Talk:Ozone therapy/Archive 1

Initial comment

No coincidence this page is a similar pro - anti edit wars that stem cell therapy has with the Drug company groupies desperate to beat down anything that could undermine their jobs or stock value.

Old talk

Sept. '05: Previous version claimed ozone therapy is illegal in U.S; not true. It also defined it as "quackery," which is subjective. O3 saved my wife's life and was administered by a legitimate, licensed physician in Arizona. Have edited page as appropriate.

This article seems to suffer from the "in XYZ country doctors have used X treatement for decades but it is banned here...." fallacy. I am aware of no widespread acceptance of ozone therapy in any country. It is quackery and I will remove this article's attempt to bestow upon it a sense of false legitimacy. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.77.168 (talk • contribs)

Yeah ozone treatments really suck and they almost killed my father. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.10.216 (talk • contribs)

I'm planning to redirect this page to the "Use in medicine" section of the Ozone article, since it everything (almost word for word) that this page does. Any objections? (will use "#REDIRECT Ozone#Use_in_medicine, I believe this will redirect to the appropriate section). Fuzzform 20:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't work. Anyway, I think the beginning still needs some work.

Fuzzform 19:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the "legitimacy" redirect - [Use in medicine: Ozone, along with hypochlorite ions, is naturally produced by white blood cells and the roots of marigolds as a means of destroying foreign bodies.] --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.142.162 (talk • contribs)

It would probably be a good idea for some clinical trials or some actual research statistics to be placed on the page. It IS interesting that no matter where I look on the net, I cannot find any statistics to support any trends or conclusions. Its all speculation and antedotes. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.19.233 (talk • contribs)

Since when is quackery "subjective"? Medicine's foundation is not belief or opinion, but the gathering and analysis of empirical data. A treatment that is claimed to have certain benefits by its advocates that it can be demonstrated to not have is quackery. It's an objective assessment. I would suggest reinserting the word "quackery". --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.213.101 (talk • contribs)

The statement that ozone hasn't been studied is patently untrue. The referenced EPA article clearly states that ozone is useless at non-toxic levels. I am removing the offending sentence. Jeremy RBC 01:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this quote from Wikipedia article pretty much sums things up:

"Proposals to include ozone therapy in German health insurance schemes invoked hostile objections from pharmaceutical researchers who question its evidence base.[67] In general Countries with more socialist style health systems seem to have had less difficulty in accepted ozone as a medicine."

Greed by big business, i.e., the pharmaceuticals, leads to the suppression of cheap treatments that really work, especially one with such a broad base of effectiveness, like ozone therapies. I went online at an open posting situation once and was shocked by the rude and lewd hostility against alternate healings. It's pure Scifi conspiracy theory stuff, but shockingly it's true P.66.81.73.22 (talk) 05:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right, but this isn't the place to speculate. Article talk pages are only intended for editorial discussion regarding verifiable information. That means if there's a reliable published source that discusses the suppression of ozone therapy as motivated by big business interests, then this is a good place to discuss whether and how we include that theory in the article. If it's just our own beliefs though (even if it seems obviously true), it is considered original research and has no place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum. Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 21:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

medical ozone proponents vs opponents

There seems to be some prejudice against the concept of ozone as a medicine in English speaking countries. I would like to re write this page, but it would be helpful for the skeptics to list the sources of there concern or disbelief of the medical application of ozone here so i can incorporate them into the article.Craig rd 18:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I would call this a predjudice. In medicine treatment has to be scientifically proven before it can be used. The burden of proof of a treatment is always on the side of those who promote it. However we can discredit snake oil salesmen.

Here's quite an important one:
The single MD listed erroneously as 'some doctors' who is a proponent of the treatment (Gerrard V Sunnen) is not exactly a reliable source and had his medical liscence revoked in 1996 by the NY State Department of Health. It involves cases of improperly prescribing medications to patients drinking alcohol with them and having sex with them because he said it would "enhance the therapy". Charges were upheld for Gross Negligence and Fraud. Specifically the ruling said he:

a) demonstrated an inexcusable lack of insight.
b) 'willfuly disregarded basic fundermentals for prescribing medications in a way that demonstrated a cavalier disregard of appropriate standards.
c) blatently and flagrantly violated the trust of two vulnerable patients.
d) exploited the patients severely for sexual gratification.
e) Blatently abused his license privilages in a dangerous manner.

Here's the official PDF with the details: http://w3.health.state.ny.us/opmc/factions.nsf/0/e45025273d2f9d2d85256a4a0047f1f1/$FILE/ATT4BSG6/lc107435.pdf
Or here's a summary:
http://w3.health.state.ny.us/opmc/factions.nsf/cd901a6816701d94852568c0004e3fb7/e45025273d2f9d2d85256a4a0047f1f1?OpenDocument
Spoonman 00:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont see what any of this has to do with the artcile regards the merits ozone therapy, nearly every doctor in the US who has endorsed ozone therapy or many other alternative therapies has been pursued by the authorities for every human indiscretion or mistake. I think better you contibute something more constructive for those who like to get the facts regards this topic.

Do you intent to dig up dirt on the thousands of other doctor's who have experience of ozone therapy and the courage to state and research their beliefs for the benefit of humanity and risk pursecution from a medical industry with a far different agenda?

Was George Stoker a snake oil salesman?

The article uses this doctor's endorsement to give (allopathic) credibility to the treatment creating the illusion of greater acceptibility. However he had his license removed for improper use of medications, lying to patients, putting his own desires above the needs of his patients and fraud. This is relevent when his endorsment is used for such a controversial treatment. These are not merely transgresions and I am sure you are aware that most MDs do not behave this way. The wikipedia guide for reliable sources states that sources should be 'trustworthy'. And this is what I am calling into question. Also that the term 'a number of doctors of medicine' is used when only one is pointed to. The fact that I say nothing about George Stoker should make my motivation clear to you.

It is simply common sense to look into the background of any modern doctor promoting a controversial/archaic treatment. Though I am not comparing them, I would do the same for a doctor promoting labotomies or electroshock treatment.

I appologise for the 'snake oil salesman' comment. Spoonman 12:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The “including a number of doctor’s & chemists” is not incorrect. The reader should made aware of the fact that a significant number conventionally educated and trained medics believe there is some merit in ozone therapy and it is not just the domain of uneducated alternative healers. Dr Sunnen’s 1988 review (not his research) at that time was thought to be of enough credibility for publishing by the journal of advancement in medicine (who could be argued are the source we should trust) I choose this article because it was significant in the revival of ozone therapy in the USA. Sunnen’s references and others cited in wiki establish that sunnen is not the only doctor to believe in ozone therapy, but I shall soon cite a more numerous list that have been published in med journals, so it can be screened and the heathens publicly crucified. Was Sunnen punished for his very unprofessional but consentual sexual relationships with 2 patients or is there another reason they seek his character assassinated but prefer it not publicized? We have not been provided with all the details of Sunnen’s conflicts with the NYSDOH. Dr Sunnen could be the first snake oil salesman to invest his money and reputation in a clinical trial. http://www.triroc.com/sunnen/topics/nysdoh.v.ozone.htm

Also mr spoonman he did not say it would “enhance the therapy” this is the testimony of the patient/ girlfriend which he denies. You might consider correcting this or perhaps retracting it all considering it has no relevance to Dr Sunnen’s article on ozone therapy ( which can be replaced with a review by another doctor if you prefer) and he has long ago been punished for this.Craig rd 12:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

In an attempt to suggest credibility of ozone therapy within conventional medicine, you claim that a significant number of medical doctors believe in ozone therapy but point to only one; Dr Sunnen. looking a little closer at this doctor, it turns out he had his license removed for among other things dangerous use of medications. You cite an article he wrote in a publication called "The Journal of Advancement in Medicine" and say that we should trust the publication if not him. However this also turns out to be an alternative medicine journal which now goes by the less misleading name of "Clinical Practice of Alternative Medicine". You say his crimes happend a long time ago, but Dr Sunnen's article was published in the middle of the period at which he was involved in crimes of fraud which contributed to his downfall. While it may be true many doctors support the use of ozone, this does not show any number of doctors of medicine support this let alone a significant number.

Regarding the statement that Dr Gerrard V Sunnen told patients having sex with them would enhance their therapy; While I acknowledge he denied this, the review board decided that he had said this. That is a matter of public record and therefore there is nothing to re-tract. Please understand that I am not out to assasinate the character of Dr Sunnen or ozone treatment. I only intend to keep misleading information off wikipedia.

Wikipedia depends on reliable sources of information. mis-representing facts and anecdotal evidence will not do. As you are confident there are many doctors who support ozone therapy I suggest you find a few more reliable sources for representatives from the 'allopathic' world. Also if you intend to use publications to prove this particular point, recent peer-reviewed publications carry far more weight than grandiosely named alternative medicine magazines. Until that time, I strongly suggest and respectfully request that the information be adjusted or removed. Spoonman 22:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore I read the entire article you link to at http://www.triroc.com/sunnen/topics/nysdoh.v.ozone.htm and while I see outlandish unsubstantiatied claims that ozone might help with HIV, I see nothing whatsoever to suggest that he intends to invest his own money or anybody elses in a clinical trial. I am really beginning to think that you are just making things up and hoping that no one will check. Nevertheless I'll still give you an opportunity to make good and correct the misleading information. Spoonman 00:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr Spoonman, Since you have such objections I have removed from the references the article published in the Journal of Advancement in Medicine 1988 (publishing editor Elmer M. Cranton, http://www.drcranton.com/cvcranton.htm), titled Ozone in Medicine: Overview and Future Directions by Dr Gerard Sunnen and posted it here http://www.triroc.com/sunnen/topics/ozonemed.htm

I am a little confused by your last post regards the article linked at http://www.triroc.com/sunnen/topics/nysdoh.v.ozone.htm I think it possible you have misread it. What is it you believe i am making up?wikipedia standards require verifiability not proven truth i believe anedotal evidence to be acceptable if it is label such and comes from a previously published source. i am not trying to suggest credibility of ozone with in conventional medicine, i am trying to provide wikipedians with reliable sources so they can make their own appraisal of the debate. please give me a few days and I shall enlighten you with other information that I hope shall satisfy many of yours and others concerns.Craig rd 12:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Although I have never meet Dr Sunnen, the more you look it this the more difficulty I have with It, Is it possible a man has been charged, prosecuted, trialed, convicted and turned down at appeal by the same organization, on the evidence of 2 self confessed dope freaks over 5 years after the events took place?

Thanks for removing the link. That we have differing opinions on this topic is a good example of why we need verifable reliable sources for wikipedia articles. I beleive this is especially true when they are on controversial topics. I hope that you understand my position even if you do not agree with it.

Regarding reliability of sources, I believe that wikipedia is unambiguous about this. I kindly refer you to the guidelines entitled 'reliable sources exceptional claims' also 'Claims_of_consensus' and 'Fringe theories' which seem particularly relevant to our discussion.

In regards to the link you sent (nysdoh.v.ozone.htm). I can only repeat what I said before; The article says nothing about Dr Sunnen investing his own money in a clinical trial which was what I understood the relevance of the links to be. I look forward to reading your future additions to this topic. Spoonman 15:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I added new section toxicity & side effects of blood ozonation, there are other sections in the article not written by me, that dont cite sources, to date i have not edited these sections but shall do in due course.Craig rd 07:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Craig, please include information on how exactly ozone works medically. Aside from it being poisonous and killing cells in high concentrations, I do not see any information on the physics and chemistry. This is a science-related article, not an article about the discrimination that some MDs feel when they practice medicine that has not been substantiated by science. Please provide real information and real evidence. At the moment this is one of the worst articles about a reasonably well-known topic on all of wikipedia 75.152.167.80 (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

'mother nature'

This paragraph added to the 'Effects of inhaled ozone' section seems to be mildly POV and reads like original research. Arrowwind, could you add a couple of references noting the origins of these claims, and make specific their claimants, rather than using ambiguous language such as 'it must be understood that...'? dkitchin 06:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Something generates ozone as a short-term response to, and in order to fix industrial pollution? Bollocks. It might be worth waiting for sources if it suggested a specific biogeochemical process that was responsible, but it's vaguely attributed to Mother Earth. Earth may be somewhat self-regulating, but not on day-to-day timescales. Unless the section can attribute the cause to something more specific, I think it should be removed. --Interiot 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm removing it. dkitchin 19:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

'historical use and lancet articles'

.

How can ozone be "hemostatic" and at the same time increase the blood flow to the effected parts, furthermore why does someone keep writing "thou" instead of "though"? Quackery or not these kind of comments just make the whole article seem ridiculous . Will an editor please clean this mess up ?

hypothesis? maybe ozone is a regulator of the vascular signal molecule nitric oxide.

see Valacchi et al in Mediators of Inflammation 2000.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11213910&ordinalpos=27&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

or

Bolton, Method of increasing the concentration of nitric oxide in human blood. United States Patent Office # 5,834,030. 1998 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,834,030.PN.&OS=PN/5,834,030&RS=PN/5,834,030

Ozone from oxygen in air different from "medical grade" oxygen?

"However, ozone for medical use is produced from medical grade oxygen, not air."

From the article. I am confused as to whether ozone produced from regular air, compared to that produced from "medical grade oxygen" (I am assuming regular oxygen gas here - shouldn't that be specified?) is any different? Isn't oxygen oxygen, and ozone made up from just oxygen and nothing else? Then what does the rest of the regular air have to do with it? I used to think I knew a little bit about chemistry after taking advanced chemistry in high school but now I'm very confused. Mirithing 16:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There is considerable difference between ozone produced from medical oxygen (very high O2 purity) and air, whether using an oxygen concentrator, or producing ozone from 'neat' air. Most ozone generators will also react nitrogen when they are producing ozone from air, producing nitric acid if memory serves me well. Oxygen concentrators will concentrate oxygen from air up to variable levels of purity, mostly depending on the concentrator and the flow rate emerging from the unit (i.e. a concentrator may produce 98% pure oxygen at say 2 litres per minute, but may fall to 85% oxygen at 10 litres per minute - hope that illustrates the point). The only way to create a pure oxygen / ozone mix is to use pure oxygen coming out of a bottle - concentrators will inevitably produce some nitrogen byproducts, though they may be low concentration. There are various grades of oxygen available depending on the requirement for purity - generally speaking medical and laboratory grades are the highest (99.99% for example), whereas diving grades are a little less pure - though this depends from country to country. Industrial grades (used for welding and the likes) will be less pure still - and thus the ozone / oxygen mix produced from such an oxygen source will usually be unsuitable for clinical use, though may be fine for other ozone uses. In the UK the differences between medical grade and diving grade oxygen are very small indeed, and mostly relate to the use of medical grade componentry in all the devices used for filling - but the actual oxygen itself is the same - according to BOC who produce most of the bottled oxygen in the UK. As a last note of interest, the manufacturers of ozone equipment will make varying claims about the purity of ozone they produce - there are two types of ozone generation equipment in general circulation which according to the manufacturers will produce greater or lesser nitrogen byproducts. --Antoniolus (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The need of improving the ozonetherapy topic

Dear Sir, I read your account regarding ozonetherapy and I regret to say that I found it outdated and incomplete. In order to help the reader, I would like to send you some recent papers and reviews of ours that will adjourn the topic. Please Keep in mind that I also published two books on this topic.: the first is entitled: Oxygen Ozone- therapy . A critical evaluation , published by Kluwer Publ, in 2002, 440 Pages and the second is entitled: Ozone. A new medical drug, published by Springer 2005, 295 pages. If the reader reads one of these books , he will get objectively informed about ozonetherapy. Many thanks and regards Velio Bocci, MD, Emeritus Professor of Physiology at the University of Siena, Italy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.5.2 (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that since 2007, Pr V. Bocci has authored several papers that can be accessed to from pubmed ( with abstacts) . [I checked the references in the main article : the latest is from 2006 ]. For example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19752547 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19260079 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16890971 ...--Trente7cinq (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I'm making a few edits here because the lead of the article is in a really bad state and looks like nothing less than a battle ground between two warring opinions. I personally don't have any position regarding the therapy; I came to the article because I was wondering what ozone therapy was. But I can spot non-neutral wording, weasel words and the like from a mile away. I don't mean to tread on any toes, just improve the article. If I get anything wrong, please correct it. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I altered a statement that just seemed wrong: apparently ROS are universally implicated in the progression of degenerative diseases. I'm not the expert here, but aren't there a whole class of degenerative diseases that are auto-immune related? I'm not aware that auto-immune diseases have much to do with ROS at all... Again, I'm noting this here so someone can correct me if I'm wrong. Cheers, Fuzzypeg☻ 03:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Regards NPOV allegations

please elaborate 25/1/2007. I believe reference to all negative publicity is included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.113 (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Shame on Wikipedia

It is a great pity that Wikipedia seems to be in cohoots with the FDA. Ozone is not patentable so the Pharmaceutical companies, and their doctors who prescribe their drugs will never benefit from it. There are ghostwriters who write for these organisations (I know this for a fact, as I am a writer), who put disinformation on the world wide web to scare people off. There is a time coming soon, where every single one of you who have deliberately misled people into believing that the drugs you produce and sell benefits mankind. They do not, they kill off the immune system, the system that is there to keep your body functioning in a healthy way. An immune system that should be supported by a healthy lifestyle, as God instructed in Leviticus, He is the creator/designer of our bodies and therefore knows what is good for the body and what is not.

There are many cases of people with diseases that have been pronounced incurable that have been cured by ozone (oxygen) therapy and other natural health treatments. Shame on Wikipedia for promoting lies. Do your research properly!!!!! I suggest you contact Dr Renate Viebahn (Germany), the foremost authority on ozone therapy. Shame on you! Do some real research and not allow your online publication to be used to promotes lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.203.196 (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll reply to this one at the poster's talk page. Fuzzypeg★ 00:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Promoting a dubious woo therapy, conspiracy theories about an FDA/Big Farmer plot and religious nuttery, all in one comment. You must be commended for your services to stupid. I'd give you a gold star, but it might interfere with the protection you get from your tin foil hat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.167.206 (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha, "as God instructed in Leviticus"... Okay crazy...

Possibly valuable text

I agree that we don't need a "celebrity patients" section, but along with its removal some other, possibly useful text went too:

Japanese, Russian and Scandinavian medical journals report benefits of blood ozonation in the treatment of Hepatitis C. Actions by the New York State Department of Health are claimed to have stopped a 2002 clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of blood ozonation in the treatment of Hepatitis C.

This is interesting and potentially useful to the article. Perhaps someone wants to find an appropriate place for it? Fuzzypeg★ 03:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

agreed who ever delete this section was trying to suppress some bad publicity for the new york state dept of health, this of course got no mention in the media and is currently being investigated by human rights groups im putting it back into the article plus a section on the supression of other clinical trials of ozone in due courseCraig rd (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

In a controversial article like this, it's vital that everyone assume good faith and not look for conspiracies or personality defects behind other editors' actions. We'll all get along happily if we can just stick to discussing the material rather than accusing other people of awful things. Otherwise it'll just be unpleasant all round, plus we'll get less done. I'm an experienced editor, and believe me, it makes a world of difference. Thanks, Fuzzypeg★ 15:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Review of intro

I added the word “have” to the second sentence of this article I also considered “had” as skeptics and critics of ozone therapy have gone quite in recent years, while the pro ozone editors have for most of this article quoted medical journals who’s editorial standards meet those for inclusion in medline, the opponents, to justify the second sentence first quote the now defunct Journal of Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (1997) which is not or was not rather a peer reviewed medical journal and who’s chief editor Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com) was described by a California Court in April 22, 2003, “as biased and unworthy of credibility." the other sources quoted to justify the second sentence are also very tabloid like newspaper reports that while describing ozone therapy as quackery, don’t make any scientific argument. You could argue that stem cell therapy is unproven, it is also not approved by health authorities but the tone of the stem cell article is very different to this one. I believe this article has now developed to the point where something along the lines of the following can be added to the intro,

'In recent years credible preliminary research has confirmed the claims of therapeutic benefits of ozone are not without merit but the exact usefulness of ozone in the treatment of any disease, if any, is still unknown.

any objections?Craig rd (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

inclusion in medline is not a useful standard give some of the stuff that is in there.Geni 11:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why such awkward wording? Why not

In recent years credible research has shown therapeutic benefits from ozone treatment.

I admit I'm not an expert in this, but there are plenty of articles citing such benefits.

According to the reliable sources guideline#Scholarship, an article in a widely respected, peer reviewed academic journal is about as high on the scale of 'credibility' as we can go. The guideline also states, however, that in the field of medicine an individual study may not be so definitive, so reliability may be better judged on there being a body of similar studies.

I'd say, then, that if you can find similar conclusions drawn in a significant number of studies published in respected journals (and not countered by other studies in respected journals), then these conclusions can be treated as verifiable information and stated as fact.

From Geni's statement above, it sounds like there might be some discussion though as to which journals are 'respected', and I don't have the expertise to argue this. However with the numerous studies cited in the article I'm sure you can find a number of well-respected journals.

Lets see; you have:

• International Journal of Artificial Organs 2004
• International Journal of Artificial Organs 2002
• Biotherapy 1993-1994
• Polish Journal of Medicine and Pharmacy 1995
• Journal of Neuroradiology 2004
• Clinical Gastroenterology 1993
• Mycoses 2002 (topical application, not autohaemotherapy)
• Primary Dental Care 2006 (topical dental application)
• Stomatologiia (Mosk) 2005 (dental use)
• Polski Tygodnik Lekarski 1992
• Gerodontology 2003 (topical dental use)
• Redox Report 2005
• Oxford Evidence-based Complementary&.Alternative Medicine 2004
• The Stem Cell Patent Journal, 2006
• Alternative and Complementary Medicine 2005
• Mediators Inflammation 2004
• Archives of Medical Research 2006
• Kazanskij Medicinskij Zurnal 2000
• Akusherstvo Ginekologiya 2002

In vitro studies:

• Blood 1991
• Antiviral Research 1991
• Science 1980
• Chemotherapy 1990

There are also a number of articles claiming the treatment is safe, without necessarily arguing that it is effective. These come from the following journals:

• British Journal Biomedical Science 1999
• Toxicology Applied Pharmacology 2006
• Biological regulators and Homeostatic Agents 1998
• Acta Haematology 2000
• International Biological Macromolecules 2006
• Clinical & Laboritory Haematology 2001
• International Medical Research 1994

There are other studies that establish ozone's safety with regard to specific potential problems (e.g. inflammation response, blood coagulation):

• Haematologia (Budap). 1998
• Mediators Inflammation 2004
• Archives Medical Research 2006
• International Artificial Organs 2004
• Blood Coagulation Fibrinolysis 2004
• International Artificial Organs 2004

In these lists I've included journals that might be considered less reliable, such as "alternative and complimentary" medical journals and Russian journals (I don't know the state of their medicine, but some areas of their scientific research are considered somewhat divorced from the rest of the world's research). I don't claim the expertise to say which of these are 'respected' journals and which aren't.

I haven't listed articles for which there was no link to the abstract, or in which the abstract wasn't clear.

I also haven't listed the articles which argue against autohaemotherapy or other forms of ozone treatment, and I'll leave that for someone else. I note, however, that these almost without exception are arguing only that it is ineffective against cancer or AIDS, which are just two of the many proposed uses for the therapy. I also note that many of the citations given against ozone therapy look less convincing than the 'pro' citations.

Hopefully this listing will be of some help. Fuzzypeg★ 23:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Go to [1] for an extensive list of ozone therapy research articles including 300+ published by peer reviewed medical journals in English that the western medical industry chooses to ignore. There are is no “research” published that contradicts or challenges any of the reported benefits of medical use of ozone, only a few review articles like those of the American Cancer Society that try to impose the POV of nameless bureaucrats over and above those of scientists, otherwise the only other negative commentary of ozone therapy comes from the commercial media not any science journal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig rd (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it sounds like when you say "the western medical industry" chooses to ignore it, you more specifically mean the US medical industry? I reiterate, I'm not an expert in this area, but I can follow research, and I can see what the research cited in this article supports.

Of course the FDA and the Cancer Society are powerful voices and we can't ignore them. So I'd suggest something along the lines of:

In recent years credible research has shown therapeutic benefits from ozone treatment. Ozone therapy has been found beneficial in treating [list of ailments], and is used throughout Europe and [various other countries/regions]. The treatment continues to be banned in the US, however, as the FDA state that it is potentially unsafe; this contradicts the findings of numerous studies which have determined it to have no significant side-effects. Ozone therapy gained notoriety as a potential treatment for AIDs and cancer, following promising in vitro studies, however in vivo studies have produced conflicting results, and the Cancer Society has publicly stated its belief that the treatment has no effect on cancer.

That all seems to be solidly supported by the literature, and it doesn't sweep the FDA / Cancer Society controversy under the carpet. So, does anyone have any problems with that? Fuzzypeg★ 01:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Having had a good skirmish around PubMed there are literally hundreds of positive articles that all are saying the same thing - that ozone has medical uses, has medical benefits, has virtually no side effects (specific mentions of this in multiple abstracts). The negative articles on PubMed are few and far between. These are all in recently published sources (in the last 5 years mostly) - quite contrary to most of the sources in the article which clearly need some source revision. When the old information ceases to be useful, it should be justifiably either removed, or certainly downgraded in its alleged importance as a source. The fact that ozone therapy on its own has not cured cancer or aids does not make it quackery - let us not forget that modern medicine has failed in that regard too, and one should not be too quick to condemn 'therapeutic modalities' rather than 'therapeutic claims' generally made by overzealous practitioners. The tone of the article does not reflect what is going on in the real world, though some mention about 'dubious therapists / doctors / practitioners' would not be out of place. Some research links coming soon. --Antoniolus (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Great! In that case, would you like to put my proposed paragraph (in bold, above) into the intro section, along with any modifications you see fit? I still see it as important that we give due weight to the positions of the FDA and the Cancer Society, since they are fairly notable bodies, but we don't need to let these two bodies define the entire course of the article! Good to see a well-informed contributor here. :) Fuzzypeg★ 04:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Autohemotherapy (AHT) should not be confused with Ozone Therapy. AHT is the simple autologous blood transfusion without the insertion of ozone. So far, no one in English speaking countries have given light to the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.55.75 (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Autohemotherapy elucidated

Autohemotherapy is not the same thing as Ozone therapy. The intrinsic nature of each one shows they are irrefutably different, so there should not be any doubt about this theme. In fact, "Autohemotherapy is sometimes performed in conjunction with ozone therapy to treat joint pain due to rheumatoid arthritis or gout. Blood is removed from the patient, enriched with ozone (an unstable form of oxygen that some feel has healing effects) and then reinjected." (Natural Healing Guide). Ex positis, there comes so clear that, although conjunction of both therapies is possible, there is no confusion of one with other.

By the way, it is presented below some concise definitions for "autohemotherapy":

1. Merriam-Webster: Main Entry: au•to•he•mo•ther•a•py [Variant(s): or chiefly British au•to•hae•mo•ther•a•py \-ˌhē-mō-ˈther-ə-pē\; Function: noun, Inflected Form(s): plural au•to•he•mo•ther•a•pies]: treatment of disease by modification (as by irradiation) of the patient's own blood or by its introduction (as by intramuscular injection) outside the bloodstream.
2. Institute of Science: Autohemotherapy, referring here to the immediate intramuscular or subcutaneous reinjection of one's own blood, appears to comprise a compelling therapy option in the absence of others, one that may also merit replacing other (experimental and often risky) attempts at therapy currently in vogue. Since the introduction of this method by Ravaut in 1913, autohemotherapy has been employed in a wide range of disease conditions. Several hundred articles on the subject have been published in mainstream medical journals mostly from the early 1920s through the early 1940s, as listed in the various Index Medicus volumes (generally under the subject category "serum therapy"). Additionally, the subcutaneous or intramuscular reinjection of autologous blood or components is often discussed in the literature without specific reference to the term "autohemotherapy", as may be noted in a number of contemporary examples.
3. Altmeds: "Autohemotherapy is a form of transfusion therapy that is far more common in Europe than in the United States. Its goal is to enhance the immune system's ability to fight disease."
4. Dicionário Digital de Termos Médicos: 1.02915. Autohemoterapia, tratamento com injeções de sangue do próprio paciente por via intramuscular.

• For much more references, Google Search 14:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC) shows about 11,500 entries for "authohemotherapy".

And more...:

1. Autohemotherapy at Pt.Wiki;
2. Autohemotherapy Talk at Pt.Wiki
3. Autohemotherapy, archived file, at Pt.Wiki
4. Autohemotherapy, an appreciation, at Pt.Wiki: [...] "Omitem-se informações fidedignas como a transcrita a seguir: "Relatório clínico-médico nos EUA reporta caso de tratamento bem-sucedido de herpes zoster obtido com a aplicação da auto-hemoterapia" [Rush Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA] (Successful treatment of herpetic infections by autohemotherapy).

Beremiz^Cpa? 14:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's criticism?

This article plays out like an ad for x-ray glasses or something. It says lots of stuff like "plenty of scientists around the world find it useful for any illness" but doesn't mention ANY of the harmful effects of ozone. There's not even a section on criticism or harm, it's entirely pro-ozone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.97.220 (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, what is this, this is the worst treatment of an alternative medical treatment I have seen on Wikipedia, clean it up 75.152.167.80 (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you're just not educated in ozone. I've seen how ozone healed my mothers feet which had sores on it cause by diabetes and a bad blood circulation. Don't judge something if you have no Idea what the difference between industrial ozone and medical ozone is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.29.243.13 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He's not educated in ozone? No matter what grade it is still the same chemical look upon the ozone page on wikipedia. It is very toxic and the World Health Orginization holds the accepted level of ozone on 51 ppb. This is very toxic and very dangerous to use, this substance can cause a high ammount of damage because of its high reactivety. And i agree with lack of criticism in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.15 (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The current introduction is not an introduction.

it sounds like a defensive rebuttal to an argument the unfamiliar reader is totally unaware of. how about a beginning sentence (or sentences) that say something about what ozone is, and just what the hell ozone therapy is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.20.129.128 (talk) 06:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about Cancer but had cured my severe Allergies:

I live in Bali, Indonesia which has very distinct dry and wet seasons.

I have been diagnosed with severe dust mite allergies anonst others.

Dust mites become very active after a long dry season and therefore when the wet season starts I have for 13 years in Bali had dramatic allergic reactions. It got so that I could predict the weather if my allergies started going off.

I started Ozone therapy with a doctor I play tennis with over 12 months ago. This year I have completely eliminated my allergies.

So I 'm not sure about a Ozone is a a cure for Cancer and Aids although my doctor reports success. I am however 100% confident that it has eliminated my allergies to dust mite droppings .

As a result I play tennis almost every day and sleep like a baby without medication at 60 years old.

The other good thing about Bali is that the treatments are less than $20 per treatment compared to $120 in Canada.

Contact me at baliexpat@gmail.com for further information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.167.103.41 (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)