Like it or not one day, in this crazy, beautiful, wicked world pot will be decriminalized, plus sized models will prevail, abortion will stay, gays will marry, people who don't love the constitution will stop being villianized, and alternative medicine/therapies will flourish. Hopefully sooner than later, we will see more research of Ozone therapy.
Topic: Why Ozone is better at fighting cancer than Oxygen
Ozone is an effective immunoregulator that kills pathogens, mitigates infection, detoxifies the body, increases circulation and oxygen levels, combats fatigue. These are made possible by it's unique chemical properties, high energy state, instability, and rate of reaction.
Why use ozone, a known carcinogen which (when tropospheric) may harm the epithelial tissues in our lungs, in oxidative therapies instead of O2 exclusively? The noted and influential Dr. Erwin Payr said, "Ozone can do what oxygen cannot". Ozone is molecular oxygen with one or more extra atoms of oxygen; the more oxygen atoms to disperse, the more effective at diffusing oxygen into the body. Due to the small quantity of ozone required per treatment, (and therefore small amount produced at a time) it poses little threat to our atmosphere. Unstable ozone requires less energy than stable O2 to undergo reaction. Once ozone is infused into the blood, it quickly breaks down into oxygen, readily oxidizes blood and tissue cells, and rapidly circulates more oxygen in the blood stream than O2. Anne Schadde author of O3zone: A Homeopathic Proving says, "The intense reactivity of ozone is explained by suggesting that one of the three oxygen atoms is in an 'atomic' state. On reacting, this atom is dissociated from the O3 molecule, leaving molecular oxygen, O2. The molecular oxygen, O2, is not reactive at ambient temperature and pressures. However, the atomic oxygen, O, is far more reactive" (6). Ozone's 18 electrons have a high energy, making the molecule highly reactive and unstable. This is apparent by its short lifespan of about 40 minutes. After about 40 minutes before ozone decomposes back into oxygen molecules and atoms. In an email exchange with London-based ozone therapist Steven Salem Karim he writes, "The difference between medical Ozone and Oxygen is in the physical and chemical properties...Ozone is far more unstable and has more energy. This energy can be released in a number of ways and can effect the way it reacts with other chemicals or biochemistries. Oxygen is a very stable element and needs more energy to react with chemicals and other biochemistries. These characteristics between Ozone and Oxygen is why Ozone is way more powerful as an oxidiser. The oxidation potential between Ozone and Oxygen is that Ozone has much greater oxidation potential than Oxygen...I describe it as a super enriched oxygen" (8).
The discoveries of Otto Warburg, James D. Watson, and Joaquim Varro were integral to developing a regime for ozone to fight cancer.
Research opposing viewpoints for yourself, as I did. Cut out the middle-man and see sources with YOUR own eyes. They are truly easy to find. Check out comments on mai other blogs in this series. What works for some, doesn't work for all, and vice versa. BUT IGNORANCE WORKS FOR NONE. If you or someone you love are in need, and knowledge of this underrated treatment could help you, I'm fully justified and proud to shed more light. This is NOT the first medical care that people have villianized only to later tout as advanced.
"EDUCATION IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN IGNORANCE- dont be shamed into not knowing. Its always ethical to be well informed." - mai
TAKE NOTE: Anyone interested in any therapies mentioned in this essay must seek professional guidance before proceeding with any form of treatment. This is one part of a series of Ozone related essays, sources located at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/51624-ozone-therapy-key-foundation pertain to whole the series.
Additional Notes of Interest:
This is why ozone is often called "supercharged" oxygen.
Some experts define ozone as a molecule having anywhere from 3 atoms of oxygen to 5, 6 or even as much as 21 atoms of oxygen. If this is the case, then that would even boost ozone's ability to effectively distribute oxygen in the body.
There is no getting around free radicals, which are charged and spinning around in lone orbit searching for another electron to pair up with. The problem with free radicals comes in when they are disproportionate in our bodies.
More on Ozone Therapy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/51628-dispelling-ozone-myths-science-it = Myths about Ozone
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/51624-ozone-therapy-key-foundation = The discoveries of Dr. Warburg, Dr. Watson, Dr. Varro
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/51620-ozone-therapy-are-potential-cures... = How Ozone is believed to fight cancer
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/51645-why-ozone-kicks-oxygens-ass-ozone... = Why Ozone is better at fighting cancer than Oxygen
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/51675-ozone-therapy-methods-practioners... = Methods of administration, safety, importance of skill of practitioner
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/51622-usa-behind-cuba-and-europe-progre... = History of use, present day usage, and lack of study
According to Quackwatch and Dr. Weil and The American Cancer Society...
"Hyperoxygenation" Therapies
"Hyperoxygenation" therapy -- also called "bio-oxidative therapy" and "oxidative therapy" -- is based on the erroneous concept that cancer is caused by oxygen deficiency and can be cured by exposing cancer cells to more oxygen than they can tolerate. The most touted agents are hydrogen peroxide, germanium sesquioxide, and ozone. Although these compounds have been the subject of legitimate research, there is little or no evidence that they are effective for the treatment of any serious disease, and each has demonstrated potential for harm. Germanium products have caused irreversible kidney damage and death. The FDA has banned their importation and seized products from several U.S. manufacturers.
Q: Can Oxygen Cure Cancer?
I have heard that disease cannot live in the presence of oxygen. Is this true? If so, can oxygen therapy be used to treat cancer?
A : Answer (Published 1/5/2004)
Oxygen therapy is being promoted on the Internet as a treatment for cancer, but there is no evidence that it works. The notion that oxygen might destroy cancer cells goes back to the 1930s when Otto Warburg, MD, a Nobel Prize winner, discovered that compared to normal cells, cancer cells have a low respiration rate. He proposed that if cancer cells survive and grow in a low oxygen environment, they would die off if exposed to higher levels of oxygen. Since then, we've learned that Dr. Warburg was wrong. Oxygen doesn't slow cancer growth - tumors grow rapidly in tissues well supplied with oxygenated blood and the opposite is true, too: depriving tumors of oxygen doesn't stimulate their growth. Moreover, a study published in the Spring/Summer 1998 issue of Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine noted that since human tissues require 200 to 250 ml of oxygen per minute, an additional 20 ml that could be dissolved in all of the plasma of a normal weight adult would hardly be enough to make a difference in the amount of oxygen cancer cells would receive.
Oxygen therapy introduces substances into the body that are supposed to release oxygen. The extra oxygen is believed to increase the body's ability to destroy disease-causing cells...Available scientific evidence does not support claims that putting oxygen-releasing chemicals into a person's body is effective in treating cancer. It may even be dangerous. There have been reports of patient deaths from this method...The history of putting oxygen-releasing substances into the body follows several tracks. Interest in ozone dates back to the mid-1800s in Germany, where it was claimed to purify blood...During the 1930s, Otto Warburg, MD, a winner of the Nobel Prize in 1931 for his research on respiratory enzymes, discovered that cancer cells have a lower respiration rate than normal cells. He reasoned that cancer cells thrived in a low-oxygen environment and that increased oxygen levels might therefore harm and even kill them. Many of the beliefs held by oxygen therapy practitioners are based on Dr. Warburg’s theories concerning cancer, even though technical advances have since offered a great deal more information about how cancer cells really use oxygen. Even if more oxygen is available, it does not cause the cancer cell to switch back to normal oxygen use. And, a higher oxygen level does not seem to hurt cancer cells any more than it hurts healthy cells...Available scientific evidence does not support claims that increasing oxygen levels in the body will harm or kill cancer cells. A 2001 review of ozone therapy concluded that "… few rigorous clinical trials of the treatment exist. Those that have been published demonstrated no evidence of effect… Until more positive evidence emerges, ozone therapy should be avoided."...The medical literature contains several accounts of patient deaths attributed directly to putting oxygen-releasing substances into the body...Hydrogen peroxide injections can have dangerous side effects. High blood levels of hydrogen peroxide can create oxygen bubbles that block blood flow and cause gangrene and death. Destruction of blood cells has also been reported after intravenous injection of hydrogen peroxide. Some people can also have serious allergic reactions to hydrogen peroxide. A 1993 review article also found some research evidence that too much oxygen in the body's tissues may damage genetic material and promote abnormal growth...A 2001 review of ozone therapy warned that "The risks of ozone therapy are played down by its proponents. Yet, numerous reports of serious complications, including hepatitis, and at least five fatalities have been reported."
Heck, even the most well known ozone advocacy group in the world, The Medical Society for the Use of Ozone in Prevention and Therapy admits that, "no placebo-controlled double blind studies have been carried out as yet." So much for the "science" claims.
These treatments are dangerous frauds that are designed to take advantage of the desperation of terminally ill patients. They are not legitimate treatments, and have no credible backing in the scientific literature. Fortunately, these treatments are illegal in the United States.
Don't be fooled by hucksters and snake-oil salesmen!
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
On March 24, 2009 a patient of Dr. Howard Robbins gave testimonial on Progressive Radio Network (PRN) radio hosted by Dr. Gary Null (New York) to the positive effects ozone therapy has had on his multiple sclerosis. The patient listed "improved vertigo, less dizziness, weight loss, decreased fatigue." ... The New Hope Medical Center in Scottsdale, Arizona and the Nevada Center of Alternative & Anti-Aging Medicine in Carson City are leading ozone therapy facilities in the United States.
On one of mai many blogs, I received positive feedback from an ozone practitioner in Malaysia. They said that they operate an ozone therapy center in Malaysia, and that their experience was that most of their patients were happy with treatment because it helped reduce issues related with their chronic illness. They said they have a lot to say and left a contact email and international number online. You can check that out at http://maiweblog.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/dispelling-ozone-myths-the-sci...
Arrogant people tow the USA is always right, and better than every place else, FDA, mainstream line. Blindly. We need more of that like we need people to stop questioning things. I can understand people having trust issues. Regardless if you believe or like Robbins and Null, I believe that MS patient who had first hand experience of "improved vertigo, less dizziness, weight loss, decreased fatigue." And I am aware of some doctors performing this 'quietly'. But what about places like The New Hope Medical Center in Scottsdale, Arizona and the Nevada Center of Alternative & Anti-Aging Medicine in Carson City? They are in the USA and practicing openly enough that I found their websites!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings
...so that you don't end up looking silly if someone else does it for you.
For example, "Dr." Gary Null isn't really a doctor at all, much less a medical doctor. Gary Null "holds an Associate Degree in Business Administration as well as a Bachelor of Science degree from Thomas Edison State College in Trenton, New Jersey. He has a Ph.D. in "Interdisciplinary Studies" from Union Institute & University, a private college that gives degrees by correspondence from Cincinnati, Ohio...Union Institute & University is accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, but its accreditation does not cover awarding of PhDs in the sciences, only in the humanities...Gary Null is also a promoter of AIDS denialism—that is, the belief that HIV is harmless and is not the cause of AIDS. He sells self-made films on his website that promote AIDS denialism....Many of Null's viewpoints are controversial and he has attracted the attention of Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch. Barrett criticizes the validity of Null's Ph.D. thesis, his alternative health claims, and several of his commercial products." (LINK)
According to the NY State Education Department - Office of the Professions, Gary Null is not doctor and his "credentials" are not applicable to his stated profession.
As for the crediblity of the orgianizatons you mentioned, I think that New Hope Medical Center is a perfect example of why people should think twice before buying into these bogus claims. I searched this company's website, and guess what I found...a disclaimer.
So, even the website who offers these procedures makes no actual claims that they work. That should tell you something.
Likewise, the Nevada Center of Alternative & Anti-Aging Medicine is equally questionable. This business is the latest home of "Dr." Frank Shallenberger, who was forced to surrender his license to practice medicine in California after being found guilty of "gross negligence," "repeated negligent acts", "incompentence" and "the commission of [acts] involving dishonest or corruption which is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of a physician and surgeon." (LINK to the California Medical Board Case against Frank A. Shallenberger, MD)
I don't know why you are so obsessed with promoting this snake oil. Perhaps it is simple ignorance, or perhaps you are simply trying to promote your chosen trade of "naturopathy." *snort* But regardless, there is no reason that we should tolerate this chacenery. This claims of cures resulting from these treatments are false. The sources that you provide are fraudlent. The science supporting the effectiveness of these treatements is non-existant.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Null is a radio host. You haven't told me anything about him I didn't already know. But I can tell you you can find additional info on Null at quackwatch (along with Dr. Weil) and on wikipedia if you are so inclined.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings
A Critical Look at Gary Null's Activities and Credentials
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Gary Null (1945– ) is one of the nation's leading promoters of dubious treatment for serious disease. He hosts radio and television talk shows; writes books and magazine articles; delivers lectures; and markets products through his Web site.
Null is prone to see conspiracies behind many of the things he is concerned about... He promotes hundreds of ideas that are inaccurate, unscientific, and/or unproven...His Web site contains a huge amount of misinformation and bad advice.
I really have to wonder at the level of denial it takes to continue to cling desperately to your support of these frauds. Your promotion of these treatments is both poorly informed and intellecually corrupt, and for someone who claims to be a health care practitioner (though I grant, its hard to rationally include a "naturopath" in that categorization) it is unethical as well.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Mai new online ozone therapy center operator friend Dzai, emailed me saying that most patients suffer from diabetes, stroke, hypertension, dengue fever, and some come in for detoxification (preventative measures). Dzai says they have been operating the ozone center for 4 years, and that In Malaysia they practice as an alternative medicine. They say most of the medical doctors still do not recognize ozone healing because it might effect their business. Dzai believes that in "time to come, testimonies will answer doubt". I hope Dzai is right.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings
Or, is he just another quack like everyone else you have cited thus far in your support of these fraudulent "cures?"
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
My two cents...
I don't think you'll find credible information on the Internet regarding this or many other new and upcoming therapies. The Internet is filled with crap. Finding such crap and portraying it as viable or proven does not make it any less crap. What I do see here is very limited research.
My father works as an administrator at an Army Medical Center in the city I live in. I called him for information regarding ozone therapy (because I know so little) and his first reaction was "why what's wrong?" and his second reaction was "don't bother with it, remember what happened with the X-Ray..." Interesting reaction, I thought, comparing the research done on this ozone therapy to the research done on the X-Ray before it became widely used (and I'm sure we all know what happened there).
I also think it says something that this procedure is only legal in 16 countries worldwide...
That said, here are some things I have found from the British Journal of Biomedical Science (pp. 270-279):
First and foremost, many of the studies in the past were done inaccurately without proper measurements or monitoring, rendering most of the past studies useless in regard to finding evidence of its work. All it really does show is a need for - guess what - more studies and new research to come up with a way of monitoring and measuring results. But, the Internet is filled with web sites already calling this a viable and proven therapeutic method - clearly it is not proven because past research was skewed, which means it is not viable. I say... enter at your own risk.
This article also goes on to say:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence
that's definitely interesting, and useful.
I've maintained from the beginning of this series that more research is necessary. I do think its abhorrent that there is a CHANCE that this therapy could prove beneficial, but it's getting bogged down by those who wish to "remain skeptical and inert" which "does nothing to solve the problem" and chemo and radiation are NOT solving the problem. I refused to proceed with a pro-ozone therapy project until i did the research I've been bringing out in these essays and contacted with doctors and patients who feel as if their lives have been enriched by it.
the X-ray is an excellent example. too much exposure to x-ray radiation should be avoided, I think the use of ozone therapy will be regarded very similar one day. As a beneficial treatment that must be handled with care. (the next blog in this series will address this more closely). At this point, I wouldn't use it for preventative care, but I would consider it for Stage IV cancer patients.
"Theories that O3 is capable of transferring a vital energy to the blood remain in the realm of fiction"
This is interesting, because none of the research I found/use claim that that's the intention. Or rather not what ozone does directly when it comes in contact with the blood. The hypothesis is that it kills pathogens in the body as we undoubtedly know it does outside the body. That's the number one, there are some other probable benefits I've listed in the series as well.
"the history of medicine teaches us that we should not disregard any possibliltiy"
This is a truth that is ignored too often.
BTW the bulk of mai research and references did not come from internet sources.
I think it is FOOLISH to get testimonies from a handful of people (let alone millions) and to totally disregard it because of lack of research. That's not scientific or intelligent or essentially tell a patient they didn't experience what they say they did.
Furthermore if anyone wished to "enter at (their) own risk", they should not do so without weighing each and every side of the issue, and how can that be accomplished without sufficient information? It can not. I believe it has worked, and it will work in some. And I want to know why and when it doesn't work for all. Will it never work for all? Or can it be manipulated into working for all? Also, there are a plethora of methods of administration. Some are better than others, should some become obsolete? I'm down with opening a constructive dialogue and to be done with all the blarguements.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings
the X-ray is an excellent example. too much exposure to x-ray radiation should be avoided, I think the use of ozone therapy will be regarded very similar one day. As a beneficial treatment that must be handled with care. (the next blog in this series will address this more closely). At this point, I wouldn't use it for preventative care, but I would consider it for Stage IV cancer patients.
You misunderstood, or misread, what I said. I didn't equate the effects of ozone therapy to the X-Ray - I compared the research. The X-Ray was put into widespread use soon after it's discovery, before extensive and thorough research was done. A few years later, as the skin began melting off of Edison's assistant's hands and doctors and scientists began reporting leasions and sores and people became very sick - that's when they decided to start thorough testing.
I think it is FOOLISH to get testimonies from a handful of people (let alone millions) and to totally disregard it because of lack of research. That's not scientific or intelligent or essentially tell a patient they didn't experience what they say they did.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. The research was skewed because it was not controlled. They did not account for amounts or numbers, and in some cases didn't record accurate numbers or findings. Therefore, it's useless. Patients were taken in, and in some cases let go if their results didn't fit in with the hypothesis they were trying to prove - completely leaving them out of the study altogether so they could publish positive numbers. Temperatures were wrong, data was not reported accurately. Any one of these things would render the research biased and useless... but multiple ocurrences?
Now, if someone wanted to take on the project and say "I am going to prove it..." By all means, I'm all for research. But real research with actual results and accurate data that can be used. That has not yet been given... definitely not to the extent you are asserting.
Additionally, you are beginning to contradict yourself a little. You have been portraying this as "viable and proven" - clearly it is not proven and, therefore, is not viable. You make very small mention of "do your own research" and/or "get all the facts" in your blog entries. Can it work? Who knows... right now it's a bunch of theories with little or no backup. Will it work in the future? It's possible... but then again I believe anything is possible. Does that mean it should be advertised, because it's possible? Or put into widespread practice? Or advocated? No - I don't believe so.
To be clear... The research should be advocated until proven one way or another, not the practice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence
I didnt miss anything*, I dont see why its so hard to make a connection between ozone and x-rays in the manner that I stated. X-Rays are useful, but too much exposure to them should be avoided. That's why technicians leave the room. I think that one day ozone will be viewed much the same, in that it will be considered useful, but contact with the respiratory system should be avoided, therefore it must be administered with care.
To clear your confusion at what I was getting at: when you talk to patients (you can disregard any study you dont want to factor in) and they say, "this has helped me" there isn't a reason to disregard the therapy totally.
Furthermore, it is being practices by many. I care about the safety of those involved, thats why I present the hypothesis as to why it works. Now, what would be useful is analysis of each specific point, does ozone really stimulate the metabolism? Does a strong immune system recognizing cancer cells more readily then a weakened one? Does ozone oxidize pathogens in the body as it does outside the body? Does ozone pose any threat to tissue other than the epithelial? These questions would move discussion from inert banter that has resulted, which is really only redundantly saying that the FDA doesn't approve it and its under researched. WE KNOW THIS ALREADY. Those questions I posed are proactive.
Where are the links that explain which studies where flawed and how? Sorry if you already cited them, now that would be something that i perhaps missed*.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings
I'm not making a connection with X-Ray and Ozone exposure... you making that connection off of my statement is irrelevent. My statement was about the piss-poor research done... not about the exposure risk or benefits. They are two completely different subjects. I don't care that the exposure risks seem similar - the same can be said for chocolate. I wasn't talking about exposure risk. When you skewed onto this new topic, I merely tried to bring you back to the subject I was talking about.
Clearly, you don't care about the research. That's fine, now I know.
To clear your confusion at what I was getting at: when you talk to patients (you can disregard any study you dont want to factor in) and they say, "this has helped me" there isn't a reason to disregard the therapy totally.
Again, I didn't say that the information or answers should be disregarded... I said it was useless. It's useless because it can't be trusted.
As far as the (limited) information I do have, I got it from my university's library, not online, which is why I didn't post any links.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence
You mentioned x-rays, cool. I talked about x-rays in a way you didnt mention. I know you dont think you have a monopoly on x-ray discussion. But I dont understand why me talking about x-rays -even different from you- makes you so upset, and so rude as to say I dont care about the research. You weren't talking about the exposure risk but I was.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings
I'm sorry if I came off as rude; that wasn't my intention. But you seemed to equate the two ideas, I was trying to be clear that I was not talking about that subject - and to make my topic clear, since you did not reply to my topic but instead talked about something completely different.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence
I replied to other things you said, but in truth, your mention of x-rays made me think of this point, which I made in another blog, but at that time didnt give x-rays as an example, (Oh i gave the example that a scalpel in the hands of anyone besides a doctor would be dangerous... think along those lines ie use of x-rays is a calculated risk, i think ozone therapy will be seen as useful but with its carcinogenic possibility in mind, as a calculated risk) i didnt think what i said would be misconstrued as me putting words in your mouth... tangent i guess, sorry for blurring the lines
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings