Talk:Ozone therapy

message: The article previously stated that Joseph Lloyd Martin discovered ozone. This is inconsistent with what I have found in other reputable references and what is stated in the Ozone article (i.e. that it was discovered by Christian Friedrich Schönbein). The reference for this (which was not properly linked is here http://www.homeoint.org/history/cleave/m/martinjl.htm) and does not state that he discovered ozone but that he had a patent for "for Ozonized Oxygen Gas and its compounds for inhalation in the treatment of disease as a hygienic agent, and compressing the same in water for internal or medicinal use". This is not the same as having discovered the gas, so I have removed this part of the sentence.--NHSavage (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery of ozone 

message: Seems to confuse health claims, use, and efficacy. Basically, there are the WP:MEDRS issues with health claims, vs WP:SOAP issues that might be addressed with rewording and better sources: --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved to talk

message: Should this article be added to :Category:Pseudoscience? —Entropy (T/C) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as in modern medicine, ozone is not used, and the FDA treats it as a pseudoscience. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: Very little of this article is about Ozone therapy. If someone wants to read about chemical properties of ozone, we have the article for it. I will be deleting the material that is not about "Ozone therapy" and leave a link for ozone for those interested in its properties. ParkSehJik (talk) 04:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very little of this article is about the topic 

message: This edit was made  removed WP:MEDRS British Medical Journal sourced content and replaced it with offtopic statements about ozone in the stratosphere and MEDRS violating claims. The edit summary was "Requires more than one paper to change things", which is not a policy or guideline. The edit appears to be vandalism and is being reverted o MEDRS grounds alone. ParkSehJik (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEDRS source British Medical Source removed and replaced by offtopic random statements about ozone 

message: Hi,
I agree with Yobol that this is not a WP:MEDRS document, and as stated in the edit comment, I don't think a consensus statement by ozone therapy societies is important to a discussion about ozone therapy itself. The document contains some practice guidelines, but those guidelines are also unreferenced.
-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Madrid declaration link 

message: Hello. I found two metaanalysis of discolysis. Please discuss in the talk page.--Biol. Cons. (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Discolysis article improvement

message: Is this theory "mainstream enough" that it can be called "alternative medicine" without being called a "fringe theory?"
If the answer is no, then  should be added to the top of the article.
Since I'm on the fence here and I expect that there won't be universal agreement on whether the existing  template is sufficient or if adding "fringe theories" improves the encyclopedia, I'm asking that this template not be added until after discussion has occurred.
Discuss.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that currently it's fringe. will add tag. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 20:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a fringe theory 

message: The following websites  might help to contribute in “Safety” of ozone therapy.
*Why Ozone Therapy?
*Ozone Theraphy_Dentistry with a conscience
::These are all pro-ozone therapy articles, which gives undue weight to fringe science. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: At least 10 deaths have been related to ozone therapy or its lack of usefulness, in nine cases there had been investigation and in eight it was discovered that the practitioners had used false credentials.Ozone Therapy (What's The Harm website)
The cited webpage does not say what the sentence says: it lists a different number of cases, in none of which ozone therapy is established as the cause of death, and in most of which the underlying cancer or another therapy is clearly cause of death; it does not mention investigations or false credentials. Nor does the site appear to be a reliable source: it has a polemical tone and its information is very vague and supported by deadlinks. I have searched for the original supporting news articles without luck.
It would be useful to have anecdotes of deaths from ozone therapy, if anyone can help locate some more reliable information. Fuzzypeg★ 23:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety 

message: Both articles are included on pubmed. The journal is less mainstream, but the methodology and contentions are clear. Need further elaboration to justify removal. Ies (talk)
:Please read WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE and don't try and force stuff in sourced to weak sources. You have been warned for edit-warring. Be aware this topic is subject to discretionary sanctions. Alexbrn (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fine to contest the strength of the references, but you need to remember respond to talk page discussions before reverting edits without sufficient elaboration.  Ies (talk)  19:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia editors follow WP:PAGs above all. You were edit warring against them. Alexbrn (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying. My suggestion to you is to please try to remember Wikipedia:Civility, and to respond to editors questions when reverting before starting something that could be perceived as an edit war. Ies (talk)  19:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: My advice to you is to get some basic understanding of Wikipedia's WP:PAGs before repeatedly trying to force novel content in. Maybe WP:BRD might help? Alexbrn (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok thank you. Incidentally, if by "novel" you are trying to invoke WP:OR, this would not be correct in this instance, and I would request that you review the reference and editorial response if you have concerns. Regardless, as you appear to feel strongly about the issue, I will defer, as I do not think your decision negatively impacts the article.  Ies (talk)  19:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, "novel" in respect of accepted knowledge. I have no "feelings" about this topic and it is inappropriate for you to try for that angle. Alexbrn (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As this is fringe medicine, there is not much "accepted knowledge" about it. There is no angle, simply responding to your criticism. Thanks again. Ies (talk)  20:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion of safety discussion

message: FYI, I have initiated a discussion about this topic at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Much appreciated. Ies (talk)  20:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fringe 

message: *Ozone therapy: A clinical review
*Mechanisms of Action Involved in Ozone Therapy
**"The application of ozone therapy in all public hospitals is still being delayed by prejudice, no fundings, commercial competition by big Pharma and above all by the incomprehensible disinterest, if not plain obstruction, by Health Authorities such as the FDA in USA and the European Medical Association."
**" As it has happened for other innovative medical approaches, thanks for the efforts of many expert physicians, ozone therapy will be eventually accepted by orthodox medicine."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.15.93 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of those quotes come from the second link, which was published in a well-known predatory open access journal with a history of faked peer-reviews, rushed publication of bad articles and other trust-eroding issues. The first link does not support the claims. Finally, as a rule of thumb, any source you come across that actually uses the term "big Pharma" in a serious, pejorative sense can be safely dismissed as unreliable. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional References

message: This does not appear to be pubmed indexed "This statement is opposed with the release of a peer-reviewed publication (2016), which performed a systematic review of controlled human trials of two major forms of systemic ozone therapies. Based on the Cochrane Library (1992) evidence classification system, as well as the Oxford Center for Evidence Based-Medicine (2009) criteria, systemic medical ozone therapy is establishing itself as evidence-based medicine."
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved here

message: I suggest: BMJ Case Rep. 2013 Jan 31;2013. pii: bcr2012008249. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2012-008249.
The use of ozone therapy in Buruli ulcer had an excellent outcome. Bertolotti A1, Izzo A, Grigolato PG, Iabichella ML.
The British Medical Journal's (BMJ)impact factor (2014) is 16.3; it uses a comprehensive peer review process giving priority to articles that improve clinical decision-making in general medicine. BMJ Case Rep is owned by BMJ. BMJ is one the world top medical journals.
:Not a reliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask why one of the world top medical journals is considered by you "not a reliable source"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.233.113 (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for further background. Alexbrn (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Case reports are primary sources and so generally not allowed for health claims. The secondary component of primary sources (this promises a review) is sometimes allowed, but is often biased to colour the finding from the primary research. I cannot access the full text of this article so don't know what it says. Alexbrn (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further sources 

message: As previously stated many years ago, the language and tone of this article is very clearly anti-ozone therapy. Wikipedia should be a place of neutrality to allow readers to form their own opinions. 
Please present the pro and cons side by side and let the reader decide his or her view.
Moreover, some the website sources used to promote the writer's skewed point of view are dangerously unqualified and smacks of yellow journalism. 
Articles and writers such as this one should be outlawed from wikipedia. It is ridiculous that it has remained this way for so long.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.142.153.211 (talk) 22:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NPOV, particularly WP:GEVAL, & WP:FRINGE. Alexbrn (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Delta13C (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article is STILL biased and must be revised. 

message: The only reference that is actually a clinical review published in a scientific journal is reference 2. It’s cited at the end of the introduction and invalidates every claim made in the introduction regarding ozone being dangerous, pseudoscientific, etc. I can’t even find a scientific journal article saying ozone isn’t effective. This is embarrassing. Chemacb (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference supports opposite claim 

message: An unreferenced statement mentioning "some evidence for its effectiveness in specific medical applications" was removed from the article's lead paragraph. It seems to me there is actually quite a bit of evidence, so I'm gathering what I can find here, in preparation to add something to that effect to the article. (I'll add these to the below list as I find them.)
* Ozone therapy found effective for pain relief in knee osteoarthritis:
** https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pmrj.12088 (Ozone therapy effective in pain relief for osteoarthritis of the knee: review article including 8 studies, 355 patients treated and 363 controls)
** https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/mdl-30498370 (review article including 5 studies, 225 patients treated and 203 controls)
** https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0965229918307337?via%3Dihub (2019 review article including 10 studies)
* Ozone therapy effective for lumbar pain relief (few and poor-quality studies in support):
** https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/mdl-31521383 (2019 review including 6 trials found ozone therapy more effective than steroids or placebo, with low confidence)
** https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/portal/resource/pt/mdl-30414366 (2018 review found few and poor-quality studies in support of lumbar pain relief. This review is useful in discussing minor but potentially serious complications)
* Ozone therapy effective treatment for herniated discs in terms of pain, function and complication rate: https://www.jvir.org/article/S1051-0443(09)01668-6/fulltext (metaanalysis of 12 studies covering nearly 8000 patients)
* Ozone therapy effective for treatment of chronic wounds (healing and wound closure): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/iwj.12907 (2018 review of 9 studies, 453 patients)
* Intralesional ozone injection effective against warts: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31584525?dopt=Abstract
* Ozone therapy effective against Hepatitis B:
** https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/JO3T/article/view/11459/pdf (2018 study: 28 patients all had viral load and biological markers reduce to undetectable levels within 15 days)
** https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19544653?dopt=Abstract (2008 Chinese-language study on 20 patients plus 22 control)
* Ozone therapy effective for chronic Hepatitis C:
** https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21417811?dopt=Abstract: 2011 preliminary study: symptoms improve and 25-45% of patients test negative for RNA in serum
** https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21417811?dopt=Abstract 2009 Russian language study found ozone therapy more effective than standard treatments
** https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01919512.2012.720161 2012 Review of 3 prior studies, and preliminary results of combined ozone and interferon therapy. Patients treated with ozone therapy have a 40% relapse rate one year after treatment.
* HIV: Ozone in conjunction with antiretroviral treatment:
** https://ojs.uv.es/index.php/JO3T/article/view/11458/pdf: 2018. Participants were 32 patients already taking Lamivudine 150mg and Zidovudine 300mg daily, with high viral load, low CD4 and CD8 counts and adverse reactions to retrovirals. Viral load became undetectable after 1 month in all 32 patients; CD4 and CD8 cells substantially increased; all side effects of antiretroviral drugs disappeared or improved.
* Herpes zoster: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29559601?dopt=Abstract 2018 Chinese study comparing 30 patients treated with ozone therapy vs 30 patients treated with valacyclovir, mupirocin ointment and laser treatment: all the ozone group recovered (vs only 87% of control group), and did so faster and with less pain.
* Multiple sclerosis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28623000?dopt=Abstract 2017 study: Ozone insufflation led to significantly increased antioxidant enzymes and cellular reduced glutathione; decreased oxidation damage; and decreased levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines TNFα and IL-1β. Stimulated CK2 expression and the Nrf2 pathway.
Some of these studies are not double blinded, randomized, controlled studies, and some are not published in ideal peer reviewed conditions. They do not constitute proof, and may be open to dispute, but they are "some evidence".
Fuzzypeg★ 06:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of safety and efficacy