Talk:Ozone therapy

Discovery of ozone

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)

Bias

Clearly this is a very biased article written by opponents. There is no suggestion of neutrality in the way it is written. It needs to be tagged. Abstrator (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Not clear at all. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is clearly not neutral. Please look at version https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Ozone_therapy&oldid=453926959 and notice all the sections about: countries where the therapy is practised as regular medicine, methods of use, journals, etc. I'd go as far as accusing the user WLU of vandalism for the series of edits on 4 October. I'll tag the article as not neutral. Alecsescu (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on content. If you want to make accusations of vandalism, take them somewhere else and provide plenty of evidence. Otherwise, such accusations are disruptive and incivil.

I agree that it is worth trying to salvage some information on its use if we can agree on the sources and don't confound WP:MEDRS issues with those of marketing and use. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, by no means I'm going to learn Wikipedia "bureaucracy" just to make a vandalism accusation on page that is of no interest to me. Click on the history link I gave; if that is not enough evidence of vandalism, then it's not vandalism. I know a reputable clinic doing ozone injections for disk herniation, claiming to show results and patients are indeed satisfied; it is not subsidised by the state, but it is a legal practice. Before WLU's edits, the article showed the view that this is a legal and established practice in some states, now it says "Some marketers of ozone generators make fantastic promotional claims [...]" (very encyclopedical...). I edited the article in the least biased way I could to represent facts as they are, and now you reverted again to WLU's view of the world. I have no idea what MEDRS is, and I won't edit the article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alecsescu (talk • contribs) 11:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. Glad we're past that. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm being bullied on Wikipedia. You took out that fragment which was verifiably accurate, noticed my non-combat, and then you came back to make it clear that you're happy everything worked the way you forced it.Alecsescu (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please focus on content if you have any interest in changing consensus. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Dischome (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)I've attended Ozone conferences in Europe, where they are very accepted. More and more they are being accepted in the US, primarily right now by sports doctors, who can't necessarily get reimbursed by insurance, but nevertheless use ozone therapy to get results that people will pay for. Eventually it will be common place in the US. Because ozone is a natural substance, pharmco will not endorse it as they cannot patent it. I don't have ozone facts immediately handy, but I am giving you the fact of my experience. I guess I am agreeing that the article is biased, as the practice of using ozone it used in many other countries successfully.

I've attended Ozone conferences in Europe, where they are very [well] accepted. By whom? By accredited medical professionals/associations? Please be more concise. --user:ASMB--

Because ozone is a natural substance, pharmco will not endorse it as they cannot patent it. Statement is dubious, salicylic acid is a natural constituent of willow tree bark and that didn't prevent Bayer patenting aspirin. --user:ASMB-- —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Moved to talk

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)

Mainstream medicine uses

Ozone therapy is a well established alternative and complementary therapy in most mainland European countries where health authorities have tolerated its practice. The European Cooperation of Medical Ozone Societies, founded in 1972, publishes guidelines on medical indications and contraindications of ozone and hosts training seminars. In the early 1980s, a German survey and investigation into ozone therapy by the University Klinikum in Giessen and the Institute for Medical Statistics, published in the Empirical Medical Acts revealed over 5 million ozone treatments had been delivered to some 350,000 patients, by more than 1000 therapists, of this number about half were medical doctors. Although ozone is used in a complementary capacity by a significant number of doctors in Italy, Switzerland, Austria and Germany, it has still not gained popular support with mainstream industry policy makers in those countries, it is not covered by health insurance, nor is it part of the curriculum at most esteemed medical schools. Proposals to include ozone therapy in German health insurance schemes invoked hostile objections from pharmaceutical researchers who question its evidence base. In general, countries with more socialist-style health systems seem to have had less difficulty in accepting ozone as a medicine.

References

Pseudoscience

Should this article be added to Category:Pseudoscience? —Entropy (T/C) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

Very little of this article is about the topic

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)

MEDRS source British Medical Source removed and replaced by offtopic random statements about ozone

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)

Madrid declaration link

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)

Hello. I am sorry if I have been a headache, I was just trying to help. I know many medical websites that ta`lk about ozone therapy, but they're all in Spanish, that's the reason that when I found the declaration I thought it could help improving the article. The next time I am going to edit this article or any other related to ozone therapy I will ask first discussing in the respective talk page. Sorry if my English is not good, it is not my first language. I hope that together we can improve this article. --Biol. Cons. (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Discolysis article improvement

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

Is this a fringe theory

Is this theory "mainstream enough" that it can be called "alternative medicine" without being called a "fringe theory?"

If the answer is no, then {{Fringe theories}} 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 {{POV}} 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)

Agree that currently it's fringe. will add tag. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 20:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Safety

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)

Reversion of safety discussion

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)

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)

Wikipedia editors follow WP:PAGs above all. You were edit warring against them. Alexbrn (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fringe

FYI, I have initiated a discussion about this topic at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Ies (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ozone therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/PharmacologicalandBiologicalTreatment/oxygen-therapy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional References

• 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)

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)

Moved here

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)

References

Further sources

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)

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)

Please see WP:MEDRS and maybe WP:WHYMEDRS for further background. Alexbrn (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much--151.20.233.113 (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this perhaps good? Spine is a top Journal and this is a Review of Literature Fort NM, Aichmair A, Miller AO, Girardi FP. L5-S1 Achromobacter Xylosoxidans Infection Secondary to Oxygen-Ozone Therapy for the Treatment of Lumbosacral Disc Herniation: A Case Report and Review of the Literature. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Dec 30. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 24384664--151.20.233.113 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

Thank you very much, I will try to search a systematic review in a top journal.--151.20.233.113 (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2011 Jan-Jun; 2(1): 66–70. doi: 10.4103/0976-9668.82319 PMCID: PMC3312702 Ozone therapy: A clinical review, authors A. M. Elvis and J. S. Ekta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.236.169 (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

GERMAN, I. J. S.; RODRIGUES, A. C.; ANDREO, J. C.; POMINI, K. T.; AHMED, F. J.; BUCHAIM, D. V.; ROSA JòNIOR, G. M.; GON‚ALVES, J. B. O. & BUCHAIM, R. L. Ozone therapy in dentistry: A systematic review. Int. J. Odontostomat., 7(2):267-278, 2013.--151.20.232.106 (talk) 02:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC) GERMAN, I. J. S.; RODRIGUES, A. C.; ANDREO, J. C.; POMINI, K. T.; AHMED, F. J.; BUCHAIM, D. V.; ROSA JòNIOR, Pain Physician. 2012 Mar-Apr;15(2):E115-29.

Ozone therapy as a treatment for low back pain secondary to herniated disc: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Magalhaes FN1, Dotta L, Sasse A, Teixera MJ, Fonoff ET.--151.20.232.106 (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)