This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ozone therapy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
A neutral viewpoint would include much better balance, such as the following excerpt: "Despite a lack of direct support of O3 therapy, the current Food and Drug Administration regulations do not restrict the use of it in situations where it has proven its safety and effectiveness. Nonetheless, there has been support for its safety and effectiveness in multi-international studies." As well as the following, from the same published review "Despite the presently compelling evidence, future studies should include more double-blind, randomized clinical trials with greater sample sizes, determination of longevity in benefits produced, as well as methods of measurements and analysis." (Med Gas Res. 2017 Oct 17;7(3):212-219. doi: 10.4103/2045-9912.215752. eCollection 2017 Jul-Sep.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.201.220 ( talk) 15:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
Ernst is an expert in nothing but asking others to prove negativesThis is just random bullshit. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:21, 1 September 2023 (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.
This entry appears to be outdated and biased. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312702/ Ktjnwebb ( talk) 03:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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. [1] 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. [2] 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. [3] Former Soviet Union Countries seem also to have had less difficulty in accepting ozone as a medicine. [4] [5]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Should this article be added to Category:Pseudoscience? —Entropy ( T/ C) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hello. I found two metaanalysis of discolysis. Please discuss in the talk page.-- Biol. Cons. ( talk) 19:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
The following websites might help to contribute in “Safety” of ozone therapy.
I've removed the following sentence from the lede:
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)
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)
FYI, I have initiated a discussion about this topic at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
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. [2]"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
References
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.
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)
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 following systematic reviews:
J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2011 Jan-Jun; 2(1): 66–70. doi: 10.4103/0976-9668.82319 PMC 3312702 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.; GONALVES, 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)
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)
Revista Dor Print version ISSN 1806-0013 Rev. dor vol.13 no.3 São Paulo July/Sept. 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1806-00132012000300012. Ozone therapy for lumbosciatic pain* José Oswaldo de Oliveira Junior; Gustavo Veloso Lages -- 151.20.232.106 ( talk) 02:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.)
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)
I'm aware that my edits may raise some questions. I personally have no idea whether ozone therapy is effective for COVID-19 or anything else, and am not affiliated with any ozone proponents; I am simply trying to map out significant evidence around this issue. I don't want to suppress reporting on this subject simply for fear of encouraging the uninformed to try unproven treatments – and WP is not censored. Nor do I want to uncritically promote this therapy by citing only poor, one-sided research. I feel the information in the article is notable (it has certainly made the Italian and Spanish news!), and I'd like to present it clearly, without hiding the limitations of the evidence, but also without descending into pejoratives, WP:OR, WP:WEASEL words or liberal sprinkling of adjectives such as "unproven", "discredited" into every second sentence as scare flags for the reader.
Oh, and it bugs me when people say there's "no evidence" of something, when what they mean is insufficient or inconclusive evidence. The American Cancer Society was misrepresented as saying there was "no credible scientific basis" for anti-cancer claims, when what they really said was that there were a number of trials showing interesting results but that no rigorous trials on humans have yet shown positive effect and hence it remains unproven.
I have (please note) also substantially improved the safety section, giving a lot more information on negative side-effects of the treatment (I had to translate a lot of German for this info, it took me ages). I may soon be able to add even more regarding negative effects. So I'm not editing with an agenda here, merely trying to achieve accuracy and a neutral point of view. Fuzzypeg ★ 15:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
An in-depth debate on this topic has been ongoing for several days now. To access its interactive content, simply click on → this hyperlink.
Sincerely, — euphonie breviary 20:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312702/ 69.94.200.170 ( talk) 14:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |issn=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check |issn=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)(Lamberto Re){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Hermelyn Meinardi (
talk)
17:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ozone therapy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
A neutral viewpoint would include much better balance, such as the following excerpt: "Despite a lack of direct support of O3 therapy, the current Food and Drug Administration regulations do not restrict the use of it in situations where it has proven its safety and effectiveness. Nonetheless, there has been support for its safety and effectiveness in multi-international studies." As well as the following, from the same published review "Despite the presently compelling evidence, future studies should include more double-blind, randomized clinical trials with greater sample sizes, determination of longevity in benefits produced, as well as methods of measurements and analysis." (Med Gas Res. 2017 Oct 17;7(3):212-219. doi: 10.4103/2045-9912.215752. eCollection 2017 Jul-Sep.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.201.220 ( talk) 15:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
Ernst is an expert in nothing but asking others to prove negativesThis is just random bullshit. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 06:21, 1 September 2023 (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.
This entry appears to be outdated and biased. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312702/ Ktjnwebb ( talk) 03:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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. [1] 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. [2] 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. [3] Former Soviet Union Countries seem also to have had less difficulty in accepting ozone as a medicine. [4] [5]
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Should this article be added to Category:Pseudoscience? —Entropy ( T/ C) 17:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Hello. I found two metaanalysis of discolysis. Please discuss in the talk page.-- Biol. Cons. ( talk) 19:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
The following websites might help to contribute in “Safety” of ozone therapy.
I've removed the following sentence from the lede:
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)
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)
FYI, I have initiated a discussion about this topic at WP:FT/N. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
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. [2]"
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
References
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.
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)
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 following systematic reviews:
J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2011 Jan-Jun; 2(1): 66–70. doi: 10.4103/0976-9668.82319 PMC 3312702 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.; GONALVES, 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)
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)
Revista Dor Print version ISSN 1806-0013 Rev. dor vol.13 no.3 São Paulo July/Sept. 2012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1806-00132012000300012. Ozone therapy for lumbosciatic pain* José Oswaldo de Oliveira Junior; Gustavo Veloso Lages -- 151.20.232.106 ( talk) 02:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.)
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)
I'm aware that my edits may raise some questions. I personally have no idea whether ozone therapy is effective for COVID-19 or anything else, and am not affiliated with any ozone proponents; I am simply trying to map out significant evidence around this issue. I don't want to suppress reporting on this subject simply for fear of encouraging the uninformed to try unproven treatments – and WP is not censored. Nor do I want to uncritically promote this therapy by citing only poor, one-sided research. I feel the information in the article is notable (it has certainly made the Italian and Spanish news!), and I'd like to present it clearly, without hiding the limitations of the evidence, but also without descending into pejoratives, WP:OR, WP:WEASEL words or liberal sprinkling of adjectives such as "unproven", "discredited" into every second sentence as scare flags for the reader.
Oh, and it bugs me when people say there's "no evidence" of something, when what they mean is insufficient or inconclusive evidence. The American Cancer Society was misrepresented as saying there was "no credible scientific basis" for anti-cancer claims, when what they really said was that there were a number of trials showing interesting results but that no rigorous trials on humans have yet shown positive effect and hence it remains unproven.
I have (please note) also substantially improved the safety section, giving a lot more information on negative side-effects of the treatment (I had to translate a lot of German for this info, it took me ages). I may soon be able to add even more regarding negative effects. So I'm not editing with an agenda here, merely trying to achieve accuracy and a neutral point of view. Fuzzypeg ★ 15:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello everyone,
An in-depth debate on this topic has been ongoing for several days now. To access its interactive content, simply click on → this hyperlink.
Sincerely, — euphonie breviary 20:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312702/ 69.94.200.170 ( talk) 14:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
contentious topics:
|
{{
cite journal}}
: Check |issn=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Check |issn=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)(Lamberto Re){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Hermelyn Meinardi (
talk)
17:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)