“Ozone Therapy Fallacies” Video by Drs Ozone DEBUNKED
Tom and Micah Lowe recently uploaded a video where they address nine fallacies among ozone therapy enthusiasts. Although I agree with a good portion of that video, there are certain points which I think need to be corrected. Especially the part about ozone and cancer. Since I’m always right (don’t laugh, I’m German. Germans are always right.), I thought I’d volunteer for the job. Here is the result:
Tom and Micah’s claim #1: “Ozone doesn’t cleanse anything in the body”
Tom says that people often have the misconception that ozone therapy works similar to ozone air purifiers: that ozone travels through the body and removes all impurities and kills all pathogens it encounters. In reality, he says, what happens, is that ozone creates ozone byproducts like ozone lipids, and other reactive oxygen species which then through the stimulation of the immune system fix certain issues.
I largely agree with this. Although, there is anecdotal evidence that ozone could activate latent infections. Which would indeed ascribe a certain ability of ozone therapy to seek out and destroy hidden infections or inflammation. But it’s unlikely that this is due to ozone particles traveling through the human body but more because of ozone’s by-products.
Tom and Micah’s claim #2: “Ozone therapy does not flood the body with oxygen”
I agree 100%. Ozone therapy is not oxygen therapy, it’s oxidative therapy. Ozone treatments do not work by supplying extra oxygen as Tom and Micah rightly point out. Ozone therapy works by creating ozone byproducts. Micah also stresses the distinction between oxygen utilization and oxygen amount. Although what’s missing here is that increasing the amount of oxygen the body takes in through respiration, which is what happens during exercise or during hyperbaric oxygen therapy, will also increase oxygen utilization with time, which is most likely due to allosteric control between hemoglobin and oxygen. This type of control allows hemoglobin to carry more oxygen molecules the more additional oxygen it binds. It’s a self-enhancing positive loop.
Still, increased oxygen volume is not the main therapeutical mechanism in ozone therapy. A simple calculation exemplifies this: Let’s take the 10 Pass which calls for the highest volume of ozone and consequently also for the most oxygen among all currently applied ozone treatments. During one 10 Pass a total of around 2,000 ml of oxygen are mixed with the patient’s blood within 1 to 2 hours. In the same time, the human body takes in between 84,000 and 168,000 ml of oxygen through respiration. So it’s clear that the amount of oxygen which is administered during ozone treatments is insignificant.
What may play an additional therapeutic role is the fact that the oxygen is mixed directly with the blood. The resulting micro bubbles of oxygen may stimulate prostacyclin production as observed during Oxyvenierung, which is the injection of small amounts of pure oxygen intravenously. Oxyvenierung has been practiced successfully in Germany for decades.
Nevertheless, ozone therapy appears to primarily work through the ozone byproducts. It may increase oxygen utilization, too, but that’s only an additional minor benefit of ozone therapy.
Tom and Micah’s claim #3: “Ozone does not harm the gut biome”
Tom makes the claim that ozone rectal insufflations do not harm the gut biome. He substantiates his argument by pointing to Prof. Bocci’s and Cuban research which asserts that long term rectal ozone treatments with around 200 ml of ozone gas have not shown to be detrimental.
I agree mostly with this claim. If one keeps the amount of ozone at 100 to 200 ml then there should be either no damage or only minimal. Which is something I also talk about in this video.
But Tom makes another argument: namely that rectal ozone insufflations would not kill gut bacteria because the ozone would be immediately absorbed by the mucosa.
This assertion does not hold up to scrutiny. The mucosa is where the bacteria reside and live. Once ozone is introduced, it sterilizes it and kills all pathogens which live there. There is no reason to believe that ozone, the most ruthless killer of bacteria and other pathogens, would spare gut bacteria. In German ozone literature (Dr. Hand Wolff “Das medizinische Ozon”) there is also the mention of the sterilizing effect of rectal ozone treatments.
The real question is: can the limited destruction of the gut flora have any negative repercussions in the long run? We don’t know. In someone with a perfect gut biome rectal insufflations may not have any detrimental effect. In someone whose gut is already badly compromised, doing additional killing of the gut flora with ozone may have significant repercussions. What I think should be definitely avoided are high volume ozone insufflations as proposed by certain doctors who infuse up to 2,000 ml of ozone at an ozone concentration of 80 mcg/ml.
As to Prof. Bocci and what he was saying about gut flora. Here is a quote from his book “Ozone, a New Medical Drug”, page 56:
“Whether RI with a daily input of oxygen-ozone can re-equilibrate the bacterial flora and lead to normal immunoreactivity remains to be demonstrated (and explained), although anecdotal results suggest a beneficial effect.”
How this beneficial effect was assessed and over which time, we don’t know. What is clear, is that there is no research on potential long term effects of rectal insufflations. The formation of kidney stones can take years after antibiotic use. How long would it take after RI or are kidney stones not a risk here at all? It’s unknown, since long term side effects of rectal ozone administration have never been researched.
Tom and Micah’s claim #4: “Ozone therapy is not as accepted in Germany as people think”
That’s very true. This is one of the most diehard rumors: the idea that ozone therapy is part of standard of care in Germany. This is pure fantasy. The German that Tom quotes in his video? That’s me. I’m German (I’m not particularly proud of this, just stating a fact) and I live in Germany. So to hopefully put an end to that stubborn rumor, let me set things straight once and for all:
- There are no ozone generators in German ambulances. Those are regulated by the European standard EN 1789. Meaning all ambulances in Europe have to have the same or similar equipment. Ozone therapy is not and never has been part of ambulance equipment neither in Germany nor anywhere else in the world.
- Ozone treatments are NOT used pre and post surgery as standard of care. There is probably not a single hospital in Germany which is even equipped with ozone generators. Using ozone pre and post surgery would likely amount to malpractice. Private clinics are something else. You may find private hospitals which cater to the chronically ill and which offer ozone treatments as part of their packages. But hospitals where surgeries are performed? You won’t find any ozone departments there.
- Ozone therapy in general is not recognized by state mandated health insurance. It’s regarded by the government authorities as a bogus treatment. There are doctors who offer ozone treatments in their practices, and it tends to be quite cheap, but it’s 100% a private service. You have to pay for it out of pocket. Osteopathy has a higher standing in Germany than ozone therapy.
Tom and Micah’s claim #5: “Ozone therapy does not kill bacteria and viruses in vivo”
Tom says that the idea that ozone would travel throughout the human body and kill bacteria and viruses it encounters is bogus. And that what really does the killing is the improved immune system.
I tend to agree here as well. Ozone can help with a wide variety of infections, but the way ozone appears to do this is mainly through the ramping up of the immune system.
But: the fact that ozone treatments seem to be effective even against such highly aggressive infections like Ebola show that there may be more going on than simple immune system stimulation. We know that ozone therapy leads to an increase in H2O2 production. H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide) destroys pathogens. It may not be the ozone itself but still the result of ozone therapy which directly kills the bad guys.
There are several points Tom and Micah make here which need to be examined closer.
First of, Micah says that cancers are anaerobic. What he may refer to is the often repeated misconception that cancer can only survive in an anaerobic environment and not in an oxygen rich environment. This is unfortunately not correct, as Dr. Otto Warburg of the Nobel Prize fame pointed out, see here:
What is true, is that some cancers become hypoxic (they lack oxygen). That’s when chemotherapy stops working and when cancers start to metastasize. Hypoxia is highly undesirable in cancer therapy.
Tom further says that ozone therapy is not an effective cancer treatment. He cites a study by Prof. Bocci to substantiate this claim. He says that Bocci, after having treated cancer patients with ozone therapy, came to that conclusion.
This is not entirely correct. Here is what Bocci really did and said:
In 2003 he treated 7 cancer patients with ozone therapy. He only achieved an improvement in the quality of life in some patients. He could not reverse any single patient’s diagnosis nor significantly prolong their lives.
There was a big problem with the study though, as Prof. Bocci himself pointed out:
“Thus a preliminary conclusion is that to embark a preterminal, chemo- resistant patient on ozonetherapy seems incorrect because it appears unlikely to modify and reverse a profoundly intoxicated and anergic biological system.” (“Ozone, A New Medical Drug”, pages 172 to 173)
Meaning: all of the patients who had taken part in the study had previously undergone chemotherapy for 1 to 2 years and have become resistant to it. Those were patients whose bodies were not only profoundly damaged from the chemo drugs but who were essentially sent home to die.
How would they have fared if ozone had been their first line of treatment? No one knows, since such a study, as Bocci admits, has never been performed: “Randomized, double-blind clinical trials have not been performed as they should have been done” , page 165.
So to cite this profoundly flawed study as proof that ozone therapy is not an effective cancer treatment is highly misleading in my opinion. Especially, since Bocci himself pointed out its flaws and the dire lack of good research on the topic.
Why is there reason to believe that ozone therapy could be an effective cancer treatment after all?
Because we know that oxidative approaches can successfully kill cancer cells.
This is a fairly well established fact and this is indeed the mechanism with which both chemo    and radiation      cause apoptosis, or cell death, in tumors. Both create oxidative stress which is what ultimately kills cancer cells in vivo.
Another anti-cancer treatment are high Vit C IVs, at least that’s what University of Kansas Medical Center claims. What is the proposed mechanism of action? Again, oxidation thanks to H2O2:
“IV Vitamin C is converted into hydrogen peroxide in the extra-cellular space, and weakens or kills cancer cells through oxidation.”
Why does oxidation kill cancer? Research shows that cancer cells work at a very high oxidative stress level. When additional oxidation is added in the form of chemo, radiation, Vit C, or ozone therapy, the level of the oxidative stress could rise to the point that it puts the cancer cell over the threshold and causes its demise.
“High level of ROS [Reactive Oxygen Species] produced by radiation results in oxidative stress that destabilizes cells integrity. The persistent oxidative stress in cancer cells apparently sensitizes them to undergo apoptosis by anticancer drugs, which often generate ROS. That is, compared to normal cells, cancer cells are more susceptible to being killed by radiation-generated ROS because the cancer cells are already near a threshold for tolerating ROS.” 
Healthy cells remain unharmed. So yes, ozone therapy could selectively kill cancer cells. The proposed mechanism may be the same as under claim #5: through the increase in oxidative radicals like H2O2 and LOPs, Lipid Oxidation Products.
Here some anecdotal evidence:
Some of the best examples of ozone therapy’s track record in cancer treatment offers, ironically, Tom’s son, Jon. Here he interviewed Dr. Marlene Siegel where she presents around 10 cases where ozone and a meat only diet has reversed cancer in cats and dogs.
Here is my collection of around 116 anecdotes of people having successfully overcome cancer with in most cases a combination of ozone therapy, chemo, radiation, or surgery.
Here a story of a man who was doing ozone saunas plus a few other alternative approaches for his bladder cancer.
Here also a quote by a Spanish oncologist who says that ozone is more effective than chemo.
And here a doctor claiming that using ozone therapy, Vit C, and a few other things, helped her brother successfully fight bladder cancer. Incidentally, her testimonial can be also found on Micah and Tom’s Youtube channel.
One thing I agree with Tom on is that one can not say that ozone therapy is an effective cancer treatment. We don’t know enough to be able to say that. It can be an effective cancer treatment. But in which cancers exactly, to what degree, at which dosages, and how often applications need to be performed is not clear. With cancer there may be many factors at play which likely vary from person to person. Additionally, there are different types of cancers which may respond to the same approach differently. It is a complex topic which may require a multi factor approach.
There seems to be enough anecdotal evidence to at least give ozone therapy a try before undergoing hard core approaches like chemo or radiation which may cause potentially irreversible damage.
An alternative multi factor approach may include, but is not limited to: mercury chelation, PEMF treatments, keto / carnivore diet, cannabis oil, anti-parasitic drugs, BCG bacteria for bladder cancer, or high dose measles infections.
Tom and Micah’s claim #8: “More ozone is not always better”
I agree 100%. Because of the rising popularity of the 10 Pass people seem to think that more ozone is always better. Well, I’ve seen people respond better to a 60 ml injection of ozone at a concentration of 30 mcg/ml, than to a multi-pass with 20 times the amount of ozone. The reason for this is not clear. The administration route and individual health condition of a patient seem to play a role.
Tom and Micah’s claim #9: “Ozone generators do not need an all glass chamber”
Amen to this. The notion that an ozone generator has to have an all glass ozone chamber is largely due to the unrelenting marketing effort of one manufacturer who makes ozone generators with — you guessed it — all glass ozone chambers. This notion has been refuted with the advent of high-end German medical ozone generators which are used for the 10 Pass application. Those are the hyperbaric Herrmann or Zotzmann machines. Both generators have metal in their ozone path. In one case it’s aluminum oxide, the other uses high grade stainless steel. Yet, they satisfy the most strict regulations for German medical devices. So no, an ozone generator definitely doesn’t need to have an all-glass chamber.
Do you agree with my assessment? No? Well, I don’t care. I’m German, so I’m right.
Just kidding. Let me know what you think below.
 “Cancer Chemotherapy and Antioxidants“, Conklin
 “Androgen induces adaptation to oxidative stress in prostate cancer: implications for treatment with radiation therapy.“, Pinthis, Bryskin et al.
 “Increased Oxidative Stress as a Selective Anticancer Therapy“, Liu and Wang
 “ROS and radiotherapy: more we care“, Sonveaux
 “Reactive oxygen species as mediator of tumor radiosensitivity“, Dayal, Singh et al.
This website provides general information and discussion about medicine, health and related subjects. The words and other content provided in this blog, and in any linked materials, are not intended and should not be construed as medical advice. If the reader or any other person has a medical concern, he or she should consult with an appropriately-licensed physician or other health care worker.
Never disregard professional medical advice or delay in seeking it because of something you have read on this blog or in any linked materials. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor immediately.