It is not approved based on the opinion that prevailing scientific evidence does not support claims that introducing oxygen supplying chemicals into an individual’s body is effective in treating cancer.

Oxygen therapy practices could have been predicated on Dr. Otto Warburg’s conjectures concerning cancer. During the 1930s’, Otto Warburg, MD PhD, a winner of the Nobel Prize in in Physiology or Medicine in 1931 for his research on cellular respiratory enzymes, discovered that cancer cells had a lower rate of respiration than that of normal cells. He demonstrated that cancerous cells could sustain their viability even in the absence of oxygen, and deduced that they grew and thrived in low-oxygen environments, and that increasing oxygen levels might, therefore, lead to adverse effects, and even the induction of their death.

Thank you very much for your replies. If "prevailing scientific evidence does not support claims" but practitioners of alternative medicine believe ozone has therapeutic benefits, should more extensive research be funded?

That may be the stand of the US FDA. I am not conversant with the dynamic of this issue and the status of this highly contentious and controversial approach. One might consider that this approach is outside of the potential realms of investigations of granting bodies such NIH Alternative Medicine Center and NCI; to them it could be exotic exploration fraught with dangers. Have integrative medicine centers affiliated with public universities has given any thought to this therapy? The risks might not have been systematically explored. Ozone is a potent oxidant, and can damage cells; it is also known to be very harmful. The question of how one controls the introduction of an external gas, with the potentiality to cause irreparable harm, into the body parts or through the blood stream and the consequences thereof arises. In mainstream medical research studies, ozone or hydrogen peroxide in relatively modest quantities and under well controlled conditions for treating limited parts of the body might have resulted in some success.

Indeed there have been some studies showing success. In each of those cases, the researchers recommended further study but nothing on a large scale seems to have been done. Some believe that research money isn't available because a therapy using ozone couldn't be patented and therefore wouldn't net big profits.

Thank you very much for the clarification with your reply. Altruism! Big profits!! Yes there is no intellectual property benefit for natural substances. .

Indeed, such therapy does not bring profit to a big pharmacy; therefore, it will not be widely introduced into practical medicine, including oncology.

One Spanish World wide enterprise recently tried to get FDA approval for disc herniation treatment. FDA did no accept the trials done outside USA. Setting up a trial in USA according FDA rules was very expensive and the results, if positive, would benefit many other ozone generators manufacturers, not only the Spanish one, so the decided to give up.

Thank you. It's always about the money. Be well.