[katieHaylor (OP)]

Garth says:

I am aware of a variety of ozone therapies being offered for things, ranging from cleaning fruit and vegetables to reducing melanomas and treating prostate cancer. Ozone being introduced via IV or some form of liquid.

I do know it is a powerful oxidiser, but beyond that I cannot find the science in the equation. To my knowledge these treatments are not legal in the US but seem to be offered in many clinics around the world.

Is ozone treatment advised for anything?

Can you help?

[RD]

Ozone is a hazardous fake cancer-treatment, see ...
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cancer#List_of_quack_cancer_treatments

A world-famous ozone pusher was a British con-man called
Basil Earle Wainwright , (a/k/a Dr Roderick Edward Stone).
He claimed it cured cancer & HIV/AIDS.

Ozone doesn't help wound-healing either, see ...
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cca/doi/10.1002/cca.1111/full

Nor tooth-decay ... https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004153.pub2/full

[chiralSPO]

Ozone is a very reactive substance (it will even react with itself at sufficiently high pressures). It will oxidize any C=C double bonds instantaneously (even at –78 °C), producing extremely toxic (and potentially explosive) ozonides and malozonides (which can promptly react with proteins containing free thiols and free amines...)

Given the extreme reactivity of ozone, I cannot believe that it would have any selectivity for cancer or microorganisms over the rest of the human body, and therefore would not be effective as any treatment other than euthanasia... And given the history provided by RD, I am inclined to believe that anyone recommending ozone treatment is a quack or has been taken in by one.

[Nika2003]

I know that this is a very complex topic. Ozone is toxic and dangerous for the environment. It is well known that ozone gas can damage the respiratory system. There is no safe or effective medical application of ozone
The US FDA and Health Canada do not allow ozone generator manufacturers to advertise or sell them for medical purposes. Although all this does not prevent naturopaths from acquiring them for use in clinical practice. . I've seen ozone advertised by naturopaths for chronic diseases, cancer treatment, Lyme disease, viral infections, chronic fatigue syndrome, autoimmune diseases, "detoxification" and "boosting the immune system."
Ozone can be administered to patients by placing gas through a skin infection or blowing it into the ear, nose, mouth, rectum or vagina.
Practice of autohemotherapy carries significant risks without any health benefits.
The legality of ozone therapy conducted by naturopaths varies in the United States and Canada, despite the fact that purchases of ozone generators for medical use are a federal crime. Some naturopathic states or provincial associations were able to write the use of ozone therapy in their licensing laws,

[RD]

[Bored chemist]

Just to add another  factor.
The dentist guy who thinks ozone is a miracle suggests ensuring that ozone is destroyed by using activated charcoal presumably doesn't know (or care) that the reaction of ozone with charcoal gives carbon monoxide which is also very toxic.

[SSAMC]

Do yourselves a YUGE Favor, and do a
Search for "Ozone Therapy" and "National Institutes of Health". 

You will be amazed at the many positive scientific findings supporting Ozone Therapy.

Note: These studies are all small, humble endeavors, albeit quite positive, simply because BIG MONEY doesn't know how to PROFIT from it and won't sponsor any such studies,

but read the results for yourselves.

[Bored chemist]

You will be amazed at the many positive scientific findings supporting Ozone Therapy.

I didn't see any.

[SSAMC]

The MANY NIH studies typically say: "Despite compelling evidence, further studies are essential to mark it as a viable and quintessential treatment option in medicine." 

As I stipulated, the studies are under-funded and therefore too humble to draw strong conclusions.  Thus, the assertion that "Further Studies" are needed; otherwise the studies would say: "forget about it", like the Know-Nothings boldly insist.

[Bored chemist]

I am a lot more inclined to believe the Cochrane library than you.
Would you like to tell us what your affiliation is?
Do you, for example, work for (or on behalf of) the elixir clinic?

[SSAMC]

I have no affiliation, much less with a so-called "elixir clinic" and you?

"The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the nation’s medical research agency — making important discoveries that improve health and save lives."

Their studies are humble, because they are self-funded, not funded by Big Pharma or any other Money-Bags;

but the results have been POSITIVE, not negative, not "maybe", not "neutral".

What kind of "Scientist" ignores NIH statements in favor of the "Cochrane library"?

[Bored chemist]

"The National Institutes of Health (NIH), a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is the nation’s medical research agency — making important discoveries that improve health and save lives."

Yes, but they didn't actually do the work. They hosted a web site that has a link to a report of the work.

[alancalverd]

Ozone is excellent for debugging water for drinking and swimming. It was apparently used by German military surgeons for treating wound infections in WWI, and may make a comeback in the treatment of MRSA and other antibiotic-resistant infections.

I've seen anecdotal evidence of O₃-enhanced healing of ligament damage. Patients consistently report relief of symptoms, but I can't think of a mechanism that explains it, and it's not easy to diagnose or monitor. Maybe it just destroys the pain nerves!

[chiralSPO]

I believe the article referred to by SSAMC is here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5674660/

The authors of the study are listed as being affiliated with Universities and Hospitals in (greater) New York City (the article is accessible through the NIH, but was not done by NIH scientists).

This article is a review of the literature, rather than primary literature (the authors are not reporting novel findings, but rather have summarized the findings of previously published research).

[Bored chemist]

What kind of "Scientist" ignores NIH statements in favor of the "Cochrane library"?

One who understands that the NIH are not actually making a statement.
They are just providing a library service.

[alancalverd]

Which is different from

The Cochrane Library is a collection of databases in medicine and other healthcare specialties provided by Cochrane and other organizations.

how?

[Bored chemist]

Which is different from

The Cochrane Library is a collection of databases in medicine and other healthcare specialties provided by Cochrane and other organizations.

how?

They don't  just do databases, they do
"and other healthcare specialties".

For example, they provide analysis of data.

It's like the difference between a library catalogue and a review article.

[Rodin1880]

Personal Experience: My diabetic father developed a big black thing on the tip of his big toe... having always been concerned about amputation, he immediately went to the Doctor, and they cut off the top of his toe flat... They put him in an ozone chamber everyday for weeks and the tip rounded itself back out, appearing to have completely regrown, if in fact it didn't actually grow back... I also have an ozone maker that purifies my air and have for decades, every so often I stop using it for a while just to make sure it actually works... I believe Ozone gets a bad rap because it's contrary to the "Save The Earth" people's fights to eliminate everything that makes us an advanced species...

[chris]

@Rodin1880 That's great that your father's toe was saved; but that's not really the same as people advocating using ozone as a panacea; hydrogen peroxide is a fantastic antimicrobial agent that is widely used, and so is mercury. But I wouldn't advise anyone to inject themselves with either.

I'm happy to believe that ozone can cure everything, once I have seen the appropriate - and adequately powered and controlled - clinical trial to support the claim. Until then, I regard any such claim as a hypothesis, but nothing more.

[alancalverd]

My concern with the Cochrane Institute has always been about its "synthesised research" approach - essentially, meta-analysis of peer-reviewed publications. It thus provides defence evidence of the prevailing consensus, but is both inherently insensitive to novelty, rare cases, disruptive or revisited technologies, and prone to inflate the significance of a single finding that has been reported in several journals or by several authors.

In my experience, publications of academic authors tend to be of poor readability, frequently statistically underpowered, and rarely cited, whilst well-funded industries provide polished copy with sound statistics and cite their own publications, thus adding meta-weight to the fairly obvious, at the expense of burying potentially more significant or less profitable research.