[alancalverd]

The Las Palmas paper is interesting. Various attempts have been made to increase the oxygenation of tumors to improve radiotherapy effectiveness, hyperbaric oxygen being one of the most extensively investigated. Not sure than adding ozone to the general bloodstream is altogether a Good Idea but the reported increased oxygenation of the most hypoxic tumors looks promising. Given that nobody wants the tumor to survive, and we have been ablating them with heat, cold, injected cytotoxins and even acetic acid, a direct infusion of ozone seems worth a try, particularly as whatever diffuses out of the tumor is likely to be ess harmful to healthy tissue than, say, vincristine.

[SSAMC]

Thank you, Alan, for your thoughtful, respectful (in contrast to snarky) response.

I've personally witnessed what would have sounded like a miracle to me, if I hadn't seen it for myself.

An almost 90yo male with diabetes and the typical poor circulation and neuropathy was spider bitten in the back of his calf in January 2017. He received typical Dr care till July, when his son asked why his ankle was at least double its normal size.

The patient assured his son that all was well, since he's been under a Dr's care since it happened 7 months ago.  The son and his wife insisted he pull up the leg of his pant so they could see the source of the immense inflammation and alarming rigidity of the entire lower leg.  To their shock, what had been a tiny spider bite had evolved into an actual divet large enough to hold half a mandarine orange.  It was almost to the bone.

The son immediately called upon an old friend, a dentist, who learned about using ozone to kill infection from fellow dentists from Germany, when a group of international dentists went to Cuba in a 'Doctors without borders' type of gathering.

From July for months, they bagged the patient's legs with ozone daily for 30 minutes, each. By December the divet had filled in completely, leaving only pink-stained skin to mark where the damage had been.

If you know anything about the one-way destruction of diabetes, even on far younger, healthier patients, you know these things Never reverse themselves, Never. Legs are typically lost for less.  Having lost close relatives to diabetes, I'm too familiar with the hopelessness once infection sets in.

While ozone can be directly injected into any unwanted mass, its typical application is gently mixing it with about a cup of the patients own blood and IV-ing the mixture right back in.

It is my belief that the only reason the NIH is amassing these studies on Ozone Therapy (since they aren't amassing studies on Snake-Oil) is that they feel they can no longer ignore what individuals across the nation and the world are constantly reporting to them when Ozone is conscientiously applied to health care.

[chiralSPO]

It is my belief that the only reason the NIH is amassing these studies on Ozone Therapy (since they aren't amassing studies on Snake-Oil) is that they feel they can no longer ignore what individuals across the nation and the world are constantly reporting to them when Ozone is conscientiously applied to health care.

Then your belief is wrong: The only reason that you can find research on ozone (and not on snake oil) is that there are studies about ozone that have been published in the journals indexed by the NIH (for a complete list of journals that can be found in the PubMed index, see here: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/serfile_addedinfo.html )

Please do not interpret this post as snark, or as a claim against ozone--it is merely an attempt to suggest that you are reading too much meaning into the fact that information about ozone can be found through a link with NIH in it. Read the articles, and see what they say--that is what is worth discussing.

[evan_au]

An almost 90yo male with diabetes and the typical poor circulation and neuropathy

Is this the origin of the earlier implication that ozone could cure diabetes?

So it is nothing to do with improving insulin regulation, and more about treating a wound that wouldn't heal?

I agree that wound-healing is a major challenge in diabetes, in the aged and in people with bed sores, especially with the spread of superbugs.

[syhprum]

Iodine is useful for clearing up wounds that are reluctant to heal is its modus operando in anyway similar to that of Ozone.

[SSAMC]

I never wrote that Ozone "cured" anything.  Successful treatments, ameliorating the patients symptoms, improving the Quality of Their Lives are quite different from "curing" them.

If you or your loved one Suffers (or suffered and DIED, like my husband and father did from diabetes) from the ravages of diabetic wounds, MRSA, even MS,

you Know that experiencing positive Treatment results
---is anything BUT Irrelevant, Unscientific, Worthy of Ridicule or the Hostile Fury constantly expressed here. 

It's worthy of unbiased inquiry, something seemingly RARE, or far too quiet, at this site.

The proof of the Pudding is in the Eating, not a Theoretical Recipe that ignores the actual baked treat.

My goal was only to open some VERY CLOSED, VERY-RIDICULING, IGNORANT EYES as to what's out there RE Ozone Therapy.

Unfortunately, the LOUDER Goal Here seems to say:
"Listen Only to ME!!! 
I'm the Brilliant One here!!
Don't read anything for yourself!!!!   
Keep your eyes closed and pay attention Only to ME!!"

Gladly responding to the serious, respectful inquiry,
Individual experimentation similar to that RE Ozone is also being conducted using dirt-cheap hydrogen peroxide, although it's clearly harsher on tissue, but the principle is that same: to kill things that don't belong in the human body and oxygenate the area. 

Four years ago, when I didn't know him, my husband's cousin was diagnosed with a cancer and his Dr wanted to immediately schedule Chemo, but he turned his back on that and began some kind of H2O2 protocol he learned from a friend.  Now, four years later, he's never looked back with regret, and never stopped his H2O2 regimen.  As you can imagine, he remains really stoked about H2O2 and was anxious to have me look into it when we met at my sister-in-laws birthday.  I assured him that I had already read similar glowing results, and that his testimony just bolstered the validity.

Regarding Iodine, I haven't read a thing about that and have no opinion but the following:

ANYTHING, any technology, any substance can be used irresponsibly.  How many simple, over-the-counter products include no Warnings, no Cautions, no Notes, or no Contraindications, etc.?

Accordingly, negative results from Nay-Sayers prove nothing to me and others seeking The Truth;

Only results from people Wanting to Solve Problems, determined to Successfully-Treat Patients, Intent on Improve the Quality of Their Lives --and uncovering The Truth-- has any meaning to Real Scientists and unbiased human-beings.

[SSAMC]

Regarding: Read the articles, and see what they say--that is what is worth discussing.

I totally agree and have been advising everyone to look into All the articles, not just look for the ones that "evidence" nothing notable.    As I indicated, anything can be applied incorrectly, either Deliberately, Negligently or flat-out Ignorantly.

but some have repeatedly, hostilely undermined my attempts to make readers aware that such documentation on Ozone Therapy Exists and is worthy of their review.

[Bored chemist]

I've personally witnessed what would have sounded like a miracle to me, if I hadn't seen it for myself.

Data is not  the plural of anecdote.

It is my belief that the only reason the NIH is amassing these studies on Ozone Therapy (since they aren't amassing studies on Snake-Oil)

I quoted the report that had amassed about snake oil (well, strictly speaking about vaccinations and autism- but it's just as scientifically valid as snake oil)

So, while you say the NIH don't cite papers about dross, it turns out that they do.
You are simply wrong.


Please go back to studying .

[SSAMC]

Boring continues to prove my point about this Troll-Empowering site. 

So, Thank You, Boring,
Oh-Insulting, Uneducated, Unenlightened-One!!

I Persist: 
Read everything you can,
ignore the Know-Nothings that Degrade all Documentation available, and
Seek First-Hand Experience!

The father of a woman, disabled from the MS, decided he could no longer stand to see his daughter suffer and sprang for the cost of the IV-treatments.  She said she felt "better" almost from the start.  After a few months, she felt GOOD!  Then her MD informed her that if she continued to remain symptom-free, he could no longer report to the government that she was disabled, meaning her disability would Stop.  A grown woman, fully-accustomed, programmed, to living the life of a fully disabled citizen, the MS patient stopped treatment altogether, which at that time were merely once a month, maintenance-IVs, and her disabling symptoms returned.

Boring says "Go back to studying",
Ironically though, he UNDERMINES EVERYTHING indicative of Ozone Validity
by Responsible Practitioners who Want to Improve the Quality of Patient's Lives.

To all who actually Care about The Truth,
keep your eyes, your ears, your mind open.

Read all you can; talk to all with Hands-On Experience.

Ignore the Know-Nothings who Pretend to Know All, especially the Hostile, Snarky Ones. 

[Bored chemist]

Ignore the Know-Nothings who Pretend to Know All, especially the Hostile, Snarky Ones. 

Also, ignore the know nothings who know nothing.

[SSAMC]

ABSOLUTELY!!

Research for YOURSELF!!!!

[Bored chemist]

ABSOLUTELY!!

Research for YOURSELF!!!!

Indeed.
Start by finding out what the NIH actually does (they provide an index to papers) and what the Cochrane institute does (they actually analyse papers)

[SSAMC]

Ah, Yes, "[Analyzing] papers".  How Simply Erudite and Unattached.

Yes, by all means:
Forget about papers indicating rare or inexpensive positive findings where both are Sadly Rare,
Forget looking into How Practitioners have been able to Improve the Quality of life,

Yes, Forget about the Patients,
about people who's lives have changed for the far, far better.

Just pay attention to those who excel in Self-Aggrandizement, Officious Banter and Maintaining Status Quo.

[Bored chemist]

Forget about papers indicating rare or inexpensive positive findings where both are Sadly Rare,

No
I didn't.
The Cochrane institute won't have.
So why lie?

[SSAMC]

"Lie"?  The only Lie I see is degrading a technology you know Nothing About.

Witnessing the destructive use of any paper citing negative or negligible outcomes, Especially with everyone Fully-Aware that Any Technology, Any Substance can be misused --either through Ignorance, Negligence, or Pure Sabotage--, I encourage Personal Outreach and Research, rather than succumbing to any pre-sifted, pre-slanted paper/review by the Status Quo.

In the early 90s, my husband's Cardiologist asked if he would like to participate in a study on a new approach to lowering Blood Cholesterol, Statins.  Under the auspices of the Baylor College of Medicine, my husband jumped at the chance.  Within weeks, his health went downhill, and he was removed from the study.  He was NOT documented as a patient reacting badly to the statin, he was simply removed from the study.  As a result of this peculiar, pro-Big Pharma tactic, I was Not surprised that many patients were later prescribed statins, reported feeling bad to their Dr (some unable to walk), yet were insistently-assured that it couldn't possibly be the new medication!  A couple of years later, Drs began to realize: "Yes, yes, it could be the statin; stop taking it". Now different statins, with differing approaches are on the market.

Having witnessed so many amazingly positive results, via various Ozone Therapies, Results which Remarkably have yet to see the light of day despite countless Decades of patients whose lives have been demonstrably, positively transformed; I encourage everyone to set-aside negative or negligible "findings", and get to the Root of any positive ones. 

Verify they Achieved What they Claim, then
Examine what exactly They did to Achieve The Remarkable, Rare and Inexpensively-Attained Benefits,
---rather than let your curiosity be stifled or humiliated by Snarky Paper-Pushers and Nay-Sayers.

[alancalverd]

The problem with Cochrane, as I pointed out when it was founded, is that its principal methodology is meta-analysis. It is thus a very good indicator of consensus and "safe bets", but not a productive starting point for novel procedures. Newton, Einstein, Becquerel, Curie, Darwin, Fleming, the other Fleming, Kemp, Galileo, Michelson & Morley, Larrey, Laveran, Hall....indeed anyone whose discovery or analysis contradicted the current consensus, would probably not get a mention.

Medical defence often relies on consensus, but before the awful European Union decided that science should be ruled by committee, UK law permitted the experimental evidence of one other practitioner to stand as valid defence, and thus promoted progress. Meta-analysis doesn't help us move forward, but uncritical reporting of the interesting and unexpected, does, and revisiting a simple technique can be very rewarding. Just to take one example: triage was adopted during the Napoleonic Wars but hardly appeared outside the battlefield until the 1980s, when a desperately understaffed  National Health Service introduced it to routine civilian casualty work.

[SSAMC]

God Bless you, Alan, for speaking Truth to Status Quo Power.

In furtherance of your post, we need only recall how long it took for merely the Acceptance of Washing Hands before Attempting Surgery and all the Hostility it's Apostles faced for decades and decades.

The Proof of the Ozone is in the Greatly-Enhanced Quality of the Patients' Lives,
not the fact that anything can be applied inappropriately and even dangerously.

Thanks Again, Alan

[Bored chemist]

The problem with Cochrane, as I pointed out when it was founded, is that its principal methodology is meta-analysis.

It is true that the basis of the Cochrane institute's work is studying data- i.e. doing meta-analysis.

The alternative is studying a lack of data.
That's not doing to get you very far.

It is important to realise that the meta analysis will include all the papers that SSAMC has quoted.

But it will also include the ones where no effect (or a deleterious one) was seen.

That's why I'm going to believe it, rather than someone who cherry picks.

In furtherance of your post, we need only recall how long it took for merely the Acceptance of Washing Hands before Attempting Surgery and all the Hostility it's Apostles faced for decades and decades.

OK, Let's recall that (and lots like it); they are the reason why modern medicine is evidence based.
They are the reason why we know to ignore one person saying "Well, it worked once" in favour of a properly controlled trial.

SSAMC, they are the reason we should ignore you

[Bored chemist]

Medical defence often relies on consensus, but before the awful European Union decided that science should be ruled by committee, UK law permitted the experimental evidence of one other practitioner to stand as valid defence, and thus promoted progress.

.

UK law still does.
Stop trying to pretend that the EU is a bogeyman.

[SSAMC]

How about we start the New Year Looking for Solutions to Real World Problems?

Cease looking for excuses to denigrate anyone who points out
The Bleed-in Obvious:  Status Quo Arrogantly, Officiously, Hostilely Stifles all Else

Especially when Status Quo is protecting the Income of the Wealthy.

The Adoption of Ozone Therapy would be
a Devastating Threat to the Income Antibiotic Manufacturers.