are you starting to see a pattern developing here? Industry giants don’t want to pay to get rid of their toxic wastes when then can sell it back to the public for a profit. That is a double dip, not only to avoid the expense of disposing of an environmental poison, but make a handsome profit off selling their own brand of toxic waste, sorry, I mean health tonics.
Enter stage Dr. Stanely W. Jacob, the man credited for discovering the beneficial qualities of DMSO in the 1960’s. Prior to this, starting around the 1940's DMSO was developed commercially as an antifreeze and a solvent for paints, synthetic fibers and household cleaners. Dr Jacob certainly couldn’t sell this as a health tonic so his team, funded by the Oregon Health and Science University and the ever honest and prestigious NIH or National Institute of Health and their amazing track record, began looking for the “health benefits” of DMSO. As you might expect, there was quite a bit of controversy from the medical and scientific communities raising concern about the safety and efficacy of DMSO and the way he and his team conducted their studies. Of upmost concern was the permeability of DMSO and is not only instantly absorbed into the bloodstream but crosses the extremetly sensitive blood brain barrier within seconds. Those raising concern were not hired by the NIH, a University or the Paper Mill Industry so they were swept under the rug, a few licenses were threatened and lost and BOOM! We have a new and wondrous magic elixir to peddle, and the next best snake oil con job since fluoride.
So what are the concerns about this toxic solvent that thins paint, cleans oil, and stops your car fluids from freezing? More to the point, it had to be exploited for a purpose and they found that DMSO will penetrate the skin with little or no impact on the skin tissues so it was used as a transdermal mode of getting drugs into the body, or more familiar the transdermal patch technology currently used with many pharmaceutical drugs like opioids and HRT. DMSO is approved for the treatment of bladder pain by the FDA. It was also used as way for those using recreational drugs such as cocaine, to get it into the body more quickly, as it doubles or more the effects of whatever drug you are using, including of course pharmaceuticals.
What are the harmful effects then exactly? Obviously rubbing a synthetic chemical on your body is a problem. But if you are still in the matrix and want some studies, to prove the obvious, I have that as well. Several researchers concluded that DMSO can impact cellular processes of the heart and liver cells, mutating the cells and future cell divisions, possible for multiple generations in both animal and human studies. It also has been shown to change the shape of the eye lens, leading to changes in vision and visual deterioration. It is an endocrine disruptor, carcinogen and poses reproductive harm, again, for future generations. Looks like a sterilization tool to me, with the added bonus of causing downstream health issues which net the Medical Industrial Complex more profit from its direct effects. It has an immediate effect on the body, garlic taste in the mouth and reduction of inflammation, meaning it is absorbed immediately and creates a reaction in the body. Also it is important to note that we do not want to reduce swelling and inflammation in our bodies. It is the perfect reaction to immobilize the joint so that the body has time to heal without motion while bringing in the healing fluids to the site of injury. Stopping inflammation, or the bodies healing response is actually a problem. There is swelling and a response the body has engaged to aid the healing response. Interfering with this will cause more issues within the body later on as it was not able to complete the full healing response.
In conclusion, DMSO is a toxic chemical byproduct of Paper Mill Production that the industry paid scientist to make up as a medicinal benefit to sell to the public as a sports medicine elixir, drug potentiater, and miracle healing agent. There is no benefit to slathering this chemical on your body, it will only harm you and your future generations. And before you allow Amandha Vollmer and other Pharma-Lite shills to recommend that you poison your body, please remember The Playbook they use, so that when the next shiny new synthetic chemical comes your way, you won’t get lured into popping it into your body with something that may not just poison you, but your grandchildren's children.
Remember, you can not poison the body back to health, Mother Nature does not have an active ingredient to extract and put in a pill, and we do not have a chemical deficiency. Health comes from eating whole fresh living foods, direct sunlight on bare skin, barefoot in raw nature, spring water, fresh outdoor air, loving connected relationships and daily connection to Mother Nature, the Divine, and God. Simple. Remember, you are the medicine. Purify Within and let the body do what it does best. Heal itself.
References
Galvao, J. et al. Unexpected low-dose toxicity of the universal solvent DMSO. Faseb J 28, 1317–1330, https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.13-235440 (2014).
Sumida, K. et al. Effects of DMSO on gene expression in human and rat hepatocytes. Hum Exp Toxicol 30, 1701–1709, https://doi.org/10.1177/0960327111399325 (2011).
Yuan, Y. et al. Efficient long-term cryopreservation of pluripotent stem cells at-80 degrees C. Sci Rep-Uk 6, doi:ARTN 34476 10.1038/srep34476 (2016).
FDA. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cms_ia/importalert_169.html.
Brobyn, R. D. The human toxicology of dimethyl sulfoxide. Ann N Y Acad Sci 243, 497–506 (1975).
Rubin, L. F. Toxicologic update of dimethyl sulfoxide. Ann N Y Acad Sci 411, 6–10 (1983).
Smith, E. R., Hadidian, Z. & Mason, M. M. The single–and repeated–dose toxicity of dimethyl sulfoxide. Ann N Y Acad Sci 141, 96–109 (1967).
FDA. www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm073395.pdf (2012).
Jacob, S. W. & Herschler, R. Pharmacology of DMSO. Cryobiology 23, 14–27 (1986).
Edgar, D. H. & Gook, D. A. A critical appraisal of cryopreservation (slow cooling versus vitrification) of human oocytes and embryos. Hum Reprod Update 18, 536–554, https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms016 (2012).
Denko, C. W., Goodman, R. M., Miller, R. & Donovan, T. Distribution of dimethyl sulfoxide-35S in the rat. Ann N Y Acad Sci 141, 77–84 (1967).
Yu, Z. W. & Quinn, P. J. Dimethyl sulphoxide: a review of its applications in cell biology. Biosci Rep 14, 259–281 (1994).
Deng, Z. H. et al. Topical diclofenac therapy for osteoarthritis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rheumatol 35, 1253–1261, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-015-3021-z (2016).
Fuller, P. & Roth, S. Diclofenac sodium topical solution with dimethyl sulfoxide, a viable alternative to oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories in osteoarthritis: review of current evidence. J Multidiscip Healthc 4, 223–231, https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S23209 (2011).
Kamburov, A. et al. ConsensusPathDB: toward a more complete picture of cell biology. Nucleic Acids Res 39, D712–D717, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq1156 (2011).
Fabregat, A. et al. The Reactome pathway Knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res 44, D481–D487, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv1351 (2016).
Lederkremer, G. Z. Glycoprotein folding, quality control and ER-associated degradation. Curr Opin Struc. Biol 19, 515–523, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2009.06.004 (2009).
Chou, C. H. et al. miRTarBase 2016: updates to the experimentally validated miRNA-target interactions database. Nucleic Acids Res 44, D239–247, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv1258 (2016).
Iwatani, M. et al. Dimethyl sulfoxide has an impact on epigenetic profile in mouse embryoid body. Stem Cells 24, 2549–2556, https://doi.org/10.1634/stemcells.2005-0427 (2006).
Nunes, S. S., Miklas, J. W. & Radisic, M. Maturation of stem cell-derived human heart tissue by mimicking fetal heart rate. Future Cardiol 9, 751–754, https://doi.org/10.2217/fca.13.71 (2013).
Batalov, I. & Feinberg, A. W. Differentiation of Cardiomyocytes from Human Pluripotent Stem Cells Using Monolayer Culture. Biomark Insights 10, 71–76 (2015).
Robertson, C., Tran, D. D. & George, S. C. Concise Review: Maturation Phases of Human Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Cardiomyocytes. Stem Cells 31, 829–837, https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.1331 (2013).
Eberhardt, M. K. & Colina, R. The reaction of OH radicals with dimethyl sulfoxide. A comparative study of Fenton’s reagent and the radiolysis of aqueous dimethyl sulfoxide solutions. The Journal of Organic Chemistry 53, 1071–1074 (1988).
Zorov, D. B., Juhaszova, M. & Sollott, S. J. Mitochondrial reactive oxygen species (ROS) and ROS-induced ROS release. Physiol Rev 94, 909–950, https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00026.2013 (2014).
Lane, M. & Gardner, D. K. Understanding cellular disruptions during early embryo development that perturb viability and fetal development. Reprod Fert Develop 17, 371–378, https://doi.org/10.1071/Rd04102 (2005).
Benkhalifa, M. et al. Mitochondria: Participation to infertility as source of energy and cause of senescence. Int J Biochem. Cell B 55, 60–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocel.2014.08.011 (2014).
Kang, M. H. et al. The cytotoxic effects of dimethyl sulfoxide in mouse preimplantation embryos: a mechanistic study. Theranostics 7, 4735–4752, https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.21662 (2017).
Haider, S. et al. The landscape of DNA repeat elements in human heart failure. Genome Biol. 13, doi:ARTN R90 10.1186/gb-2012-13-10-R90 (2012).
Yokochi, T. & Robertson, K. D. Dimethyl sulfoxide stimulates the catalytic activity of de novo DNA methyltransferase 3a (Dnmt3a) in vitro. Bioorg Chem 32, 234–243, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioorg.2004.04.005 (2004).
Thaler, R., Spitzer, S., Karlic, H., Klaushofer, K. & Varga, F. DMSO is a strong inducer of DNA hydroxymethylation in pre-osteoblastic MC3T3-E1 cells. Epigenetics-Us 7, 635–651, https://doi.org/10.4161/epi.20163 (2012).
Kawai, K., Li, Y. S., Song, M. F. & Kasai, H. DNA methylation by dimethyl sulfoxide and methionine sulfoxide triggered by hydroxyl radical and implications for epigenetic modifications. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 20, 260–265, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmcl.2009.10.124 (2010).
Nishant, K. T., Singh, N. D. & Alani, E. Genomic mutation rates: what high-throughput methods can tell us. Bioessays 31, 912–920, https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.200900017 (2009).
Stinshoff, H., Wilkening, S., Hanstedt, A., Bollwein, H. & Wrenzycki, C. Dimethylsulfoxide and conjugated linoleic acids affect bovine embryo development in vitro. Reprod Fert Develop 26, 502–510, https://doi.org/10.1071/Rd12372 (2014).
Azari, M., Kafi, M., Ebrahimi, B., Fatehi, R. & Jamalzadeh, M. Oocyte maturation, embryo development and gene expression following two different methods of bovine cumulus-oocyte complexes vitrification. Vet Res Commun 41, 49–56, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-016-9671-8 (2017).
Li, X., Wang, Y. K., Song, Z. Q., Du, Z. Q. & Yang, C. X. Dimethyl Sulfoxide Perturbs Cell Cycle Progression and Spindle Organization in Porcine Meiotic Oocytes. Plos One 11, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158074 (2016).
Zhou, D. J. et al. Effects of dimethyl sulfoxide on asymmetric division and cytokinesis in mouse oocytes. Bmc Dev Biol 14, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-213x-14-28 (2014).
Xu, Q. H. & Xie, W. Epigenome in Early Mammalian Development: Inheritance, Reprogramming and Establishment. Trends Cell Biol 28, 237–253, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2017.10.008 (2018).
Heijmans, B. T. et al. Persistent epigenetic differences associated with prenatal exposure to famine in humans. P Natl Acad Sci USA 105, 17046–17049, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806560105 (2008).
Tobi, E. W. et al. DNA methylation differences after exposure to prenatal famine are common and timing- and sex-specific. Hum Mol Genet 18, 4046–4053, https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddp353 (2009).
Veenendaal, M. V. E. et al. Transgenerational effects of prenatal exposure to the 1944-45 Dutch famine. Bjog-Int J Obstet Gy 120, 548–554, https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12136 (2013).
De Rycke, M., Liebaers, I. & Van Steirteghem, A. Epigenetic risks related to assisted reproductive technologies - Risk analysis and epigenetic inheritance. Hum Reprod 17, 2487–2494, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.10.2487 (2002).
Hart, R. & Norman, R. J. The longer-term health outcomes for children born as a result of IVF treatment: Part IGeneral health outcomes. Hum Reprod Update 19, 232–243, https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms062 (2013).
Hansen, M., Bower, C., Milne, E., de Klerk, N. & Kurinczuk, J. J. Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects - a systematic review. Hum Reprod 20, 328–338, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh593 (2005).
Bower, C. & Hansen, M. Assisted reproductive technologies and birth outcomes: overview of recent systematic reviews. Reprod Fert Develop 17, 329–333, https://doi.org/10.1071/Rd04095 (2005).
Pelkonen, S. et al. Physical health of singleton children born after frozen embryo transfer using slow freezing: a 3-year follow-up study. Hum Reprod 30, 2411–2418, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev203 (2015).
Maher, E. R., Afnan, M. & Barratt, C. L. Epigenetic risks related to assisted reproductive technologies: Epigenetics, imprinting, ART and icebergs? Hum Reprod 18, 2508–2511, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deg486 (2003).
Laprise, S. L. Implications of Epigenetics and Genomic Imprinting in Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Mol Reprod Dev 76, 1006–1018, https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.21058 (2009).
Manipalviratn, S., DeCherney, A. & Segars, J. Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 91, 305–315, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.01.002 (2009).
Thompson, J. G., Kind, K. L., Roberts, C. T., Robertson, S. A. & Robinson, J. S. Epigenetic risks related to assisted reproductive technologies - Short- and long-term consequences for the health of children conceived through assisted reproduction technology: more reason for caution? Hum Reprod 17, 2783–2786, https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/17.11.2783 (2002).
Uyar, A. & Seli, E. The impact of assisted reproductive technologies on genomic imprinting and imprinting disorders. Curr Opin Obstet Gyn 26, 210–221, https://doi.org/10.1097/Gco.0000000000000071 (2014).
Barnhart, K. T. Introduction: Are we ready to eliminate the transfer of fresh embryos in in vitro fertilization? Fertil Steril 102, 1–2, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.05.024 (2014).
Chen, Z. J. et al. Fresh versus Frozen Embryos for Infertility in the Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. New Engl J Med 375, 523–533, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1513873 (2016).
Vuong, L. N. et al. IVF Transfer of Fresh or Frozen Embryos in Women without Polycystic Ovaries. New Engl J Med 378, 137–147, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1703768 (2018).
Petropanagos, A. In Oncofertility 223–235 (Springer, 2010).
Gardner, D. K. & Kelley, R. L. Impact of the IVF laboratory environment on human preimplantation embryo phenotype. J Dev Orig Hlth Dis 8, 418–435, https://doi.org/10.1017/S2040174417000368 (2017).
Westphal, J. R., Gerritse, R., Braat, D. D. M., Beerendonk, C. C. M. & Peek, R. Complete protection against cryodamage of cryopreserved whole bovine and human ovaries using DMSO as a cryoprotectant. J Assist Reprod. Gen 34, 1217–1229, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0963-x (2017).
De Munck, N., Vajta, G. & Rienzi, L. In Preventing Age Related Fertility Loss 87–101 (Springer, 2018).
Kuepfer, L. et al. A model-based assay design to reproduce in vivo patterns of acute drug-induced toxicity. Arch Toxicol, 1–3 (2017).
Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 (2014).
Andrews, S. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc (2010).
Li, B. & Dewey, C. N. RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. Bmc Bioinformatics 12, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-323 (2011).
Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat Methods 9, 357–U354, https://doi.org/10.1038/Nmeth.1923 (2012).
Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol 15, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 (2014).
Stocks, M. B. et al. TheUEA sRNA workbench: a suite of tools for analysing and visualizing next generation sequencing microRNA and small RNA datasets. Bioinformatics 28, 2059–2061, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts311 (2012).
Caiment, F., Gaj, S., Claessen, S. & Kleinjans, J. High-throughput data integration of RNA-miRNA-circRNA reveals novel insights into mechanisms of benzo[a]pyrene-induced carcinogenicity. Nucleic Acids Res 43, 2525–2534, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv115 (2015).
Prufer, K. et al. PatMaN: rapid alignment of short sequences to large databases. Bioinformatics 24, 1530–1531, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn223 (2008).
Taiwo, O. et al. Methylome analysis using MeDIP-seq with low DNA concentrations. Nature protocols 7, 617 (2012).
Li, H. & Durbin, R. Fast and accurate long-read alignment with Burrows-Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 26, 589–595, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp698 (2010).
Lienhard, M. et al. QSEA-modelling of genome-wide DNA methylation from sequencing enrichment experiments. Nucleic Acids Res 45, e44, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw1193 (2017).
Consortium, E. P. An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome. Nature 489, 57–74, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11247 (2012).
Aryee, M. J. et al. Minfi: a flexible and comprehensive Bioconductor package for the analysis of Infinium DNA methylation microarrays. Bioinformatics 30, 1363–1369, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu049 (2014).
Hinrichs, A. S. et al. The UCSC Genome Browser Database: update 2006. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D590–598, 10.1093/nar/gkj144 (2006).