For the month of April 2026, the stellium in Aries—comprising Mercury, Mars, Saturn, and Neptune—is a highly potent and complex configuration.In mundane astrology, Aries represents the "Aries Point" (0 degrees), a degree of world prominence where internal shifts manifest as collective, visible events.
Having both Saturn (structure, restriction) and Neptune (dissolution, vision) conjunct at the start of Aries is the defining "New Era" signature of 2026. Adding the inner planets, Mercury and Mars, acts as the "trigger" for this slow-moving conjunction.
1. The Mars Factor: The Engine Ignites
Mars enters its home sign of Aries on April 9, where it is exceptionally strong (Dignified). In mundane terms, a strong Mars in Aries usually signals a surge in military activity, industrial breakthroughs, or grassroots uprisings.
Mars conjunct Saturn/Neptune: Around mid-April, Mars passes over the Saturn-Neptune conjunction. This is a classic "stop-and-go" energy. Saturn acts as the brakes, while Mars is the accelerator. On a global scale, this can manifest as redirected aggression or "structured activism"—where long-standing grievances (Neptune) are finally organized into disciplined action (Saturn/Mars).
2. Mercury in Aries: The Command Center
Mercury enters Aries on April 14, joining the group.
Direct Communication: Expect a shift from the "foggy" or secretive communications of the previous month (when Mercury was in Pisces) to blunt, decisive, and potentially inflammatory rhetoric.
The "Fog" Trigger: In the first few days of this transit, Mercury conjoins Neptune and Saturn. This is a critical period for "clarifying the unsaid." Hidden documents or systemic failures (Neptune/Saturn) may be brought to light through sudden, sharp reporting (Mercury/Mars).
3. The Saturn-Neptune Dynamic: "Materializing the Dream"
The conjunction of Saturn and Neptune at 0 degrees Aries is a rare 36-year cycle.
Dissolution of Old Borders: Neptune dissolves what Saturn builds. In Aries, this suggests the literal dissolving of old national boundaries or the restructuring of leadership models that have become obsolete.
The "Socialist" or "Utopian" Impulse: Historically, Saturn-Neptune cycles are associated with the rise of social safety nets or, conversely, the collapse of grand illusions in government. With this occurring in Aries, the "pioneer" sign, we are likely seeing the first practical steps toward a "New Earth" infrastructure—moving from purely theoretical (Pisces) to the first spark of implementation (Aries).
4. Key Mundane Indicators for April
Planet
Role in the Stellium
Mundane Manifestation
Mars
The Trigger / Energy
Increased "heat" in geopolitics; push for autonomy.
Saturn
The Architect / Reality
New regulations; austerity measures; building new foundations.
Neptune
The Visionary / Dissolver
Scandals involving liquid assets, chemicals, or ideological "fogs."
The mid-month period (specifically around the New Moon in Aries on April 17) will likely be the peak of this stellium's power. It marks a "point of no return" for many collective projects initiated in early 2026. While the presence of Saturn and Neptune creates a backdrop of uncertainty and restructuring, the arrival of Mars and Mercury provides the necessary "fuel" to force these issues into the public eye.
-------------------------------
The Uranus ingress into Gemini on April 25, 2026, acts as the "lightning strike" that grounds the volatile energy of the Aries stellium. While the planets in Aries provide the raw, explosive force and the structural collapse of old systems, Uranus in Gemini provides the new medium through which that energy will be expressed for the next seven years.
Here is how the two configurations tie together:
1. From "Action" to "Idea" (Aries to Gemini)
The Aries stellium (Mercury, Mars, Saturn, Neptune) is a Cardinal, high-heat signature. It represents a "push to the brink" in terms of physical action, military tension, and systemic stress.
The Transition: As Uranus enters Gemini just as the inner planets (Mercury and Mars) are still "triggering" the Saturn-Neptune conjunction, we see a shift from physical confrontation to informational warfare and technological revolution. * Mundane Link: The "Aries fire" of the stellium may manifest as a literal crisis (energy, borders, or leadership), but the Uranus ingress suggests the solution or the disruption will come through a radical leap in communication, AI, or decentralized networks.
2. The Mercury Connection: The "Double Trigger"
Mercury is the ruler of Gemini. On April 25, Mercury is still in Aries, part of that potent stellium.
Mutual Influence: Because the ruler of the Ingress (Mercury) is currently entangled with Saturn and Neptune, the "New Era" of Uranus in Gemini begins under a heavy cloud of regulation (Saturn) and ideological confusion (Neptune).
The Result: The first phase of Uranus in Gemini (April–May) will likely involve massive, sudden legislative attempts to "reign in" the internet, AI, or free speech, driven by the intense, reactive energy of the Aries planets.
3. Historical Precedents: The "War of Information"
Historically, Uranus in Gemini is associated with periods of intense domestic and international conflict where innovation changes the outcome (e.g., the US Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and WWII).
The 2026 Twist: In those previous cycles, we didn't have the 0° Aries Saturn-Neptune conjunction occurring simultaneously.
Synthesis: This suggests that while the Aries stellium may push the world toward the "edge" of traditional conflict, the Uranus ingress indicates the conflict will be fought through drones, cyber-attacks, and narrative control. It is the "digitization" of the Mars/Saturn friction.
4. Technical Integration (Midpoints & Aspects)
For your technical analysis, keep an eye on the following:
Uranus at 0° Gemini: This is 60 degrees (Sextile) to the Saturn-Neptune conjunction at 0 degrees Aries. This is a highly supportive, fast-moving aspect. It suggests that the "dissolving" of old structures (Saturn/Neptune) will be rapidly replaced by "Uranian" alternatives (new tech, new transport, new ways of thinking).
The Ingress Chart: Look for the Mercury/Uranus midpoint on the day of the ingress. Since Mercury is in the Aries stellium, this midpoint becomes a "live wire" for sudden, shocking announcements that redefine the global financial or political landscape.
Summary of the Relationship
Configuration
Function
Nature
Aries Stellium
The "Breaking Point"
Destructive, Urgent, Structural
Uranus in Gemini
The "New Blueprint"
Rapid, Electric, Informational
The Bottom Line: The Aries planets "clear the ground" by causing a crisis in leadership and traditional systems, while the Uranus ingress on April 25 ensures that the recovery won't be a return to the past, but a leap into a hyper-accelerated, tech-driven future.
----------------------------------
The Mars-Uranus square (which peaked in late February and early March 2026) acted as the "detonator" for the much larger Saturn-Neptune conjunction (0 degrees Aries).
In mundane astrology, when a fast-moving square from a planet like Mars hits an outer planet (Uranus) just as a major new cycle is beginning (Saturn-Neptune), it creates a "violent birth" for the new era.
Here is how these two distinct signatures are currently weaving together:
1. The Shock to the System (The Square)
The Mars-Uranus square at the end of the previous month brought sudden, disruptive volatility. In mundane terms, this typically correlates with:
Infrastructure Shocks: Cyber-attacks, electrical grid instability, or sudden aviation/technological failures.
Market Spasms: "Flash crashes" or sudden regulatory pivots that catch investors off guard.
Social Friction: Spontaneous protests or "leaderless" movements that arise overnight.
This square ensured that the Saturn-Neptune era didn't start quietly. It provided a "jolt" that broke the old Piscean fog and forced the collective into the raw, urgent reality of Aries.
2. The Dissolving of the Old Guard (The Conjunction)
While Mars and Uranus were providing the "shocks," Saturn and Neptune at 0 degrees Aries were (and still are) performing a much deeper operation: The dissolution of established authority.
The "Leak" Factor: Saturn (boundaries) being dissolved by Neptune (the ocean) often manifests as the "leaking" of secrets that compromise those in power.
Institutional Collapse: We are seeing the "erosion of the rock." Systems we thought were permanent—certain financial structures, government agencies, or even healthcare models—are proving to be "hollow" or based on illusions that can no longer be sustained under the heat of Aries.
3. How the April Stellium "Settles the Score"
The stellium (Mercury, Mars, Saturn, Neptune) is the direct fallout of that earlier Mars-Uranus tension.
From Reaction to Strategy: The Mars-Uranus square was reactive and chaotic. Now that Mars has moved into the Aries stellium and is joining Saturn, that chaotic energy is being harnessed and structured. * The "Cleanup" Operation: If the Mars-Uranus square "blew the doors off," the current stellium is about the new occupants moving in. Mercury’s presence here means the "narrative" of the crisis is finally being written—though with Neptune involved, expect the "official story" to be highly curated or even deceptive.
4. Synthesis for the DIY Investor
If you are looking at the 2026–2028 framework for infrastructure or industrial companies, this sequence is vital:
The Mars-Uranus Square: Likely highlighted the weakest links in supply chains or technological dependencies (The "Crisis").
The Saturn-Neptune Conjunction: Is currently forcing a revaluation of intrinsic value—assets that were "vapor" (Neptune) are being marked to reality (Saturn).
The April Stellium: Represents the re-mobilization. Companies that survive the "shocks" of the previous month will now be the ones building the new, hardened infrastructure required for the Uranus in Gemini era.
In short: The previous month was the "breaking point." This month is the "starting point." You are seeing the shift from unpredictable disruption (Uranus) to disciplined, albeit visionary, reconstruction (Saturn-Neptune-Mars).
The sounds in my mother’s room during her final days stood in stark contrast to those that have defined most of my professional experience. There were no ventilator alarms piercing the air every few minutes, no overhead announcements echoing down hospital corridors, no infusion pumps demanding attention in the middle of the night. There were no teams rushing through doors, pushing carts full of medications, no physicians frantically adjusting machines that were temporarily holding physiology together, no organized chaos that defines the modern intensive care unit. Instead, there was quiet.
For decades in intensive care units, where noise signifies action and action equates to survival, quietness has felt unsettling. Intensive care medicine depends on urgency, real-time monitoring, and rapid decision-making to prevent death. I have lived my professional life in that environment. But in that room, I was not the physician. I was a son. And now, as I write this, I am a son whose mother has died.
My mother did not die in an intensive care unit. She was not surrounded by machines, alarms, or artificial light. She died at home, in a room imbued with the quiet weight of memory. Decades of life were embedded in those walls, which had witnessed birthdays, conversations, laughter, arguments, and the countless ordinary moments that, in retrospect, constitute the true foundation of a life. A peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) line rested in her arm, serving not as a symbol of escalation but as an instrument of compassion. Medications were given to relieve discomfort rather than to reverse disease. Nurses entered the room with calm, deliberate purpose rather than urgency. Their voices were soft, their movements measured. Their objective was not to save her life, but to honor it. There was no battle being fought. There was acceptance. And in that acceptance, there was dignity.
Around her, the people who loved her most gathered. Children. Grandchildren. Family members who had traveled from different places, not in panic, but in recognition that this moment, this final chapter, was one that mattered deeply.
Sometimes we spoke. Sometimes we sat in silence. Sometimes we simply held her hand.
There is a form of communication in those moments that medicine cannot teach or measure. It is neither physiological nor quantifiable, yet it is real.
Meanwhile, my phone would not stop. Dozens of calls. Hundreds of text messages. Colleagues from across the country. Students from years past. Friends, patients, acquaintances. All reaching out with genuine compassion. And almost every message carried the same underlying sentiment: “We are praying she improves.” “We hope she pulls through.” “Let us know what else can be done.” I understood the intention behind every one of those messages. They were kind. They were sincere. They were deeply human. But they were also revealing.
Because what they reflected, collectively and unconsciously, was something we rarely acknowledge openly: We have become a culture that no longer knows how to accept death.
Over the past century, medicine has achieved extraordinary success. We have extended life expectancy, eradicated diseases, developed technologies that can temporarily replace failing organs, and established systems capable of sustaining biological function long after the body can no longer do so independently.
Ventilators can breathe for failing lungs. Dialysis machines can replace kidney function. Vasopressors can maintain blood pressure when the cardiovascular system collapses. Extracorporeal support can oxygenate blood outside the body. Artificial nutrition can sustain metabolism indefinitely.
These are remarkable achievements. However, these advancements have also fostered a dangerous illusion: the belief that death is optional, and that with sufficient intervention, escalation, and technological force, the inevitable can be indefinitely postponed. We cannot.
Every experienced physician knows this. Not intellectually, but experientially. We have seen it. We have lived it. We have stood at the bedside when the machines are running, the medications are maximized, the monitors are active, and yet the patient is still dying.
There comes a moment when biology cannot be negotiated with. And when that moment arrives, the question changes. It must change. The question is no longer: How do we keep this patient alive? The question becomes: How do we allow this patient to die without suffering?
This is where modern medicine, despite its many strengths, often falls short. The failure is not due to insufficient knowledge, but rather a lack of cultural and institutional willingness to adapt. Comfort care has been mischaracterized, misunderstood, and in many cases, quietly stigmatized. Families are often led—explicitly or implicitly—to believe that choosing comfort care means “giving up,” that it represents abandonment, or worse, that it reflects a lack of love or commitment. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Comfort care is not the absence of medicine. It is the most honest application of medicine. It is the moment when we stop assuming that technology can reverse the irreversible, and instead use our knowledge, skill, and compassion to reduce suffering, preserve dignity, and support both the patient and the family through the most profound transition in human existence. In many ways, it is the highest form of care we can provide. And yet, despite this, we have built a system that often resists it.
Modern healthcare systems, particularly in the United States, are not neutral in these decisions. They are structured, incentivized, and organized to favor intervention over reflection, escalation over restraint, and procedure over presence. There are financial incentives associated with intensive care unit, procedures, and prolonged hospitalization. Institutional pressures often encourage clinicians to “do everything,” even when such actions no longer serve the patient. There is also legal fear: fear of being accused of insufficient intervention, fear of litigation, and fear of retrospective judgment. And there is something even more pervasive: A cultural refusal to acknowledge that death is not a medical error.
We have, in many ways, medicalized death to such an extent that we have stripped it of its humanity. We have transformed the final chapter of life into a technical problem to be solved, rather than a human experience to be understood. We measure oxygen saturation, blood pressure, and heart rate variability. We adjust ventilator settings. We titrate medications. We track and react to lab values. But we rarely ask the most important question: What does this person want? It is not what we can do, but what we should do.
Standing beside my mother in those final days, I reflected on the thousands of conversations I have had with families in intensive care units. I have explained mechanical ventilation, described dialysis, outlined survival probabilities, and guided families through decisions that carry immense emotional weight. But what I now understand more deeply than ever is this: The hardest part of those conversations is not medical. It is existential.
Families are not just confronting the decline of a loved one. They are confronting the limits of control. The limits of medicine. The limits of life itself.
In a culture that has spent decades reinforcing the idea that everything is fixable, that every problem has a solution, and that every decline can be reversed, this confrontation becomes almost unbearable.
At home, the experience was different. There were no alarms. No overhead pages. No artificial urgency. The pace slowed. The noise disappeared. And in that quiet, something essential emerged. Clarity.
There was time to remember. Time to speak. Time to sit in silence without feeling that something needed to be done. Presence became the primary form of care.
Holding a hand became more meaningful than adjusting a machine. A whispered word carried more weight than another intervention. The absence of chaos allowed something deeply human to take its place. We do not teach this in medical school. But we should.
My mother’s passing reinforced a lesson that extends far beyond medicine and into every household, every family, every individual. End-of-life conversations are not optional.
They are essential. They are not conversations to be avoided, postponed, or delegated to “later.” Because later, in medicine, it often arrives suddenly, and without warning.
What do you want when your body begins to fail? Not in abstraction. Not in theory. But in reality. Do you want aggressive life support if recovery is unlikely? Do you want prolonged mechanical ventilation, invasive procedures, extended hospitalization, if the outcome is survival without quality, without independence, without dignity? Or do you want comfort? Familiar surroundings? The presence of those you love? A peaceful transition rather than a prolonged struggle? There is no universal right answer. But there is a universal mistake: Not asking the question at all.
When these conversations do not happen, families are left to guess. And in that space of uncertainty, decisions become heavily burdened by guilt, fear, doubt, and the haunting question of whether they are doing the right thing. I have seen families fracture under that weight.
I have seen individuals carry that burden for years. And all of it could have been alleviated by a conversation that never took place. Advance directives, living wills, open discussions. These are not bureaucratic exercises. They are acts of love. They are gifts we give to those who will one day have to speak on our behalf.
Medicine today stands at a crossroads. We possess unprecedented technological capability and can extend biological life in ways that were once unimaginable. However, we have not developed an equally sophisticated cultural framework to guide how and when to use this power. We have confused capability with obligation. Just because we can do something does not mean we should. And yet, increasingly, our systems behave as if intervention is the default, and restraint requires justification. That inversion is dangerous.
My mother’s final days, and her passing, brought that reality into sharp focus.
There was no chaos. No unnecessary suffering. No prolonged medicalization of a process that, at its core, is deeply human. There was dignity. There was peace. There was acceptance.
And in that environment, I was reminded of something that medicine must never forget:
Our role is not only to extend life. It is to honor it.
We fight when fighting makes sense. We intervene when recovery is possible. We deploy every tool we have when there is a reasonable chance of restoring meaningful life. But when that chance disappears, wisdom must replace reflex. At that moment, the role of medicine does not end. It transforms. It becomes quieter. More deliberate. More human. And, perhaps, more important than ever.
My mother’s final lesson was not spoken. It was lived. It was in the stillness of the room. In the presence of family. In the absence of unnecessary intervention. In the quiet dignity of a life reaching its natural conclusion. She taught me that death is not the enemy. Suffering is.
She taught me that acceptance is not surrender. It is understanding. She reminded me that the measure of medicine lies not only in how long we can prolong life, but also in how well we can guide its final moments.
In the end, we cannot stop the circle of life. But we can decide how we meet its final turn. With fear or with clarity. With chaos or with dignity. With denial or with truth. My mother chose dignity. In doing so, she imparted one final lesson, which I will carry into every intensive care unit, every patient encounter, and every difficult conversation. Not how to fight death. But how to respect it.
----------------------------
Joseph Varon, MD, is a critical care physician, professor, and President of the Independent Medical Alliance. He has authored over 980 peer-reviewed publications and serves as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Independent Medicine.
One of the things I never cease to be amazed by is how cyclical history is, and how similar many situations we find ourselves in now are to ones I’ve read about far in the past. Over the last six months, I have been attempting to compile (almost) every medically relevant paper ever written on DMSO, and in that process, skimmed through hundreds of thousands of search results (which were filtered from millions of hits) to flag each study I needed to sort and summarize, which with the help of AI, resulted in this:
From that process, I came across many papers detailing the history of DMSO, and while many essentially retold parts of the story in Pat McGrady’s book (The Persecuted Drug: The Story of DMSO), many also contained things I never expected to come across. For example, I remember in the 1980s that gas stations would have signs saying “we sell DMSO,” but try as I might, I could never find a picture to prove this. However, during that project, I eventually found this in a 1982 article, which, while not a gas station, was pretty close:
Of these, papers on the history of DMSO, one caught my eye as it contained numerous lessons which hold just as true now as they did more than forty years ago.
The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. To learn more about this newsletter and how others have benefitted from it, click here!
A Brief History of DMSO
DMSO is a naturally occurring substance that is found throughout nature and routinely studied in climate research as it forms a core part of the sulfur cycle many microbial organisms rely upon. Discovered in 1866 by a Russian chemist, it was mostly forgotten until the 1950s, when an emerging need for new chemical solvents prompted the paper industry to meet that demand by oxidizing the dimethyl sulfide (DMS) wood pulping produced into DMSO. Note: the cycle between DMS, DMSO, and DMSO₂, beyond underlying many critical ecological processes, also explains why DMSO causes some users to experience an odor, and will be the focus of a future article (but in the meantime, an abridged version on how to reduce the odor some DMSO users experience can be read here).
Before long, one pulp and paper company, Crown Zellerbach, was the primary producer of DMSO, and assigned a chemist to see if there were other uses for the tree solvents they produced. Herschler accidentally discovered that DMSO could carry dyes into the skin, and also quickly realized the immense value of this with antibiotics and antifungals to treat infections normal medications could not reach. Serendipitously, Stanley Jacob, a renowned surgeon at the nearby Oregon medical school had been searching for a way to cryopreserve organs that would be transplanted, and had recently come across a revolutionary study suggesting DMSO could function as an effective cryoprotective agent.
So, when Herschler, in 1961 shared his discovery with Jacob, Jacob enthusiastically explored it, and after tasting iodine shortly after mixing topical DMSO with it, realized this drug rapidly facilitated systemic absorption, revolutionizing pharmacology. Shortly after, they discovered it rapidly treated burns, then sprains, and then a wide range of musculoskeletal issues and before long, Jacob started carrying it on him to address whatever ailment someone he ran into had (with DMSO often working). These remarkable cures inspired Jacob to invest his career, personal time (despite having a family) and savings into DMSO research, and then remarkably, once he was broke, his dean agreed to have the medical school fund his research. Note: once DMSO began being used in a medical context, the pulp production method was abandoned as it could not produce DMSO pure enough for medical applications.
The results Jacob got attracted immense attention, and before long, numerous pharmaceutical companies had heavily invested in studying DMSO, while in parallel, the media (e.g., The New York Times) widely promoted it (e.g., a 1965 NYT editorial called it “the nearest thing to a wonder drug the nineteen-sixties have produced”) and DMSO quickly became the most demanded drug in America. Initially, the FDA was extremely open and supportive of this, but due to the public outcry over the thalidomide disaster Dr. Kelsey prevented (which caused Congress, in 1962, to grant the FDA strict regulatory powers), the FDA switched to needing “well-controlled” evidence of drug efficacy they would meticulously evaluate for a drug to be approved.
Before long, due to just how many different uses DMSO has (each of which drug companies were applying to receive approval for), this became a major issue:
' 'The FDA representatives [in 1964] seemed anxious to do everything possible to permit further testing of DMSO," Jacob told me later. "They pointed out that DMSO was a very versatile drug; and because of this they were a little apprehensive as to how many IND applications might be filed to test not only DMSO alone but DMSO in combination with various other pharmacologically active substances. "Dr. Kelsey said the number of combinations could be a hundred or more, representing a formidable challenge for a bureau that already was overburdened."
Laziness won, and the FDA began looking for reasons to stop this. Eventually in late 1965, settling on preliminary data in dogs showing high doses of DMSO could change how the eyes focused (which was never reported in the trials being conducted on 37,000 people or subsequently in humans or monkeys) and a single death (that has never occurred since and was likely due to an allergy to another drug being taken concurrently), the FDA not only banned all DMSO testing in the United States, but sent out global telegrams to each embassy encouraging other nations to do the same. Following this, the FDA, eager to assert its newfound power, then began a relentless campaign to intimidate doctors and scientists into not conducting any further DMSO research (which, I believe is a large part of why researchers now are so reluctant to ever study “unorthodox” topics). Note: the playbook the FDA used against DMSO was also used against many other remarkable (now largely forgotten) medical therapies.
Fortunately, the scientific community had not yet lost their spine, and fought back, with Jacob organizing three American symposiums (one in 1966, along with one in 1974 and in 1982—along with a 1965 one in Germany and a 1966 one in Vienna). Sadly, despite the wide range of data presented, the FDA dug in, insisting there was “no evidence” DMSO worked for anything, and eventually, in 1980, a Congressional and Senate hearing were held on the FDA’s stonewalling, where the FDA repeated a variety of excuses and made a series of promises to stop stonewalling DMSO (which not surprisingly, were never followed). Note: the first therapeutic FDA approval for DMSO (DMSO for interstitial cystitis) happened in 1978, and I suspect was motivated by the FDA wanting to create the impression they weren’t stonewalling DMSO drug application prior to those hearings (as no subsequent approvals ever happened despite many being sent in).
To support these 1980 hearings, Mike Wallace (of 60 Minutes) aired a program immediately before the first one, which introduced the public to DMSO, and created a new wave of widespread interest in DMSO (after the FDA successfully squashed the first one in the 1960s).
Following this, DMSO experienced another surge in popularity, but gradually was forgotten except by certain segments of the alternative health community and veterinarians (who widely use it in practice). Likewise, with American research, while there was initially a huge surge of it (particularly in the 1960s) it greatly declined, and by the 1990s, therapeutic studies of DMSO in humans or animals were rarely conducted. Instead, medical research in DMSO (besides its approved use for treating interstitial cystitis) largely shifted towards it: •Being used as a cryopreservative •Being used as an “inert” (harmless and non-beneficial) solvent to test a wide range of potentially therapeutic substances (predominantly in cell cultures). •Making cancer cells revert to normal cells (which is often needed for research). •Facilitating other therapies (e.g., there are now well over a dozen FDA approved drugs which contain DMSO as an “inert vehicle”).
Fortunately, in 1971, after extensive research the Soviet Union’s Ministry of Health approved it (as Dimexide/Dimexid/Димексид), and as a result, much of the forgotten data on DMSO’s medical uses comes from the Russian and Ukrainian literature, along with a smaller amount from Chinese, South American, and German researchers (most of which I have finally been able to compile).
Note: this history is covered in much more detail here.
Early Innovators
Propaganda essentially works because most humans want to follow the crowd, but simultaneously, there is always a small portion of the population which will trust their gut and have the courage to pursue things that aren’t yet “safe” to do because neither authorities or their peers are telling them to (e.g., despite the most aggressive propaganda campaign in history, immense peer pressure and increasingly strict vaccine mandates, roughly 25% of Americans did not get the COVID vaccine).
This blog in turn is catered to the self-directed “innovators” and “early adopters” as my goal as much as possible is to provide all the essential information one would need to understand a topic and then be able to figure out how to approach it, rather than giving you a set protocol for everyone to follow and “telling you what to do.” This I believe is essential, as virtually every therapy, despite having a standard dose, typically needs to be dosed differently for different people (and I believe many medical injuries with pharmaceuticals could be avoided if lower “non-standard” doses were used for more “sensitive patients”).
However, the education system trains everyone to repeat formulas and instructions rather than creatively thinking on their own, so the standardized model persists, and the harm the excessive doses create are simply viewed as a necessary cost of doing business. This is unfortunate as while (clean) DMSO has a fairly wide therapeutic window (so, unlike many far more toxic drugs, it is very difficult to take a DMSO dose which is high enough to be dangerous), the correct DMSO dose greatly varies from person to person. As such, many commentators (beginning with Jacob) have remarked that while it is incredibly easy to determine the correct dose for a unique patient you work with, DMSO lacking a “standardized dose” has been one of the most challenging aspects of widely deploying the drug. Note: this is why I have to include about 8 pages of instructions on general DMSO use at the end of each DMSO article (e.g., I did so most recently here), along with a similar amount for specific conditions being discussed within a given article. This has worked for a lot of people (particularly early innovators), but simultaneously, many have not wanted to read through the instructions and instead simply wanted a simple universal protocol (which will inevitably not work for some of those who use it). This is quite challenging to navigate, and my approach has essentially been to hope that if I can provide enough clearly laid out information, the early innovators who see it can understand how to translate that to people they meet who just want a single protocol to follow.
The phrase “early innovators” in turn came to mind due to a noteworthy 1985 article which I read during the DMSO project (“DMSO, Hobby Shops and the FDA: The Diffusion of a Health Policy Dilemma”) which discussed DMSO and the diffusion of innovations (e.g., their adoption). Note: the dilemma being referred to was that since DMSO was legal as an industrial solvent, the FDA could not ban it, and instead could only restrict people implying it had medical uses.
History Repeats
When I created this newsletter, one of my primary goals was to get (hard to find) information out there on effective forgotten therapies that told you what you actually needed to know about them in the hope I could spread it out enough that people who were genuinely interested in the topic would eventually be able to find it. However, due to the highly unusual era we are in now, far more happened, and due to the DMSO series here going viral, I essentially created the third wave of interest in DMSO.
DMSO, Hobby Shops and the FDA: The Diffusion of a Health Policy Dilemma, in turn, caught my eye as virtually everything it described in 1985perfectly mirrors what has happened with DMSO over the last two years. As I cannot quote the entire article here (much of which came from interviewing DMSO users who responded to a newspaper ad), I will try to highlight the most poignant parts:
We learned that DMSO is being used for an astonishing range of ailments. In order of reported frequency, these include: Osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, back injuries or pains, stiff or painful necks, knee injuries or pains, bursitis, ankle sprains, tennis elbow, hip pains, muscle spasms, burns, decubitus ulcers, psoriasis, headaches, varicose veins, scleroderma, insect stings, emphysema, cataracts, and toothaches. Actually, these are only a few of the claims being made for the curative powers of DMSO. Clearly, it is a substance that could touch many lives.
The users are as diverse as the uses (see Table 1)
Rogers and Shoemaker speak of five key innovation characteristics that may facilitate or impede adoption: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability.
They observe that there are a number of subdimensions of relative advantage including ". . . low initial cost, lower perceived risk, a decrease in discomfort . . . and the immediacy of reward." For most of the respondents, DMSO had these attributes.
Moreover, the absence of effective medical remedies for arthritis and soft tissue injuries combined with these relative advantages, make DMSO an attractive alternative. Regardless of whether a possible placebo effect was operating, most of the interviewees reported rapid decrease in pain and increased mobility with few perceived side effects and a low price.
Fairly typical of our interviewees were statements like the following: I wasn't able to stand up and swing my left leg because of my knee pain. . . after two treatments of DMSO I could do it with no pain whatsoever. . . I cried because I could swing [my legs] almost like I was doing a can-can. I had not been able to walk up stairs for five years ... I used DMSO three times on my right hip and I now can climb stairs without any pain . . . I was severely burned when I spilled scalding coffee on my lap . . . I went to a burn center and they wanted me to stay but I did not want to because I had this trip planned to see my mother in Iowa . . . I started applying DMSO and it healed miraculously and I got to go on my trip . . .
The lack of approval by the FDA and other medical authorities may both lessen and reinforce the relative advantage of DMSO. While many interviewees are fearful of using an unapproved substance, other interviewees see the lack of approval as a confirmation that DMSO works. This paradox is explained through an interpretation which sees restraint of trade, not scientific caution, as the real explanation for the FDA failure to legitimize DMSO. If DMSO became legal, they argue, doctors and drug companies would lose a good deal of money. Therefore it must be good or "they" would let it on the market. Thus for some, the relative advantage of DMSO may even be strengthened by official non-approval.
Note: the next part of the article discusses how many being familiar with topical pain ointments, having already used DMSO in animals, or having a vet suggest it to someone for an “incurable” issue they’d seen DMSO treat in animals made it compatible (familiar) and hence likely to be adopted.
In addition to a strong relative advantage and high compatibility, DMSO compares favorably to other remedies because of its perceived low complexity, that is, ". . . the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use" For most people, there was no problem in learning how to use DMSO despite an almost total blackout on information, education, and instructions.
Vendors are fearful of FDA action and so are very guarded in what they say. A fairly routine story was related by one respondent: When I asked them what do I do with it they [vendor] said "I don't know," and I said just give me a little idea how to put it on and they said mix it with the paint and I said that's not what I'm going to use it for and they said "I don't want to hear any more." . . . they were kind of cold.
Note: this article also highlighted the immense confusion and variation with using DMSO (that users eventually somehow figured out) and that they experimented with topical DMSO combinations such as vitamin E oil or corticosteroids.
Although it often produced a skin burn or an unpleasant odor, these effects were welcomed by some as a positive sign. As one woman said, "If it doesn't smell or give a burn I'd throw it out because it wouldn't be the real stuff ... I know it's good, it burns ..." Users either tolerated these effects or applied creams and ointments just as they would do with other skin irritations. The distinctive odor was more often a source of amusement than worry.
Trialability means that a user can experiment with an innovation on a limited basis. DMSO was used in this way by nearly all the respondents. Those who found no relief stopped using it after about a week; one individual kept applying it for four months before the pain "suddenly" went away. It is an innovation that is eminently suited for trial on the installment plan, an important advantage for those who either are wary or without great financial resources. DMSO could be tried and discarded without much financial or any apparent physical harm
The degree to which an innovation is visible to others is labeled observability. DMSO is not highly observable in the sense that the absence of pain is not something someone else can see. However, we repeatedly found that those who used and liked DMSO did not hesitate to tell their friends, relatives, neighbors and, in some case, complete strangers. Word-of-mouth has been an important factor in making DMSO "observable" to many who otherwise would not have considered it….For this reason DMSO, despite its "illegality," has achieved a high positive observability.
It is not enough for a substance to have the requisite qualities of advantage, compatibility, reduced complexity, trialability, and observability. It must also become known. Just how did DMSO come to the attention of so many Americans? [In most cases, their initial interest was due to viewing the 60 Minutes program].
Many interested viewers naturally turned to their physicians; however, they soon learned that DMSO cannot be legally prescribed. Moreover, most physicians were either indifferent, uninformed or hostile; one respondent reported that his doctor refused to continue to treat him because he was using DMSO. Many did not even bother to tell their doctors often out of fear of just such a reaction. As one woman related: “I didn’t know who to call ... didn’t call my physician because he would climb the wall if he knew that I thought about using it ...” However there were a few physicians who were either neutral or had even tried DMSO themselves. Some respondents said their physicians were curious and asked the patients to let them know if it helped.
Thus, given the indifference or active opposition of most health professionals, many users started asking among their friends or relatives who had used DMSO, reading articles in papers or magazines or just using it without any verification or information. Those who felt that DMSO had helped them became in turn sources of information, and in a more than a few cases, active proselytizers. Some reported recommending it to up to a dozen people, including strangers who complained out loud in public places about aches and pains. Table 2 highlights the respondents' reports of their DMSO information and verification sources.
“Verification source” is what made them confident enough in DMSO to then try it.
The article then concludes by highlighting that the FDA’s refusal to regulate DMSO in a responsible way has led to hundreds of thousands of Americans using it in an unregulated manner (the situation the FDA wanted to avoid) and criticizing programs like 60 Minutes for irresponsibly using “the enormous power electronic media now has over the health field” (whereas downplaying DMSO’s benefits would have been the “responsible choice”).
Conclusion
I have long believed one of the greatest mistakes humans have made throughout history is believing they can fully control fate and prevent the inevitable natural emergence of anything which challenges what they want. Because of this, again and again, I see the same historical dramas play out, and each time the rulership tries to suppress them from emerging, they temporarily disappear but then eventually emerge in a far more powerful manner.
For example, the smallpox vaccines were never proven to work, caused severe injury (that doctors covered up), and not only frequently failed but often caused smallpox outbreaks (detailed here). The public resisted this, and in response (to address the increasing outbreaks) harsher and harsher mandates were instilled. This lead to massive public protest against the vaccines and eventually, in 1885, an English city making vaccination optional alongside employing basic public health measures to contain smallpox. Contrary to the medical field’s apocalyptic predictions, this worked, and those public health measures were then copied, allowing smallpox (due to it not being very contagious) to be eliminated.
I mention this because I started this newsletter during the COVID-19 mandate protests (e.g., the Canadian truckers) as I realized we were re-enacting the exact same thing and people needed to know so we could break that dysfunctional cycle. Incredibly however, rather than it taking nearly a century (1976-1885) to stop the shots, it happened in two years, and public opposition now to the COVID vaccines is much greater than it ever was to the smallpox vaccine.
Similarly, due to the fanatical devotion the current rulership has to vaccines, for decades, any suggestion they cause harm is unilaterally censored, and the careers of those who speak out against them are destroyed. Nonetheless, because vaccines injuries are cumulative, as time goes on and more and more are given to us, the injuries have continued to increase, and in the last few years, reached the point it is no longer possible to cover them up.
Because of that, we have now seen rather extreme swings on this issue no one in the field previous imagined could happen (e.g., RFK becoming HHS Secretary, and the President openly speaking out about vaccines neurologically damaging children). Likewise, we are now seeing every stop be pulled out to protect vaccines (e.g., a wide coalition of Senators have been prioritizing targeting any political appointee who does not openly pledge allegiance to vaccines), and in the last week, to prevent ACIP (the committee which decides vaccine policy) from finally, after decades, allowing those injured by vaccines to publicly testify:
•Fake polls were made to convince the Trump administration the entire public loves vaccines (when in reality, most polls now show roughly half of Americans distrust vaccines) and then amplified by the mass media (e.g., The New York Times) immediately before the midterms.
•Damaging ACIP reports were “leaked” to the NYT (so a major hit piece on the upcoming meeting could be published three days before the meeting). Note: I could not help but notice that article ridiculed the existence of COVID-19 vaccine injuries, whereas 10 months ago (due to the costly profound loss of public trust in the medical system from the COVID vaccines), the NYT published piece which “tried to have their cake and eat it” by acknowledging COVID vaccines injuries were real, but simultaneously downplayed them and said everyone was “sorry” but no one was at fault for this debacle—illustrating just how disingenuous these people are.
•Two days before the meeting, a rogue judge (who has been reprimanded for previous similar rulings) arbitrarily ruled against the recent CDC vaccine schedule change and that everyone whom RFK Jr. put on ACIP was “not qualified” to be there and therefore, all their previous decisions were voided and the committee could no longer meet.
As court decisions (even ridiculous and unjustifiable ones) take a while to appeal, this coordinated attack effectively cancelled the upcoming ACIP meeting and prevented the vaccine injured from ever having a voice (along with blocking simple policies like having a way to actually track COVID vaccine injuries with a new diagnostic code and thereby make the injuries statistically exist). This was understandably devastating, as many of us (especially the ACIP members) put an immense amount of work (and often personal sacrifice) into improving the vaccine program as the system permitted it to be done, but then in the blink of an eye, a dishonest judge arbitrarily swept it all away.
However, if you consider the broader process at play, the wave against vaccines keeps building (e.g., previously it was never necessary to use tactics as extreme as this to protect the vaccine program), and now, there are even stronger feelings on this issue (as it mainstreams the vaccine issue within the Republican base because they’ve developed a strong resentment towards activist judges arbitrarily overturning conservative policies). For this reason, vaccines are likely to be an increasingly contentious issue that sooner or later, will culminate into a wave which is too large for anyone to suppress.
Furthermore, the unique characteristic of our era is that everything is greatly accelerated, particularly due to the widespread loss of trust increasingly brazen propaganda creates in the populace (e.g., what we witnessed throughout COVID-19), users searching for new media platforms and key platforms like 𝕏 (Twitter) allowing the rapid free diffusion of pertinent information.
That, I would argue, accounts for why we were able to so rapidly overturn the COVID vaccine program (despite every stop being pulled out to enact it), why the public opinion on vaccines in general has shifted so rapidly in the last few years, or on a more minor note, how a DMSO project by an essentially unknown author (which I never expected to go anywhere) instead was seen by millions of people, and, after 40 years, at last created a third wave of interest in that remarkable therapy.
Things like this are essentially what motivate me to try as hard as I do to make a positive contribution to the world we now live in, and how I am able to keep each setback in perspective (e.g., I never expected shifting the cultural perspective on vaccines to be easy, and while the setbacks are frustrating, I am mostly in awe of how much has already happened). I hope that this perspective can be helpful for you as well, and I sincerely thank each of you for giving me the chance to finally be able to positively shift some of the massive issues I’ve always wished but never imagined could be improved.
Author’s note: The most current information on using and procuring DMSO can be found here. Additionally, a key part of this project has been made possible by you submitting your treatment experiences with DMSO (now nearly 6,000) so we jab sort and present them. If you have had any therapeutic experiences with DMSO you would like to share, please consider doing so here.
The Forgotten Side of Medicine is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
