I haven't had time to look into this one, but I seriously doubt it. I've seen the devastating effects of vitamin B12 deficiency in the newborn baby of a vegan mother who did not supplement with B12 during her pregnancy. The baby's neurological deficits and failure to thrive did, fortunately, reverse when she was supplemented.
You might want to connect to A Midwestern Doctor here on Substack as he has acquired a large number of the studies done on DMSO. I personally have been using on myself and pets for a variety of things with great results.
This series is largely a response to his posts. In my prior interactions with him, he demonstrated great hostility to having his factual errors corrected.
Not exactly true. Delivery systems are patentable, as are combinations with other drugs. That's why Merck, Squibb, Schering et al were competing madly for NDAs back in the early 1960s. RIMSO-50 was patented in 1978 for interstitial cystitis. It was also patented for veterinary use as Domoso. There's one current patent, which is in combination with trametinib for treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. See https://pharsight.greyb.com/ingredient/dimethyl-sulfoxide-patent-expiration.
Nonetheless, the effect is that it is not structurally possible for DMSO or any pre-existing or natural agent to have widespread use through fda approval. RIMSO50 probably was patented for the 50% formulation, or perhaps for the indication itself. Had people actually had large demand for it, neither kind of patent would have stopped other people from competing with a slightly changed formulation, or from just patenting even an identical formulation for some other indication and people use it off-label for any indication they want. Or adding some token ingredient to make a combo. The combo of DMSO and that drug for melanoma also itself presumably rests on the patentability of the drug, not DMSO. If not for that, anyone could make a similar but not identical combo, or else combine them on the fly. Patents for formulations, combinations, indications, relatively narrow dosing methods, extraction methods, production methods, delivery systems...none of these actually stop competetion on hte level that would ever provide any ocmpany an uncontested windfall.
I thought about this a lot yesterday, and it really seems to me now that the earth-shattering fix for modern medicine is to get an act of congress to force hte FDA to have a safety-only approval pathway as the main pathway - like it used to be but improved, and also have their current efficacy pathway only be for things that can't pass the safety bar. This would correct every misaligned incentive and make most of pharma go bankrupt. That liquidation would get money in government hands to fund all the research themselves, according to what approved therapies doctors want to be trialed for efficacy. Expensive patented things would fade into the background and be done on contract with the government.
Premarketing safety, with post-marketing efficacy, executed by the public for hte public, and no more pharma control .
I am really positing that that 1960's act may have been the seminal moment medicine went off the rails into pharmageddon. A simple act of congress dated to be implemented say 20 years post passage could revolutionize everything.
I'll raise you one. Medicine can never find cures to anything because it has no concept of health. Looking for cures, indeed, is in itself the fundamental problem, rather than looking for them in the wrong places.
You're amazing.
Here's a conspiracy theory and a half, do you think there could be any truth to it?
https://emetatron.substack.com/p/excerpt-from-soon-to-be-published?utm_source=post-banner&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=posts-open-in-app&triedRedirect=true
I haven't had time to look into this one, but I seriously doubt it. I've seen the devastating effects of vitamin B12 deficiency in the newborn baby of a vegan mother who did not supplement with B12 during her pregnancy. The baby's neurological deficits and failure to thrive did, fortunately, reverse when she was supplemented.
You might want to connect to A Midwestern Doctor here on Substack as he has acquired a large number of the studies done on DMSO. I personally have been using on myself and pets for a variety of things with great results.
This series is largely a response to his posts. In my prior interactions with him, he demonstrated great hostility to having his factual errors corrected.
Conspiracies aside, DMSO is perhaps the first major casualty of nonpatentability leading to no research incentive.
Not exactly true. Delivery systems are patentable, as are combinations with other drugs. That's why Merck, Squibb, Schering et al were competing madly for NDAs back in the early 1960s. RIMSO-50 was patented in 1978 for interstitial cystitis. It was also patented for veterinary use as Domoso. There's one current patent, which is in combination with trametinib for treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. See https://pharsight.greyb.com/ingredient/dimethyl-sulfoxide-patent-expiration.
Nonetheless, the effect is that it is not structurally possible for DMSO or any pre-existing or natural agent to have widespread use through fda approval. RIMSO50 probably was patented for the 50% formulation, or perhaps for the indication itself. Had people actually had large demand for it, neither kind of patent would have stopped other people from competing with a slightly changed formulation, or from just patenting even an identical formulation for some other indication and people use it off-label for any indication they want. Or adding some token ingredient to make a combo. The combo of DMSO and that drug for melanoma also itself presumably rests on the patentability of the drug, not DMSO. If not for that, anyone could make a similar but not identical combo, or else combine them on the fly. Patents for formulations, combinations, indications, relatively narrow dosing methods, extraction methods, production methods, delivery systems...none of these actually stop competetion on hte level that would ever provide any ocmpany an uncontested windfall.
I thought about this a lot yesterday, and it really seems to me now that the earth-shattering fix for modern medicine is to get an act of congress to force hte FDA to have a safety-only approval pathway as the main pathway - like it used to be but improved, and also have their current efficacy pathway only be for things that can't pass the safety bar. This would correct every misaligned incentive and make most of pharma go bankrupt. That liquidation would get money in government hands to fund all the research themselves, according to what approved therapies doctors want to be trialed for efficacy. Expensive patented things would fade into the background and be done on contract with the government.
Premarketing safety, with post-marketing efficacy, executed by the public for hte public, and no more pharma control .
I am really positing that that 1960's act may have been the seminal moment medicine went off the rails into pharmageddon. A simple act of congress dated to be implemented say 20 years post passage could revolutionize everything.
I'll raise you one. Medicine can never find cures to anything because it has no concept of health. Looking for cures, indeed, is in itself the fundamental problem, rather than looking for them in the wrong places.