Doing a bit of research on DMSO, stuff does look very good in a TD setting. My old mate Pat Arnold gives it the thumbs up.
But Im wondering, why didnt Pat utilise it in his topicals, and why hasnt it found favour in the pharma industry?
Firstly, it seems to really shine when used with compounds that are considered not ideal for transdermal use, due to the high dalton number/molar mass. Test and tren are not considered high.
The safety studies Ive looked at show it is low toxicity, and doesnt pose a danger when used as directed. The only things that I can find that might indicate its unsuitability in a commercial setting are the potential unpleasant odour (sulphurous), and skin irritation.
I take it as obvious that an unpleasant smelling topical, and one that could irritate your skin, is not ideal for pharma. Pat Arnold said as much himself why he didnt use it in his products.
If most UGL customers are like myself, though:
Gainz > bit smelly/skin irritation
Ive read a few ways the skin irritability factor can be reduced during manufacture, hopefully the UGL brewer has done his homework.
Link to MSDS. Section 11 goes into the possible odours (garlic-onion-oyster smell on skin and/or breath):
MSDS for Dimethyl sulfoxide - ScienceLab