Humankind’s search for a cure-all, a panacea for our multiple ailments continues. The fact that this is despite all the technological advancements and inventions of newer and stronger drugs indicates the limitations inherent in these approaches. However, despite this search, when any truly unique and useful treatment is introduced, the scientific community very often rejects it or outright denigrates the idea. Most of the time, their reasoning is that there has been no scientific research or double blind studies done to validate any new treatment. Anecdotal information regarding the success of a new treatment modality is laughed at or frowned upon. More benevolent scientists may give it a moment’s attention and then label it a “placebo effect”.
This is not surprising. Many inventions benefiting humanity have sat in the closet gathering dust for many years before they were accepted as useful or beneficial. For example: it took 83 years for deep-freezing to be accepted; 88 years after its invention, the Steam Ship was finally put to sea for public transportation. Only 26 years after its invention did the radio become popular. 24 years after being invented, the public accepted the electric calculator; and it took 10 years for semiconductors to be used in industry and 9 years for plastic fibers.
In no other science, however, does acceptance take as long as it does in medicine. It can take 150 years and nowadays may never happen, if there is not enough profit to be made, as today matters of health are in the domain of the “health care industry” and no longer a concern of what used to be called the “healing arts”.
This kind of lethargy coupled with the motivation for profit denies help to the sick and leads to unnecessary deaths. This is incongruous because aspirin, the most popular drug, had been accepted on anecdotal history. It is the most widely used drug accepted for pain, fever, aches, and in some cases even for relaxation. Until recently it was not known how exactly salicylates worked. It is also ironic that many drugs from plants were used for centuries for heart and kidney problems, high blood pressure and psychosis, to name just a few conditions, and only when synthetic chemicals similar to these plant extracts were being manufactured, was extensive scientific research even started. There is no denying that most of the therapeutic agents currently in use are the gradual outcome of ancient empirical practice.
In fact, when commenting in 1978 on the state of the orthodox medical art, the U.S. Congress’ Office of Technological Assessment issued the following statement in a report: “It has been estimated that only 10 to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial.” In view of this statement, the assumption made by many people when they demand “scientific proof” before trying a relatively unknown form of treatment illustrates a well conditioned public response catering to the vested interests of major pharmaceutical companies.
People anyway have a hard time accepting the unfamiliar without a fight. This has always been particularly so in medicine, and it is even more so now, given the financial gain of a 1.3 -trillion dollar industry at stake. For example, ozone has been used extensively in medicine in Germany for over 70 years, yet it is still not fully accepted by countries such as the U.S.
It is fortunate that there are enough concerned physicians who, accepting the importance of research and double blind studies, are still willing to look into anecdotal therapies to help their patients. The fact is, millions have received ozone treatments without deleterious side effects. In Germany, Russia, France, Cuba, Mexico, and Southeast Asia great strides are being made. In the last five years thousands of cancer and AIDS patients have stayed alive and made their lives livable again with the help of ozone and other bio-oxidative therapies.
In North America, due to the lack of profit motive in such an effective and economical form of treatment, the bureaucracy protecting special interest groups is downright hostile and antagonistic. The bottom line is, according to a 1990 report from Tufts University, FDA approval for a single drug or device now costs an average of $112 million dollars, an insurmountable regulatory hurdle that blocks from competition, natural non-toxic therapies that cannot be patented and do not promise enormous profits. Naturally, Ozone and other bio-oxidative therapies provide little profit motive. Fortunately, though, these therapies are old enough to predate the FDA. Thus they are legally “grandfathered” in.
To prevent their use from undercutting the profits to be made from patented medication, the free flow of accurate information is discouraged and even willfully disrupted. People, however, are desperate enough now to look elsewhere, for the look into the unknown usually comes about when everything else has failed. Hopefully, there are enough compassionate health professionals whose concern is to help their patients according to their own Hippocratic oath, who will take the time to peruse the huge volume of information and scientific data available from many different sources.
Ozone was discovered centuries ago and first put to medical use at the beginning of the last century, yet the medical profession still does not universally accept it due to the fact that it is simply not informed – and often purposefully misinformed. However, enough experience has been gained with ozone therapy to date, that its effectiveness and simplicity in usage will make it a potent medical tool for the 21st century…..
Most often, it takes awareness in the general public to make a mark with the “professionals”. They are thoroughly conditioned to stick with their tried and trusted procedures, even and especially the ones that do not work. With the new Millennium already upon us, let us all be hopeful for major changes. Let us hope that health and health management may also be refurbished, so that humans may live healthy and happy lives. As health professionals, it is our responsibility to teach our patients so that they may shoulder their own responsibility in taking over the maintenance of their own health. In this way we can educate them, allow them to educate us and never close our minds to the best ways of healing.
Originally published as Foreword to the book Heal Yourself with Oxygen.