By Jennifer Wolff-Gillispie HWP, LC
EDITOR’S SUMMARY: Medical history is filled with ideas once dismissed as implausible, dangerous or unscientific—until science evolved enough to understand what was there all along. From handwashing and organ transplantation to the evolving story of DMSO, the history of medicine reveals how progress is often limited by what can be measured—and what happens when discovery outpaces explanation.
You step into a hospital in the mid-1800s, and what strikes you first is not the urgency—it’s the certainty. Physicians move with confidence, guided by training, tradition, and the authority of established knowledge. Their black coats—rarely washed and bearing the daily evidence of blood and other bodily fluids—serve as symbols of experience. They move from dissecting cadavers to delivering babies, from treating wounds to performing surgeries, without pause, without question, and without the slightest awareness that something unseen and dangerous may be traveling with them.
At the time, disease is explained through “miasma“ (”bad air”) or fate. The idea that something invisible could be responsible is more than unproven—it is inconceivable. And more importantly, it is unmeasurable. The striking reality is not what they missed, but how certain they were that nothing was missing. Medicine did not lack intelligence or intention; it lacked the ability to detect what had not yet been made visible. Ideas that could not be measured were often dismissed or ridiculed—not always because they failed, but because they could not yet be proven.
Before Science Could See
In medicine—largely before the 20th century—what cannot be quantified often struggles to be recognized at all. Into this world steps Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician working at Vienna General Hospital in the mid-1800s, who begins to notice a pattern others overlook. In one maternity ward, women are dying at alarming rates after childbirth. In another, under nearly identical conditions, far fewer women die. The difference is not the patients. It is the practitioners. Semmelweis observes that doctors in the high-mortality ward often come directly from performing autopsies. Without realizing it, they are carrying something from the dead to the living. He cannot see it. He cannot isolate it. The technology does not yet exist to confirm what he suspects. But he identifies the pattern and can see the outcome.
In a stroke of clarity, he institutes a simple intervention: physicians must wash their hands with a chlorinated lime solution before examining patients. The results are immediate and undeniable. Mortality rates plummet—from 18.27 percent in April 1847 before handwashing to 0.19 percent by year’s end. Women who would have died begin to survive. And yet the intervention is rejected. To accept Semmelweis’s findings would require physicians to confront something far more uncomfortable than an undetected pathogen: that they themselves are contributing to the deaths of their patients. Without a mechanism to explain why it works, the evidence—lives saved—is not enough. His colleagues disregard his conclusions, his methods are criticized, and his reputation deteriorates. He dies before his discovery is recognized. Not because he was wrong—but because the tools to prove him right had not yet arrived.
Years later, the missing piece begins to take shape through the work of French chemist and microbiologist Louis Pasteur. Pasteur demonstrates that microorganisms exist, that they are present in the environment, and that they can cause disease. What had once been invisible becomes observable; what had been seen as illogical becomes explainable. With that shift, the same idea that cost Semmelweis everything becomes undeniable.
Building on these discoveries, Joseph Lister, an English surgeon and medical scientist, brings this new understanding into the surgical theater in the mid-1860s. At the time, surgery is not feared for the procedure itself, but for what follows. Infection is expected. Wounds become inflamed, fevers rise, and many patients do not survive. Lister recognizes that if unseen organisms are responsible, then reducing their presence could change outcomes. He starts sterilizing instruments, cleaning wounds, and using carbolic acid in operating environments. His methods are met with resistance—seen as excessive, unnecessary, even impractical. But the results speak for themselves.
Infection rates fall. Survival improves. What once seemed excessive becomes essential. Over time, antiseptic technique transforms from a controversial theory into a foundational standard of care. The shift extends far beyond surgical practice—it redefined the limits of what medicine can safely pursue. When infection is no longer an inevitability, the operating room transforms from a place of risk management into a space of possibility. Procedures that once guaranteed fatal outcomes could now be reconsidered, refined, and eventually reimagined. With infection brought under control, another frontier comes into focus—one that would challenge not only surgical skill, but the very definition of life and death itself: organ transplantation.
Rejected by the Body, Then by Medicine
Once considered implausible, organ transplants faced early failure not because the idea lacked merit, but because the immune system was not yet understood. The body rejects what it does not recognize, and without the ability to manage that response, success is out of reach. Only when advances in immunology and the development of immunosuppressive therapies arrived did transplantation become viable.
For much of human history, the idea of replacing parts of the body existed more in myth than medicine. Ancient Greek, Roman, and Chinese stories told of gods and healers performing miraculous transplants, hinting at a concept that science had yet to grasp. Yet by around 800 BC, Indian physicians were already practicing early forms of skin grafting—moving tissue from one part of the body to another to repair wounds and burns. Centuries later, Italian surgeon Gasparo Tagliacozzi advanced these techniques, reconstructing noses and ears using a patient’s own skin. He also detected a critical limitation: tissue from another person often failed—an early glimpse into the immune response that would later define transplant success or failure.
By the early 20th century, physicians pushed further, attempting organ transplants despite limited understanding. Early efforts—such as transplanting animal organs into humans, known as xenotransplantation—ended in rapid failure, reinforcing skepticism. As transplant pioneer Norman Shumway once remarked, “Xenotransplantation is the future—and always will be,” a statement often repeated in the field to reflect both its promise and its persistent challenges.
Breakthroughs came incrementally. In 1905, Eduard Zirm restored sight with the first successful corneal transplant, and in 1954, surgeons achieved the first successful kidney transplant between identical twins, bypassing immune rejection entirely. The work of pioneers like Alexis Carrel and Peter Medawar laid the scientific foundation for modern transplantation. These Nobel Prize-winning physicians developed techniques for connecting organs through vascular suturing and identified the immunological basis for organ rejection, respectively.
Medawar’s work led to the development of anti-rejection drugs that made organ replacement broadly viable. From the first heart transplant by Christiaan Barnard in 1967 to complex procedures like full face transplants in the 21st century, what once seemed impossible became routine—not through belief alone, but through a deeper understanding of how the human body operates. The path from Semmelweis to transplantation follows a relatively clean arc—rejected, then proven, then accepted. But not every story resolves that neatly. Some discoveries are validated in parts, limited in others, and remain contested to this day.
Regulated, Restricted, Reconsidered
Some discoveries arrive with promise, become entangled in uncertainty, and are set aside—not disproven, but left unresolved because they defied easy explanation. Dimethyl sulfoxide—DMSO—is one such example. First identified in the late 19th century as a byproduct of the process used to turn wood pulp into paper, DMSO would later be synthesized by Russian chemist Alexander Zaytsev—a method still used today. In laboratories and industry, it proved invaluable: a highly stable, relatively nontoxic solvent capable of dissolving a wide range of substances, from gases and salts to synthetic fibers and natural compounds. Its chemical properties make it indispensable for research, even serving as a preferred medium in techniques like nuclear magnetic resonance. But it was not until the 1960s that its most unusual characteristic drew serious attention—its ability to pass through human skin and enter the bloodstream with minimal immediate harm to tissues.
That discovery shifted its trajectory. Researchers began exploring DMSO as a vehicle for delivering medications directly into tissue, bypassing traditional oral or injectable routes. Early findings suggested anti-inflammatory and analgesic potential, and it was tested for conditions ranging from tissue injury to chronic pain. Yet the same permeability that makes it promising also made it unpredictable. If it could carry therapeutic compounds, it could just as easily transport toxins or contaminants. Concerns deepened when animal studies revealed changes in the refractive index of eye lenses, prompting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to halt clinical trials in 1965. By 1966, the New York Times was reporting:
“Although it was only authorized for external use, some doctors appeared to be trying to administer it by mouth and even by injection. Furthermore, many persons were using it without adequate medical supervision. Experiments showed that some animals given heavy doses of the chemical developed abnormal changes in the refrac- tive index of their eyes. It was following these reports of adverse eye changes that the Food and Drug Administration halted its use. The action was protested by a substantial number of scientists who considered DMSO potentially valuable and worthy of further research. The new guidelines for its use in clinical studies will provide the maximum protection possible for the patients who will receive it, the drug agency announced today.”
Guidelines introduced in 1966 limited DMSO’s use to topical applications and only for conditions that had no other available treatments. By the time restrictions were lifted in 1980, enthusiasm had cooled, and the substance had been pushed to the margins—further complicated by unsubstantiated claims that it could cure diseases like cancer. And yet research continued in more limited and specialized applications. In 1978, the FDA approved DMSO for a narrow but specific use: the treatment of interstitial cystitis, a chronic bladder pain condition. Beyond that, it became essential in another domain entirely—cryopreservation. In this role, DMSO protects cells during freezing and thawing, preventing damage that would otherwise destroy them. Stem cells, reproductive cells, and biological samples rely on it as a preservative rather than a treatment—a safeguard for tissue intended for future use.
Research has continued to explore its effects in other areas. Studies have explored its potential role in scleroderma—a rare condition in which the body produces excess collagen, leading to pain, disability and breathing difficulties. Its collagen-softening, analgesic and free-radical scavenging properties have kept it a subject of ongoing investigation for inflammatory conditions, including arthritis, despite the skepticism that has followed it. Beyond these uses, smaller studies have also explored potential roles in central nervous system injury and stroke recovery—areas where findings remain preliminary and far from settled.
The Edge of Understanding
These are not simply stories of being right or wrong. They are accounts of evidence arriving late—of reality existing before the tools to assess it. Again and again, what delays acceptance is not the absence of effect, but the absence of a way to quantify it. Medicine, for all its precision, has always been limited by what it can detect. Until something can be situated within established frameworks, it exists in a kind of scientific limbo—seen, sometimes effective, yet not fully accepted. In that space, even groundbreaking ideas can be abandoned.
Researchers like Royal Raymond Rife (1888–1971) explored whether biological systems might respond to frequency and vibration. A scientist and inventor, Rife developed specialized microscopes and became convinced that microorganisms, like all matter, possessed specific resonant frequencies. He theorized that targeted electromagnetic frequencies could disrupt harmful organisms without damaging surrounding tissue. His work drew both interest and skepticism, but his question was not isolated—it reflected a broader effort to understand whether life could be influenced through energy as well as chemistry. Rife’s specific claims were never independently validated, and his later years were marked by professional collapse and legal trouble. But the question he was asking—whether biological systems respond to frequency—did not disappear with him. It migrated into other hands and other disciplines, where it continues to be explored.
Others approached this idea from different angles. Nikola Tesla explored resonance and energy transmission through fields, while Georges Lakhovsky suggested cells function like tiny circuits responding to external signals. Even within conventional science, researchers in the mid-20th century uncovered the body’s electrical nature—its signals, rhythms, and communication systems. Together, these ideas pointed to a shared insight: biology is not only chemical, but also electrical, and potentially responsive to frequency.
Modern quantum physics has prompted broader conversations about how matter, energy and observation interact. What appears solid is not fixed—at the smallest level, matter behaves differently depending on how it is observed, energy organizes into patterns, and interactions don’t follow straight, predictable paths. Reality is more dynamic and deeply connected than it appears. Your body is not a static object—it is a network of ongoing processes. Every cell is active. Every signal is being transmitted. Electrical impulses travel through nerves, chemical signals pass between cells, and rhythms coordinate everything from heartbeat to breath. Early thinkers raised the question of whether this communication also included frequency—whether the body responds not only to substances, but to signals.
This is not purely philosophical territory. Research in psychoneuroimmunology—the study of how the mind, nervous system and immune function interact—has documented measurable biological changes linked to stress, belief and perception. Placebo responses, once dismissed as noise in clinical trials, are now understood to involve real physiological mechanisms. This does not suggest that thought alone controls biology, but it clarifies something essential: your body is continuously responding to input—not just nutrients or medication, but environment, stress, perception and lived experience.
This is why outcomes vary. Two people can receive the same treatment, the same dose, the same protocol, and experience entirely different results, because the body receiving it is not neutral. It is shaped by history, current state, and individual physiology. What enters the system matters, but so does the system it enters. This is where mindset becomes relevant—not as wishful thinking, but as biological posture.
History offers repeated reminders that prevailing medical knowledge is not fixed. What seems impossible or implausible in one era may become widely accepted in another, just as those before you could not have imagined microbes, electricity, mitochondria—the structures inside your cells now understood as central drivers of cellular energy and health—or genetics. That uncertainty calls for something rare and powerful: an open mind—not empty enough to believe everything, but spacious enough to examine anything worth considering.
To hold such a mind requires humility—the willingness to say, there may be more here than I currently understand. It requires discernment. It asks you to remain teachable, to question your assumptions, to notice when certainty hardens into dogma. In contemplative traditions, this is called Beginner’s Mind—meeting the world without the burden of knowing, approaching each idea, sensation, or discovery with fresh attention rather than inherited conclusion. It can be cultivated through stillness, reflection, deep listening, meaningful dialogue, meditation, time in nature, and the deliberate practice of curiosity.
And because discovery so often begins with observation long before understanding, openness becomes the bridge that allows possibility to remain in view while explanation catches up. Signals emerge that suggest something real is occurring—yet without a clear mechanism, those observations remain vulnerable to rejection. It is not always the absence of effect that creates doubt, but the absence of a way to explain it.
Germs existed before microscopes revealed them. Electrical activity moved through the body before it was mapped. When a patient heals, something real has occurred, whether or not the mechanism is fully understood. Symptoms resolve. Function returns. This does not replace the need for rigorous science—it demands it. But it also reveals a truth: Understanding does not always lead to discovery. Sometimes, discovery—initially dismissed or ridiculed—forces understanding to catch up.
~
Published on May 21, 2026.
If you’ve found value in this article, please share it!
To support the research and health education of AVFC editorial, please consider making a donation today. Thank you.
