Other/Mixed Molecular Hydrogen Research and Applications to Exercise

[John K]

Then I and my family should be dead.

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Ozone is toxic as a breathable gas and has a large list of very well known health problems due to over exposure from things like ozone generators used to "clean" air or remove smells. Ozone poisoning is very real.

Ozone is also an incredibly common compound and has uses, some beneficial, due to it being a very strong oxidizing agent. In tissues, ozone has been seen to generate lots of free radicals and deplete anti-oxidants, as well as oxidizing lipids and proteins. Longer exposure seems to stimulate pro-inflammatory pathways (no surprise given what I just said). In the respiratory tract, ozone is A Big Baddie, but not perhaps as big of a baddie as, say, carbon monoxide, as it directly damages the the respiratory tissues without "poisoning" the blood. It is especially bad if you have asthma.

Anyways - the toxicity of ozone is highly dependent on concentration, administration route, and duration. As such, it is important to differentiate Ozone from Ozone Therapy. Ozone therapy has seen some promising research related to skin diseases. Interestingly, the research suggest anti-oxidant benefits, which at least to me would suggest that since ozone is a very strong oxidant, ozone is acting as an irritant that the body then "over responds" to, and if given at low enough doses may be beneficial. This is similar to the how it seems the "right" amount of exposure to germs generates a healthy immune system, which is the foundational theory behind many vaccines and even helminth therapy.

So, again, I'm not sure what you mean

 

[Denys Carthusian]

Ironically the FDA did wait about 70 years.

This the same guy?
Santa Rosa Doctors Indicted For Tax Fraud

https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/33/2022/04/07170625/ftc_2020.pdf

I think prison already stopped him from doing anything in Africa...

You should listen to his podcast on the circumstances. He is out and released and back to practice. And the case had nothing to do with the efficacy of ozone, which he continues to use. The Ebola case was 2014, in which they did a medical mission. And the cure rate was 100%.

Robert Jay Rowen, MD | Substack

Integrative medical doctor who focuses on biological methods to prevent, treat and heal. Oxidation methods, particularly ozone therapy, are centerpiece.

substack.com

 

[Denys Carthusian]

I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Ozone is toxic as a breathable gas and has a large list of very well known health problems due to over exposure from things like ozone generators used to "clean" air or remove smells. Ozone poisoning is very real.

Ozone is also an incredibly common compound and has uses, some beneficial, due to it being a very strong oxidizing agent. In tissues, ozone has been seen to generate lots of free radicals and deplete anti-oxidants, as well as oxidizing lipids and proteins. Longer exposure seems to stimulate pro-inflammatory pathways (no surprise given what I just said). In the respiratory tract, ozone is A Big Baddie, but not perhaps as big of a baddie as, say, carbon monoxide, as it directly damages the the respiratory tissues without "poisoning" the blood. It is especially bad if you have asthma.

Anyways - the toxicity of ozone is highly dependent on concentration, administration route, and duration. As such, it is important to differentiate Ozone from Ozone Therapy. Ozone therapy has seen some promising research related to skin diseases. Interestingly, the research suggest anti-oxidant benefits, which at least to me would suggest that since ozone is a very strong oxidant, ozone is acting as an irritant that the body then "over responds" to, and if given at low enough doses may be beneficial. This is similar to the how it seems the "right" amount of exposure to germs generates a healthy immune system, which is the foundational theory behind many vaccines and even helminth therapy.

So, again, I'm not sure what you mean

I and my family have been recipients of ozone therapy for years, and it has a history dating back 70 years in Europe. It was imported to North America, but the diagnostics, machinery and reference texts have been around for quite awhile. Meanwhile, the official "Ozone is a toxic gas with no known therapeutic use in humans" is still out there. Incredible.

 

[John K]

I and my family have been recipients of ozone therapy for years, and it has a history dating back 70 years in Europe. It was imported to North America, but the diagnostics, machinery and reference texts have been around for quite awhile. Meanwhile, the official "Ozone is a toxic gas with no known therapeutic use in humans" is still out there. Incredible.

Ozone IS a toxic gas. So the quibble is over whether or not it has therapeutic use, not whether it is toxic and dangerous.

 

[Denys Carthusian]

Ozone IS a toxic gas. So the quibble is over whether or not it has therapeutic use, not whether it is toxic and dangerous.

Since 1992, we wanted to start clinical investigations and we realized how the scepticism and diffidence against ozone therapy was diffused in the academic world. The FDA, for several good reasons, had to prohibit the use of ozone in the USA. However, one reason was and still is based on the dogma that “ozone is always toxic and should not be used in medicine”. This is an absurd and antiscientific idea and today we have a million reasons for saying that it is totally wrong. It is disappointing that some influential American scientists still BELIEVE that is correct. The FDA decision has negatively influenced the Health Authorities of other countries and this fact is not surprising because today only a few super-developed countries have a dominant (and not necessarily always positive) influence over the world’s medical resources. The FDA has proved several times to be wrong in giving permission to sell drugs to trusting patients. However Russian, Chinese, Cuban use ozonetherapy in public hospitals and recently Spanish Health Authorities have already permitted ozonetherapy in six communities. In Germany, this approach is performed only by private physicians within complementary medicine. In France and England it remains practically unknown.

 

[John K]

@Denys Carthusian I am not arguing or suggesting there are no therapeutic uses, nor am I suggesting there aren't people claiming there are no uses. I am unsure what the point of quoting that to me was.

 

[Denys Carthusian]

@Denys Carthusian I am not arguing or suggesting there are no therapeutic uses, nor am I suggesting there aren't people claiming there are no uses. I am unsure what the point of quoting that to me was.

From the Wikipedia entry (the benchmark of all things conventional and true, of course). With references, they state the FDA's position on ozone. They continue to believe that it has no known useful medical application.

Ozone therapy is an alternative medical treatment that introduces ozone or ozonides to the body. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibits all medical uses of ozone "in any medical condition for which there is no proof of safety and effectiveness", stating "ozone is a toxic gas with no known useful medical application in specific, adjunctive, or preventive therapy. In order for ozone to be effective as a germicide, it must be present in a concentration far greater than that which can be safely tolerated by man and animals."[1]

 

[John K]

From the Wikipedia entry (the benchmark of all things conventional and true, of course). With references, they state the FDA's position on ozone. They continue to believe that it has no known useful medical application.

Mazel tov for them? But if your argument or point you are attempting to make with people is that it isn’t a toxic gas, you will be unsuccessful. If you want to say it is toxic but can still be therapeutic - fine, that is well supported. If you want to say it can cure Ebola - fine, but that is not well supported.

 

[Denys Carthusian]

The dry form of ARMD is becoming a serious problem because of the rise in the number of old individuals. No effective therapy is available in dry ARMD except for the illusory oral administration of antioxidant vitamins. Despite scepticism in the medical community, the therapeutic effect of ozonetherapy had been evaluated since 1996. This evaluation has been based on specific biochemical, molecular and pharmacological reactions. Nevertheless a number of visual scientists continue to ignore ozonetherapy conservatively and prescribe only antioxidant vitamins. Two small clinical studies involving 217 patients have been performed at the University of Siena showing that ozonetherapy can stop the progression of the disease while improving the visual acuity and the well-being of the patient. Moreover, it seems that ozonetherapy is a safe procedure and tends to have an excellent compliance.

Visual Improvement Following Ozonetherapy in Dry Age Related Macular Degeneration; a Review​

What is the threshold for "well-supported"?

 

[Denys Carthusian]

Visual Improvement Following Ozonetherapy in Dry Age Related Macular Degeneration; a Review​

What is the threshold for "well-supported"?

Related: what would the threshold for "well-supported" be for Hydrogen gas therapy?

 

[Don Fairbanks]

Those terms - I knew what you meant, mostly, but looked them up - seem to be common in economics, not so much in training/biology kinds of things. Is that right?

-S-

Both.
Biology would be letting your body make its own anti-oxidants in a response to exercise stress as opposed to taking a handful of anti-oxidants post exercise. There are some debates going back and forth currently with ketones, those your body makes, and those coming from a bottle. Same with TRT/hormone replacement.

One example of many:

Exogenous testosterone replacement therapy versus raising endogenous testosterone levels: current and future prospects

Testosterone replacement therapy is an important treatment option for men with low testosterone and symptomatic hypogonadism. Various formulations of exogenous testosterone replacement therapy exist, including oral, buccal, intramuscular, transdermal, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[John K]

From the Wikipedia entry (the benchmark of all things conventional and true, of course). With references, they state the FDA's position on ozone. They continue to believe that it has no known useful medical application.

This is from the FDA, saying it is an antimicrobial agent useful and approved for food processing. So this is a known and approved use.

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21

The problem, from approved uses, is that the FDA has not been convinced that it is an effective germicidal at concentrations safe for human use.

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21

This indicates both its uses and its limitations, as currently recognized by the FDA. To note, there are multiple published articles that show there are therapeutic uses. That the FDA does not currently recognize them is not surprising - there are known medical uses for certain Schedule 1 drugs, despite there having been recognized medical uses for them since at least the 70s.

What is the threshold for "well-supported"?

Is your quibble that the drug or medical device approval process is either too stringent, too slow, or too biased? Published research is not sufficient to get something approved. Many people get in trouble when selling a product or service for labeling, advertising, or claiming things that, while supported by published research, have not undergone certain approval steps from the FDA. Again, you can be frustrated with the process, but a process that is less-stringent, quicker, or has a lower bar has a different set of problems.

If you want to learn more about the drug approval process, this is a handy little brochure simplifying it:
https://www.fda.gov/media/82381/download

A medical device approval process is quite different. This is a little less readable but still accessible:

The Device Development Process

It would also be important to mention that the "safety and efficacy" process of the FDA is different than, say, a board of ethics for a research proposal that leads to a study and a published paper.

We can be critical the these processes, but that is a very different set of arguments. Bringing something through the FDA approval process is long and expensive, and there may be things that show great benefit that just can't make it through all those hoops. This can be frustrating, but it largely effects labeling and marketing, not the ability to sell a product or to make claims without legal liability.

 

[Denys Carthusian]

Both.
Biology would be letting your body make its own anti-oxidants in a response to exercise stress as opposed to taking a handful of anti-oxidants post exercise. There are some debates going back and forth currently with ketones, those your body makes, and those coming from a bottle. Same with TRT/hormone replacement.

One example of many:

Exogenous testosterone replacement therapy versus raising endogenous testosterone levels: current and future prospects

Testosterone replacement therapy is an important treatment option for men with low testosterone and symptomatic hypogonadism. Various formulations of exogenous testosterone replacement therapy exist, including oral, buccal, intramuscular, transdermal, ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

A key distinction: endocrinology is a lot more complicated than simply saying "this hormone is low, let's get you some injections".

 

[Denys Carthusian]

CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21

The problem, from approved uses, is that the FDA has not been convinced that it is an effective germicidal at concentrations safe for human use.

Well, my current city water treatment plant uses it for exactly for that purpose as does the Federally inspected distilled water vendor that I buy my distilled water from so I'm curious at what point they think its safe for human use and I'm wondering why they haven't shut down the water treatment plant or my distilled water store.

 

[Denys Carthusian]

Is your quibble that the drug or medical device approval process is either too stringent, too slow, or too biased? Published research is not sufficient to get something approved. Many people get in trouble when selling a product or service for labeling, advertising, or claiming things that, while supported by published research, have not undergone certain approval steps from the FDA. Again, you can be frustrated with the process, but a process that is less-stringent, quicker, or has a lower bar has a different set of problems.

The FDA process is notoriously biased. If someone wants to believe that commercial pharmaceutical interests don't play a huge role, they're certainly welcome to it, but their continued efforts to ban over the counter N-Acetyl-Cysteine is just one example of the absurdity of their priorities.

 

[Don Fairbanks]

A key distinction: endocrinology is a lot more complicated than simply saying "this hormone is low, let's get you some injections".

100%

 

[silveraw]

You should listen to his podcast on the circumstances. He is out and released and back to practice. And the case had nothing to do with the efficacy of ozone, which he continues to use. The Ebola case was 2014, in which they did a medical mission. And the cure rate was 100%.

Robert Jay Rowen, MD | Substack

Integrative medical doctor who focuses on biological methods to prevent, treat and heal. Oxidation methods, particularly ozone therapy, are centerpiece.

substack.com

I just thought it was funny that the specific doctor you named has a criminal history of fraud and sanctions from the FDA about Ozone therapy.

I didn't even dig for it, it was the first few links.

he Ebola case was 2014, in which they did a medical mission. And the cure rate was 100%.

It was n=4 with some participants not actually testing positive before the treatment and no control group. Saying a cure rate of 100% is overselling it a bit.

Kinda weird that they did an entire medical mission and only wrote a case study about 4 patients. You would imagine that they did more than that during the mission.

 

[John K]

Well, my current city water treatment plant uses it for exactly for that purpose as does the Federally inspected distilled water vendor that I buy my distilled water from so I'm curious at what point they think its safe for human use and I'm wondering why they haven't shut down the water treatment plant or my distilled water store.

You're looking at very very different applications at very very different concentrations. "The poison is in the dose."

The FDA process is notoriously biased. If someone wants to believe that commercial pharmaceutical interests don't play a huge role, they're certainly welcome to it, but their continued efforts to ban over the counter N-Acetyl-Cysteine is just one example of the absurdity of their priorities.

There are issues with the process, but deregulating it would be quite dangerous. And, I want to reiterate, not going through this process effects labeling and claims which can be circumvented by hiring a decent lawyer to review and approve labeling and marketinh; it does not limit the ability to sell a product, otherwise you and your family would not have had such a life changing experience with it. And, circling back, none of this changes the fact that ozone is a toxic gas and that over exposure can be deadly.

 

[silveraw]

And, I want to reiterate, not going through this process effects labeling and claims which can be circumvented by hiring a decent lawyer to review and approve labeling and marketinh; it does not limit the ability to sell a product,

Hence why you can buy "research chemicals not for human consumption" at some supplement stores.

 

[Denys Carthusian]

Low-dose ozone acts as a bioregulator in chronic inflammatory diseases, biochemically characterized by high oxidative stress and a blocked regulation. During systemic applications, “Ozone peroxides” are able to replace H2O2 in its specific function of regulation, restore redox signaling, and improve the antioxidant capacity. Two different mechanisms have to be understood. Firstly, there is the direct mechanism, used in topical treatments, mostly via radical reactions. In systemic treatments, the indirect, ionic mechanism is to be discussed: “ozone peroxide” will be directly reduced by the glutathione system, informing the nuclear factors to start the regulation. The GSH/GSSG balance outlines the ozone dose and concentration limiting factor. Antioxidants are regulated, and in the case of inflammatory diseases up-regulated; cytokines are modulated, here downregulated. Rheumatoid arthritis RA as a model for chronic inflammation: RA, in preclinical and clinical trials, reflects the pharmacology of ozone in a typical manner: SOD (superoxide dismutase), CAT (catalase) and finally GSH (reduced glutathione) increase, followed by a significant reduction of oxidative stress. Inflammatory cytokines are downregulated. Accordingly, the clinical status improves. The pharmacological background investigated in a remarkable number of cell experiments, preclinical and clinical trials is well documented and published in internationally peer reviewed journals. This should encourage clinicians to set up clinical trials with chronic inflammatory diseases integrating medical ozone as a complement.

Int J Mol Sci. 2021 Aug; 22(15): 7890.
Published online 2021 Jul 23. doi: 10.3390/ijms22157890
PMCID: PMC8346137
PMID: 34360655

Ozone in Medicine. The Low-Dose Ozone Concept and Its Basic Biochemical Mechanisms of Action in Chronic Inflammatory Diseases​

Renate Viebahn-Haensler1,*† and Olga Sonia León Fernández2,*†