There is no more need for amputations due to diabetic foot ulcers.

[oomhenry]

The reason why wounds don't heal is because of blood circulation. The RBC's supply oxygen to every cell in the body. Now if there is a way to supply the wound and surrounding area with oxygen it WILL heal. Ozone is the answer. Ozone is O3 whereas oxygen is O2. In Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia and a few other countries, the technology is quite advanced. It does not matter what method one uses, it works!! I have used it to save my wife's toe. I came across the solution quite late, so now the toe is now a bit crooked, but at least it is still attached to her foot. If we started a month earlier, there would have been no problem at all.

On 2406 her left big toe looked bad and we got alarmed and took her to hospital. The doctors were quite blasè about the toe and wanted to amputate. On 3006 they sent her home. I then debrided the toe and that is the photo on 1007. A month ago the wound was healed, but there is a problem because the bone has move to where the skin has to form. That is the photo called Capture. It will require surgery to either remove the bone or to move it back where it belongs.

1307 (2) is an ulcer on her right toe that we caught in time. It is now perfectly healed.

It is not a fluke. The science behind it has been studied intensively in non-English speaking countries.

I really hope this helps someone.

Regards

Henry

 

[douglas99]

Did you treat it with ozone?
Did you use an ozone generator, and did you encapsulate the toe in the ozone environment?

 

[oomhenry]

Did you treat it with ozone?
Did you use an ozone generator, and did you encapsulate the toe in the ozone environment?

Yes I did. I used the bubblebath thingy in which she soaked her feet daily. I think it is called a spa bath. IT IS CHEAP AND IT WORKS!

 

[Yorksman]

There are several scientific papers available online:

Ozone therapy: A clinical review

and specifically on diabetic ulcers:

Therapeutic efficacy of ozone in patients with diabetic foot. (abstract only otherwise per for access)

"Furthermore, the healing of the lesions improved, resulting in fewer amputations than in control group. There were no side effects. These results show that medical ozone treatment could be an alternative therapy in the treatment of diabetes and its complications."

However, it is not sanctioned in Germany and is available only as an alternative therapy for private fee paying patients:

"Dr. Barbara Burkhard of the Medical Office of Patients Insurance-Bavaria (Munich, Germany) writes, "Ozone therapy is not approved by the medical establishment in our country. The National Health Insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) is not allowed to pay for it. In the book of laws on this subject (Sozial Gesetzbuch V), the obligations for insurance institutions are fixed. They are only required to pay for methods that are in accordance with generally accepted medical knowledge and which have made proven contributions in medicine. Doctors who have contracts with health insurance companies only get reimbursement for treatments that are approved by the Bundesausschub der Artz und Krankenkassen. This committee is governed by social insurance regulations and issues the rules for diagnostic and therapeutic medical methods. In an Appendix to their book of rules, methods not approved are listed. Ozone therapy is number 3 on that list."

The above is taken from this article which, whilst not specific to diabetes, starts with an interesting discussion on oxygenation therapies:

Oxygenation Therapy: Unproven Treatments for Cancer and AIDS

When treatments are new but not sanctioned, even though they may be beneficial, there is always the danger of people jumping in on the bandwagon. Stem cell treatment is a good example. Whilst it does look very promising and appears to work in some cases, many so called practitioners offer it at a price but with no guarantee.

 

[oomhenry]

There are several scientific papers available online:

Ozone therapy: A clinical review

and specifically on diabetic ulcers:

Therapeutic efficacy of ozone in patients with diabetic foot. (abstract only otherwise per for access)

"Furthermore, the healing of the lesions improved, resulting in fewer amputations than in control group. There were no side effects. These results show that medical ozone treatment could be an alternative therapy in the treatment of diabetes and its complications."

However, it is not sanctioned in Germany and is available only as an alternative therapy for private fee paying patients:

"Dr. Barbara Burkhard of the Medical Office of Patients Insurance-Bavaria (Munich, Germany) writes, "Ozone therapy is not approved by the medical establishment in our country. The National Health Insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung) is not allowed to pay for it. In the book of laws on this subject (Sozial Gesetzbuch V), the obligations for insurance institutions are fixed. They are only required to pay for methods that are in accordance with generally accepted medical knowledge and which have made proven contributions in medicine. Doctors who have contracts with health insurance companies only get reimbursement for treatments that are approved by the Bundesausschub der Artz und Krankenkassen. This committee is governed by social insurance regulations and issues the rules for diagnostic and therapeutic medical methods. In an Appendix to their book of rules, methods not approved are listed. Ozone therapy is number 3 on that list."

It is an alternative therapy yes, but alternative to what in this case? Conventional medicine has no answer for non healing ulcers. Must one then sit back and just let them amputate? Why are there still amputations when there is a wealth of information available about the efficacy of ozone? This information has been available for at least a decade, so if one thinks about it, all diabetic foot amputations during the last 10 years were unnecessary. It's a shame. It is safe. It is cheap and it works. That is all that matters.

 

[oomhenry]

There are no guarantees in life. Even the medical establishment do not offer their services for free. There is no surgeon who will guarantee that the operation he is about to perform - and will be paid very well for - will be successful, but that is okay. Why then, when an alternative (Who decides what constitutes alternative anyway?) is available at a price, do people frown upon it? Everyone has to eat after all.

 

[douglas99]

I have to be honest, I'd try it first.

 

[oomhenry]

I have to be honest, I'd try it first.

Do you have an ulcer Douglas?

 

[douglas99]

Do you have an ulcer Douglas?

No, I'm pleased to say, no complications at all, but if I had I'd certainly give it a shot.

 

[Robbity]

I'd have been interested to try this as I've had problems with an ingrown toenail resulting in a sore on the side of my toe which has taken over 10 months to heal (though partly because of husband and dogs believing that this foot in particular is meant to be firmly trampled on at regular intervals ). But it wasn't anything like as bad as your poor wife's foot, Henry! She's a lucky lady to have such a husband.

Robbity

 

[oomhenry]

I'd have been interested to try this as I've had problems with an ingrown toenail resulting in a sore on the side of my toe which has taken over 10 months to heal (though partly because of husband and dogs believing that this foot in particular is meant to be firmly trampled on at regular intervals ). But it wasn't anything like as bad as your poor wife's foot, Henry! She's a lucky lady to have such a husband.

Robbity

Now you know what to do should it happen again. No more stress. It's a wonderful feeling, don't you agree?

 

[Yorksman]

It's a shame. It is safe. It is cheap and it works. That is all that matters.

What is NICE's objection? They normally like what you outline above.

It's been around for decades. Why do you think NICE don't approve it? I know they don't like approving drugs that work if they are expensive but you say it is cheap.

 

[Yorksman]

(Who decides what constitutes alternative anyway?)

Alternative in this context means alternative to orthodox or conventional medicine. Conventional medicine is that which is sanctioned by the official body in the country concerned. In the UK, it is NICE.

 

[oomhenry]

What is NICE's objection? They normally like what you outline above.

It's been around for decades. Why do you think NICE don't approve it? I know they don't like approving drugs that work if they are expensive but you say it is cheap.

Do they object to it? Could you point me to the document please? Maybe they don't approve, because it is not a drug that can be patented on which they can receive kickbacks. Maybe they don't really care. Who knows? So they approve amputations which are traumatic and not cheap, but not a simple therapy like ozone. It really is a strange strange world we live in...

 

[Yorksman]

Do they object to it? Could you point me to the document please? Maybe they don't approve, because it is not a drug that can be patented on which they can receive kickbacks.

Well now you are getting into making silly accusations when you have no evidence. It is not sanctioned as an official treatment in Germany either where the healthcare costs are organised along different lines and state insurers like AOK would benefit from cost savings to which you allude. Kickbacks don't come into it. The question is reasonable, it appears in the peer literature often enough, but if you dislike my use of the word 'object', I'll rephrase it.

Why do you think NICE don't sanction the use of ozone therapy in the NHS?

My own sense is that medication in gaseous forms are unusual treatments and that the authorising bodies, whether in the UK or Germany or the USA are wary of the adage that 'pioneers are men with arrows in their backs'.


I provided a link to Ozone therapy: A clinical review above and although they state in the abstract:

"Although O3 has dangerous effects, yet researchers believe it has many therapeutic effects."

They conclude the abstract:

"Ozonized water, whose use is particularly known in dental medicine, is optimally applied as a spray or compress. Diseases treated are infected wounds, circulatory disorders, geriatric conditions, macular degeneration, viral diseases, rheumatism/arthritis, cancer, SARS and AIDS."

So what is stopping them?

 

[oomhenry]

I have no idea whats stopping them. If I cared what the NIH thought, my wife would have been without a toe. Do you blame me for giving them the finger?
I am just putting the information out there. Why do you fight it? What are the options for diabetics with non healing ulcers? Can you list them?
When you quote me, quote everything that I have written to provide context please.

 

[Yorksman]

I have no idea whats stopping them. If I cared what the NIH thought, my wife would have been without a toe. Do you blame me for giving them the finger?
I am just putting the information out there. Why do you fight it? What are the options for diabetics with non healing ulcers? Can you list them?
When you quote me, quote everything that I have written to provide context please.

Who is fighting you?

Why do you even think in such terms?

The first quote I posted supported your point of view:

"Furthermore, the healing of the lesions improved, resulting in fewer amputations than in control group. There were no side effects. These results show that medical ozone treatment could be an alternative therapy in the treatment of diabetes and its complications."

Therapeutic efficacy of ozone in patients with diabetic foot.

If I ask the question, why is this treatment not sanctioned by the NHS, you may take it that I don't know why it is not sanctioned by the NHS and would like to know. I thought perhaps you might have asked your GP or asked someone at the hospital or something.

 

[oomhenry]

Who is fighting you?

Why do you even think in such terms?

The first quote I posted supported your point of view:

"Furthermore, the healing of the lesions improved, resulting in fewer amputations than in control group. There were no side effects. These results show that medical ozone treatment could be an alternative therapy in the treatment of diabetes and its complications."

Therapeutic efficacy of ozone in patients with diabetic foot.

If I ask the question, why is this treatment not sanctioned by the NHS, you may take it that I don't know why it is not sanctioned by the NHS and would like to know. I thought perhaps you might have asked your GP or asked someone at the hospital or something.

I don't think it is sanctioned because everyone can give themselves this therapy at home. Sure there are therapists who tries to build their own little fiefdom by making this therapy more complicated and technical than it really is. In the case of diabetic foot, one just wants to get oxygen to the wound asap. Using a basic spa or sauna accomplishes that. The drug companies in the USA are fighting this and that is the reason why it has not been sanctioned by the FDA. Maybe NICE is taking their cues from them.

 

[oomhenry]

Researchers in other countries are working on the pharma-physiological mechanisms of ozone and the knowledgebase is growing daily.

Take this paper for example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3125221/

During O3-AHT, the detection of PDGF-B, TGF-β1, IL-8 and EGF released in heparinized plasma in ozone- dose dependent quantities was not surprising because platelets are exquisitely sensitive to a progressive acute oxidative stress [20,52]. The increased level of these growth factors in the circulation may have the beneficial effect of enhancing the healing of foot-related problems from diabetes or PAD.

 

[phoenix]

It's great that the treatment worked for you, unfortunately it may not always and the risk in using an alternative treatment is that it may delay other treatments at a time when they have a chance of being successful..
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3503389/
It is rapid intervention that is important. It's probably not true to say all amputations can be avoided but it seems that is true to say that with swift conventional intervention 80%+ can be avoided.http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Documents/About Us/What we say/0160b-state-nation-2013-england-1213.pdf
Even better of course is preventative care.

The hospital I attend in France has had to perform no amputations for many years. In part because they are avoided with good preventative care and education and in part because in the unfortunate event of developing an ulcer , patients know to contact their doctors quickly and from there, there is effective care. (using conventional medicine)

The incidence in the UK is actually falling, though numbers are unfortunately rising because there are far more people with diabetes. The big problem in the UK is that the provision of foot care is patchy with data showing big variations in outcomes. In those areas that have rapid referral multiple disciplinary teams there are far fewer amputations ie in Brent which has one .There were ten amputations (major and minor) a year per 10,000 people , compared with an average across all PCTs of 27.45

(it's one of the things that DUK and NICE are pushing for; it costs money to set up but there is an eventual large saving in NHS resources. )

The NHS actually doesn't seem to be adverse to trying alternative therapies for wound care and treatment may including maggots, honey and sugar dressings. At the other end of the scale and possibly related since it increases oxygenated blood flow. The NHS does fund hyberbaric chamber therapy in some areas for some cases of diabetic leg ulcers and there are some trials going on. ( Though there aren't many facilities and some areas have it as 'do not fund' since a review in 2013 said that they are of uncertain benefit for the healing of diabetic foot ulcers.)


There is no good trial evidence to show that ozone therapy is effective (google reveals a review by the Malaysian health authorities and the Canadians who couldn't find any .http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/234_No8_ozonetherapy_preassess_e.pdf )

Unfortunately, ozone therapy is also touted as an alternative cure for everything under the sun including cancer. You will find it referred to in quackwatch and on the 'what's the harm website.
Although it may be an unscientific way of looking at it, I suspect that is probably one reason that any claims for efficacy in wound care are less likely to be considered
(edit: I've just followed up the Bocci paper which seems to be very speculative . It seems that Bocci is very much a lone proponent who has authored many of the papers on the subject)