A fi sau a nu fi...liber

Personal growth ,life-coaching,positive and transpersonal psychology , education for all,INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE. HAPPINESS, WELL-BEING,WISDOM, HARMONY, COMMITMENT TO LIFE MISSION AND VALUES


What makes a fat person, fat !?

1. What Makes A Fat Man Fat?
People can be divided into two groups according to the way they deal with the excess food when they eat more than they require for their daily expenditure of energy.

In 1950 at the Royal Society of Medicine in London, Professor Sir Charles Dodds, who is in charge of the Courtauld Institute of Biochemistry at the Middlesex Hospital, described an experiment he had carried out.

He took people whose weights had been constant for many years and persuaded them to eat double or treble their normal amount of food. They did not put on weight.

He showed that this was not due to a failure to digest or assimilate the extra food and suggested that they responded to over-eating by increasing their metabolic rate (rate of food using) and thus burned up the extra calories.

He then over-fed people whose weights had not remained constant in the past and found that they showed no increase in metabolism but became fat.

So two people of the same size, doing the same work and eating the same food will react quite differently when they overeat. One will stay the same weight and the other will gain.

We all know that this is true even without scientific proof and yet the fact has not been taken into account or explained by any of the experts who write popular books and articles about slimming.

They write as though fat people and thin people deal with food in the same way. Here is the medical correspondent of The Times (11th March, 1957) On the subject:

" It is no use saying as so many women do 'But I eat practically nothing.' The only answer to this is: No matter how little you imagine you eat, if you wish to lose weight you must eat less.' Your reserves of fat are then called on to provide the necessary energy-and you lose weight."
The doctor who wrote these rather heartless words may fairly he taken as representative of medical opinion to-day. He is applying the teachings of William Wadd, Surgeon Extraordinary to the Prince Regent, who in 1829 attributed obesity to "an over-indulgence at the table" and gave, as the first principle of treatment, "taking food that has little nutrition in it."

Fat people can certainly lose weight by this method but what do they feel like while they are doing it? Terrible!

Ask any fat person who has tried it. Many of these unfortunate people really do eat less than people of normal proportions and still they put on weight, and when they go on a strict low-calorie diet which does get weight off, they feel tired and irritable because they are subjecting themselves to starvation. Worse still, when they have reduced and feel they can eat a little more, up shoots their weight again in no time, on quite a moderate food intake.

It is all most discouraging. "Surely there must be some better way of going about it," they say. This book explains that there is. To-day a lot more is known about how fat people get fat and why. Many of the facts have been known for years, but because they have not fitted in with current theories on obesity, they have been ignored.

In the last ten years, however, atomic research has given the physiologist enormous help in unravelling the biochemical reactions which go on in the body.

Radio-active isotopes have been used to " tag " chemical substances so that their progress through the body could be followed, in the same way as birds are tagged in order to establish the paths of their migration.

By this means, details of the metabolism of fats and carbohydrates, previously shrouded in mystery, have been clarified and with the new information so gained old experimental findings have been given new interpretations and the jigsaw of seemingly contradictory facts about obesity has clicked into a recognisable picture.

The first thing to realise is that it is carbohydrate (starch and sugar) and carbohydrate only which fattens fat people.

Here is what happens when Mr. Constant-Weight has too much carbohydrate to eat:

Nothing is left over for laying down as fat.

When Mr Fatten-Easily eats too much bread, cake and potatoes, the picture is entirely different:

Why does he fail to burn up the excess? The answer is the real reason for his obesity: BECAUSE HE HAS A DEFECTIVE CAPACITY FOR DEALING WITH CARBOHYDRATES.

William Banting found this out a hundred years ago and by applying the knowledge, he knocked off nearly 3 ½ stones in a year, painlessly and without starvation, enjoying good food and good wine while he did it.

He learnt from his doctor that carbohydrate is the fat man's poison. Here is what he wrote:

"For the sake of argument and illustration I will presume that certain articles of ordinary diet, however beneficial in youth, are prejudicial in advanced life, like beans to a horse, whose common ordinary food is hay and corn. It may be useful food occasionally, under peculiar circumstances, but detrimental as a constancy. I will, therefore, adopt the analogy, and call such food human beans. The items from which I was advised to abstain as much as possible were: Bread . . .(1) sugar, beer, and potatoes, which had been the main (and, I thought, innocent) elements of my existence, or at all events they had for many years been adopted freely. These, said my excellent adviser, contain starch and saccharine matter, tending to create fat, and should be avoided altogether."
William Banting (1797-1878) was the fashionable London undertaker who made the Duke of Wellington's coffin.

He was a prosperous, intelligent man, but terribly fat. In August, 1862, he was 66 years old and weighed 202 lb. He stood only 5 feet 5 inches in his socks. No pictures of him are available to-day, but he must have been nearly spherical.

He was so over-weight that he had to walk downstairs backwards to avoid jarring his knees and he was quite unable to do up his own shoe-laces. His obesity made him acutely miserable.

For many years he passed from one doctor to another in a vain attempt to get his weight off. Many of the doctors he saw were both eminent and sincere. They took his money but they failed to make him thinner.

He tried every kind of remedy for obesity: Turkish baths, violent exercise, spa treatment, drastic dieting; purgation; all to no purpose. Not only did he not lose weight, many of the treatments made him gain.

At length, because he thought he was going deaf, he went to an ear, nose and throat surgeon called William Harvey (no relation to the Harvey who discovered the circulation of the blood). This remarkable man saw at once that Banting's real trouble was obesity, not deafness, and put him on an entirely new kind of diet.

By Christmas, 1862, he was down to 184 lb. By the following August he weighed a mere 156 lb.—nearly right for his height and age.

In less than a year he had lost nearly 50 lb. and 12¼ inches off his waist-line. He could put his old suits on over the new ones he had to order from his tailor!

Naturally, Banting was delighted. He would gladly have gone through purgatory to reach his normal weight but, in fact, Mr. Harvey's diet was so liberal and pleasant that Banting fed as well while he was reducing as he had ever done before.

What was the diet which performed this miraculous reduction? We have Banting's own word for it, in his little book Letter on Corpulence addressed to the public, published in 1864.

Here is what he ate and drank:

William Banting's Diet (1864)
(Losing 46lb )
Breakfast: Four or five ounces of beef, mutton, kidneys, broiled fish, bacon or cold meat of any kind except pork. One small biscuit or one ounce of dry toast. A large cup of tea without milk or Sugar.
Lunch: Five or six ounces of any fish except salmon, any meat except pork, any vegetable except potato. Any kind of poultry or game. One ounce of dry toast. Fruit. Two or three glasses of good claret, sherry or Madeira. (Champagne, port and beer were forbidden.)
Tea: Two or three ounces of fruit. A rusk or two. A cup of tea without milk or sugar.
Supper: Three or four ounces of meat or fish as for lunch. A glass of claret, or two. Night-cap (if required): A tumbler of grog (gin, whisky or brandy with water but without sugar) or a glass or two of claret or sherry.

In terms of calories this diet adds up to the astonishing figure of 2,800. An average modern low-calorie reducing diet allows a meagre 1,000 calories a day.

There must therefore have been something other than calorie reduction responsible for Banting's weight loss. What was the secret?

In his own words:

"I can now confidently say that QUANTITY of diet may be safely left to the natural appetite; and that it is the QUALITY only which is essential to abate and cure corpulence."
The diet was made up almost entirely of protein, fat, alcohol and roughage, with, of course, the vitamins and mineral salts contained in these foods. Mr. Harvey, who designed it, had realised that it is carbohydrate (starch and sugar) which fattens fat people.

This is the simple fact which explains Banting's highly satisfactory weight reduction on a high-calorie low-carbohydrate diet. Perhaps it was too simple, for in spite of the excellent book which he published at his own expense and in which he gave all the credit to his doctor, William Harvey, the medical profession refused to believe it.

Banting's name passed into the language as a synonym for slimming but he himself was ridiculed and denounced as a charlatan. His method was never properly understood and was soon forgotten.

To appreciate just how remarkable it was for Mr. Harvey to have designed this revolutionary and successful treatment for Banting's obesity, it is necessary to know something of the medical opinions current at the time.

In 1850 the medical profession in Europe had accepted the theory of a German chemist, Baron Justus von Liebig (1803-1873), that carbohydrate and fat supplied the carbon which combined with oxygen in the lungs to produce body heat. In terms of this theory, carbohydrate and fat were "respiratory foods " and the cause of obesity was believed to be an over-indulgence in these: or as contemporary phraseology had it: "For the formation of body fat it is necessary that the materials be digested in greater quantity than is necessary to supply carbon to the respiration...."

The principle of the treatment of obesity based on this theory was to cut off as far as possible the supply of food, especially dietary fat, and to accomplish this the patient was exhorted to establish "an hourly watch over the instinctive desires," .i.e. was subjected to starvation.

William Wadd had already advocated such methods and right down to The Times medical correspondent to-day, doctors have gone on slavishly copying them in spite of the mounting evidence that they were unsatisfactory, at least from the patient's point of view, if not from the physician's.

It is easy to say that there were no fat people in Belsen so long as you do not have to experience Belsen yourself.

With this background of medical indoctrination on the subject of obesity to which many doctors have succumbed since, with far less excuse, William Harvey went to Paris in 1856 and attended the lectures of Claude Bernard (1813-1878), the great French physiologist.

He heard Bernard expound his new theory that the liver made not only bile but also a peculiar substance related to starches and sugars, to which the name glucose had been given.

Relating this new idea to the already well-known ones,

"that a saccharine and farinaceous diet is used to fatten certain farm animals,"
"that a purely animal diet greatly assists in checking the secretion of a diabetic urine,"
Harvey did some original and constructive thinking. This is how he put it:
"That excessive obesity might be allied to diabetes as to its cause, although widely diverse in its development; and that if a purely animal diet were useful in the latter disease, a combination of animal food with such vegetable diet as contained neither sugar nor starch, might serve to arrest the undue formation of fat."
Now in Harvey's time, biochemistry was in its infancy and physiology was only just emerging from the shadow of the middle ages, so he could not explain his theory of altered carbohydrate metabolism in exact chemical terms. But he could test it out in practice and it was at this point, in 1862, that William Banting consulted him. We have Banting's own description of the happy results of that meeting.

The subsequent history of William Harvey and his patient is interesting. It shows how social and economic influences and the desire to run with the herd, which is in all of us, can cloud scientific discoveries with compromise and in bringing them into line with orthodoxy can rob them of all practical value.

Banting published his Letter on Corpulence in 1864, privately, because he feared, not without reason as it turned out, that the Editor of the Lancet, to whom he first thought of submitting it, would refuse to publish anything "from an insignificant individual without some special introduction."

The same sort of objection deterred him from sending it to the Cornhill Magazine, which had recently carried an article, "What is the cause of obesity?", which in Banting's view was not altogether satisfactory.

Banting's pamphlet attracted immediate attention and was widely circulated. The treatment he described was phenomenally successful. The "Banting diet" then became the centre of bitter controversy. No one could deny that the treatment was effective but having first appeared in a publication by a layman, the medical profession, which was just beginning to climb the social ladder and was very much on its frock-coated dignity, felt bound to attack it.

The diet was criticised as being freakish and unscientific. Harvey came in for much ridicule and vituperation and his practice as a surgeon began to suffer.

But the obvious practical success of the "non-farinaceous, non-saccharine" (high-fat, high-protein, low carbohydrate) diet called for some explanation from the doctors, and this was supplied by Dr. Felix von Niemeyer of Stuttgart, whose name was associated with a pill containing quinine, digitalis and opium. German physicians were then very fashionable.

Basing his argument on the teachings of Liebig, Niemeyer explained Banting's diet as follows: Protein foods are not converted to body fat, but the "respiratory foods," fat and carbohydrate, are. He interpreted meat as lean meat and described the diet in terms which today would mean that it was a high-protein, low-calorie diet with fat and carbohydrate both restricted.

Of course the diet which actually slimmed Banting was not like that at all. It was a high-fat, high-protein, unrestricted calorie diet with only carbohydrate restricted.

The confusion about what Banting actually ate still exists today. It arises because few people have read his book in the original and fewer still have read Harvey's papers. I have quoted the relevant passages from both sources earlier in this chapter, and from these quotations two things are clear:

That Harvey believed starch and sugar to be the culprits in obesity.
That within the limits of his imperfect knowledge of the chemical composition of foods, Harvey tried to exclude these items from Banting's diet, allowing him to eat as much as he liked of everything else.

Harvey had allowed Banting to take meat, including venison, poultry and fish-with no mention of trimming off the fat-in quantities up to 24 ounces a day which gives a calorie intake of about 2,800 when the alcohol and other things he ate and drank are included.

By deliberately lumping fat and carbohydrate together where Harvey had tried to separate them, Dr. Niemeyer had effectively turned Banting's diet upside down, and the day was saved for the pundits. Niemeyer's explanation was eagerly accepted and "modified Banting" diets, based upon this phoney explanation, found their way into the text-books for the rest of the nineteenth century.

While all this "rationalisation" of his diet was going on, William Harvey was feeling the cold draught of unpopularity with his colleagues and nine years after the publication of Banting's pamphlet he publicly recanted. He came into line with Dr. Niemeyer and explained apologetically:

"Had Mr. Banting not suffered from deafness the probability is that his pamphlet would not have appeared."
Thus Harvey was able to continue his peaceful career as a respected ear, nose and throat surgeon. But Banting stuck to his guns and in 1875 published letters showing that obese people lost weight effectively and painlessly through eating large quantities of fat meat.

In spite of an almost total lack of scientific knowledge of the chemical composition of different foods, Banting remained true to the principle William Harvey had taught him: avoidance of starchy and sugary foods as he knew them.

He kept his weight down without difficulty and lived in physical comfort to the age of 81.

This distortion of a genuine discovery, based on original observation, to make it fit in with current theories has happened again and again in our history.

Ever since Procrustes cut off the feet of people who did not fit his bed, established authorities with narrow minds have employed the cruel weapons of ridicule and economic sanctions against people who challenged their doctrines.

To the student of psychology this is a commonplace, but it is a great brake on scientific progress. The howl that went up against Harvey and Banting was nearly as loud as the one which greeted Freud's Interpretation of Dreams in which he pointed out the facts of infantile sexuality. This is hardly surprising when one considers how sensitive most of us are to criticism of our views on our pet subjects. Among the many diets which followed the publication of Banting's pamphlet, every variation of the three main foods was tried but always with restriction of the total intake.

It seemed that in spite of the real value of Harvey's observations and Banting's application of them, nutritionists could not bring themselves to abandon the idea that to lose weight one must eat less. This principle derived from the law of conservation of energy (what comes out must go in) on the basis of which it was deduced that the energy intake (consumption of food) must exceed the energy expenditure when obesity is developing.

Of course this is perfectly obvious. A man can't get fat unless he eats more food than he uses up for energy. But it is beside the point.

The real question that needs answering about obesity is:

What is the cause of the fat man's failure to use up as much as he takes in as food? It could be that he is just greedy and eats more than he requires. It could also be that although he only eats a normal amount, some defect in the way his body deals with food deflects some of what he eats to his fat stores and keeps it there instead of letting him use it up for energy.
In other words, Mr. Fatten-Easily may have a defect in his metabolism which Mr. Constant-Weight has not.

Too much attention has been paid to the input side of the energy equation and not enough to possible causes of defective output. Even with a low food intake a man may get fat because his output is small. And this need not be because he is taking insufficient exercise but because something is interfering with the smooth conversion of fuel to energy in his body and encouraging its storage as fat.

It is curious that up to 1900, apart from Harvey and Banting, only one person had ever considered this alternative explanation for obesity. This was an eighteenth-century physician, Dr. Thomas Beddoes. In 1793, Beddoes applied the new theory of "pneumatic chemistry" which had originated with M. Lavoisier's experiments in France and held that during respiration the lungs took in oxygen, combined it with carbon derived from the food and expelled it in the form of carbon dioxide.

Beddoes thought that the oxygen might go deeper into the body than the lungs and that obesity might be caused by its combining insufficiently with body fat. This would lead to fat accumulating instead of being burnt up for energy.

He attempted to remedy this supposed defect of fat metabolism by introducing more oxygen into the system- but with no good result.

His theory was easily disposed of by the redoubtable William Wadd, who remarked:

"Dr. Beddoes remained so inconveniently fat during his life that a lady of Clifton used to denominate him the walking feather bed."
So the views of William Wadd prevailed and, apart from the Banting interlude, starvation has been the basis of the treatment of obesity in this country right up to the present day. Only the words have changed.

"Calorie restriction" has now replaced Wadd's "taking food that has little nutrition in it."

Within the principle of total food restriction, most reducing diets gave a high proportion of protein up to the year 1900. Then the American physiologist, Russell Henry Chittenden, published an indictment of protein, purporting to show that it was the cause of many diseases and from that time obese patients were generally kept short of this most vital food in their already short rations. (Lately, protein has been coming back into favour, and most of the current, popular, "Women's Page" slimming diets follow Niemeyer's modification of Banting. That is to say, they are high-protein and low-calorie, with fat and carbohydrate both restricted.)

There was the start of a break away towards more rational thinking on obesity with von Bergmann and the "lipophilia" school. He, like Beddoes, suggested a diminished oxidation of fat and explored the metabolism of the obese for evidence of abnormality which could account for a special affinity for fat and an excess of storage over use.

The snag again-as with Beddoes - the lack of any effective treatment to fit in with the theory.

Harvey had had an effective treatment with no convincing theory. Beddoes and von Bergmann had good theories but no treatment.

So as the twentieth century ran on into the thirties the view became more and more widely accepted that obesity was caused by an inflow of energy greater than the outflow, caused simply by careless over-eating and gluttony.

Popular books on slimming became mainly concerned with tricks for persuading people to eat less while seeming to allow them to eat more.

In 1930, Newburgh and Johnson summed the matter up thus in the Journal of Clinical Investigation:

"Obesity is never directly caused by abnormal metabolism but is always due to food habits not adjusted to the metabolic requirements "; i.e. over-weight never comes from a defective ability to mobilise fat from the fat stores but always from over-eating.
This appeared to be the last word and doctors and slimming "experts" all over the world settled down to trying to persuade their obese patients to eat less.

With the "obesity comes from over-eating" dogma enshrined in history and hallowed by the blessing of the high priests of modern physiological research, imagine the impact on the medical world of the news in 1944, that cases of obesity were being treated effectively at the New York City Hospital with diets in which more than 24 ounces of fat meat was allowed a day. Patients were encouraged to eat to the limit of their appetites and some who were sceptical of the diet ate very copiously indeed. But they still lost weight.

The man in charge of this treatment was Dr. Blake F. Donaldson.

At that time, Great Britain was still in the grip of severe war-time rationing and minimal amounts of fat and protein foods were obtainable. So this American revival of Bantingism was for the time being of academic interest only over here.

But from that time onwards, unrestricted-calorie high-fat, high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets for obesity were on the map again and in the United States at any rate they gradually gained in popularity. Research workers in Britain were not idle, however. Many of them had been to America, and Donaldson's work and later Dr. Alfred Pennington's caused great interest.

Then in July 1956, in the Lancet, Professor Alan Kekwick and Dr. G. L. S. Pawan published the results of a scientific evaluation of Banting's diet undertaken in their wards at the Middlesex Hospital in London. They proved that Banting was right. Here is their conclusion:

"The composition of the diet can alter the expenditure of calories in obese persons, increasing it when fat and proteins are given and decreasing it when carbohydrates are given."
Today this work is being quoted in medical journals all over the world. Here is a quotation from the February 1957 number of the American journal, Antibiotic Medicine and Clinical Therapy:

"Kekwick and Pawan, from the Middlesex Hospital, London, report some news for the obese. All of the obese subjects studied lost weight immediately after admission to hospital and therefore a period of stabilisation was required before commencing investigation.
If the proportions of fat, carbohydrate and protein were kept constant, the rate of weight loss was then proportional to the calorie intake.

If the calorie intake was kept constant, however, at 1,000 per day, the most rapid weight loss was noted with high fat diets . . . But when the calorie intake was raised to 2,600 daily in these patients, weight loss would still occur provided that this intake was given mainly in the form of fat and protein.

It is concluded that from 30 to 50 per cent of weight loss is derived from the total body water and the remaining 50 to 70 per cent from the body fat."

In other words, doctors now have scientific justification for basing diets for obesity on reduction of carbohydrate rather than on reduction of calories and fat.

Before going on it should be explained that Banting did in fact take some carbohydrate. Kekwick and Pawan and other investigators have shown that up to 6o grammes (just under 2 ounces) of carbohydrate a day are compatible with effective weight reduction on a high-fat, high-protein diet, although in some subjects even this amount will slow down the rate of weight loss. In such cases further restriction of carbohydrate with stricter adherence to the high-fat, high-protein foods results in satisfactory weight loss again.

Summary of the argument so far (1958)

1. There are two kinds of people: the Fatten-Easilies and the Constant-Weights.
2. If a Constant-Weight eats more carbohydrate than he needs, he automatically pushes up his metabolic rate (turns the bellows on his body fires) until the excess has been consumed.
3. A Fatten-Easily cannot do this because of a defect in his body chemistry. Excess carbohydrate is laid down as fat.
4. It is carbohydrate which makes a fat person fat.
5. Medical research has now proved that Banting was right and that diets for obesity may be based successfully on reduction of carbohydrate rather than on restriction of calories and fat.


Oxygen as a dietary supplement

Oxygen as a dietary supplement:

Why is it suggested that we drink 8 - eight ounce glasses of water daily? In considering that the body is four/fifths water and in reasoning that the oxygen molecule is larger than the hydrogen molecules it stands to reason that the oxygen makes up the biggest mass in water (88.9%). We can therefore surmise that one of the main benefits we receive from water is in its ability to oxygenate our body.
Oxygen is not only a life giver. It is also a killer of harmful infectious bacteria. Many cannot exist in an elevated oxygen environment. By increasing the oxygen levels in the body, we can feasibly hinder the proliferating ability of many pathogenic organisms.

The oxygen content of the air we breathe has decreased from 38% to about 20%. In major cities, the oxygen content of the air has measured as low as 10%. This means that the oxygen levels in the air we breathe has dropped about 50% or more. Scientists claim that anything under 7% oxygen in the air is too low to support human life. The decline in oxygen seems to coincide with the increase in disease. Taken orally, oxygen as a supplement provides the bloodstream with pure molecular oxygen. It is then carried straight to the cells and tissues of the body providing the valuable oxygen needed to metabolize nutrients, and oxidize the bloodstream to help rid the body of toxins.

Recently there has been a tremendous amount of activity in both research and clinical practice, which suggests that many deficiency disorders and degenerative diseases are, at least partially, attributable to oxygen metabolism dysfunction, or oxygen deficiency. In Australia an extensive 13 year study completed in 1983 measuring longevity demonstrated that the respiratory capacity was "a powerful determining variable", even more significant in predicting longevity than tobacco use, insulin metabolism or cholesterol levels. Infections use oxygen to combat bacteria, fungi and viruses. Antibiotics to counteract infection also deplete cellular oxygen since oxygen is required to metabolize them out of the system.

NCP Oxygen Formulas

G2O2 Oxygen Capsules
G2O2 is an enzyme enhanced capsule form of stabilized oxygen, ginseng and ginkgo. This specialized formulation was created to maximize oxygen throughout the body over a period of about 4 hours. This unique formulation combines active oxygen technology with high quality herbal concentrates of Ginseng and Ginkgo as powerful antioxidants. Formulated to enhance cellular oxygenation and neutralize systemic free radical activity.

Liquid Stabilized Oxygen
This formulation is ideal for rehydration and therapeutic applications. The unique form of concentrated stabilized liquid oxygen remains inactive until added to a carrier such as juice, milk or water. Highly effective for adding to distilled water when working out or partaking in outdoor activities. Diluted with water, this form of oxygen can also be used for topical applications by applying to the skin for cellular absorption.

Oxy-Gem Transdermal Nutrient Cream
Nutrifies and revitalizes while providing active oxygen directly to the tissues. A proprietary Transdermal delivery system carries these vital elements deep into the tissues for utilization at the cellular level allowing the skin to return to its natural equilibrium, regain elasticity and efficiently rebuild healthy cells.
This specially balanced formula works to restore the skin’s valuable nutrients lost or damaged by the sun, pollution, diet, and injury.

Stabilized Oxygen

Oxygen is one of the five elements required to sustain life. With every breath we take, we exchange oxygen with carbon dioxide. Oxygen that is inhaled is then distributed to provide life and energy to cells throughout the body. Oxygen has a powerful role in maintaining our health through the process of oxidation. This is a process in which the body chemically converts nutrients into energy, and rids itself of toxins. When the body is deprived of oxygen, the immune system is weakened. With an insufficient amount of oxygen to support a healthy cell, the cell turns to another source of energy. This leaves the body open to an invasion of viruses, which can lead to degenerative disease conditions.

It has been surmised that the life expectancy of mammals (such as ourselves) is in direct proportion to the ability to control free radicals. Oxygen is well known for its ability to bond with other particles that can become free radicals in our system in the process of eliminating them. By linking with carbon, we exhale carbon dioxide (CO2) By linking with Hydrogen, we create water (H2O). Some processes are more likely to produce large quantities of free radicals than others, and it is when there is either too much or too little oxygen present in a metabolic reaction that the worst situations arise. When free radicals in living tissues exceed safe levels, the result is cell destruction, which can manifest as age-related, chronic degenerative disease conditions.

What are free radicals? A free radical is the reactive part of a molecule, but a more technical description can define a free radical as merely a chemical species with an odd number of electrons or an unbalanced unpaired atom that is desperately seeking an electron to link with. Energy is released in the process, and a chain reaction of more combustion or damage continues as the highly reactive damaged molecules continue the process of grabbing electrons wherever they can.


Apples protect the lungs

Apples 'protect the lungs'

Apples can help you breathe

Thursday, 20 January, 2000, 01:27 GMT

Eating an apple a day may be good for the lungs, researchers have discovered.

A team from St George's Hospital Medical School, London, studied the diets and lung function of more than 2,500 men aged 45-49.

The researchers measured the ability to breathe out sharply using a special test called an FEV1.

They found that good lung function was associated with high intakes of vitamins C, E, and beta-carotene, citrus fruits, apples, and fruit juices.

However, after they took into consideration factors such as body mass, smoking history and exercise the only food that seemed to make a significant difference was apples.

It was found that eating five or more apples a week was linked to a slightly better lung function.

Those who ate apples had a lung capacity 138 millilitres higher than those who did not.

There was no evidence to suggest that the natural decline in lung function with age could be slowed by short term increases in the number of apples eaten.

But the fruit might slow deterioration caused by other factors such as pollutants.

Eating a lot of apples might simply reflect a healthy diet, suggest the authors.

Antioxidant role

But apples contain high levels of an antioxidant flavonoid called quercetin which is also found abundantly in onions, tea and red wine, and may be important in protecting the lungs from the harmful effects of atmospheric pollutants and cigarette smoke.

Dr Mike Pearson, a former press officer for the British Thoracic Society, said the theory was "plausible".

He said there were several studies supporting the idea that diets high in Vitamins C and E may be good for preventing asthma, and it might be that apples contained other antioxidants that produced the same effect.

Dr Pearson said: "The idea is that people with high levels of antioxidants circulating in their blood are in a better position to deal with an inflammatory reaction when it occurs."

The body produces an inflammatory reaction in response to foreign invaders, such as pollutants. This reaction releases highly reactive molecules known as free radicals which cause damage to the tissue.

Antioxidants work by mopping up these free radicals before they can cause damage.

Dr Pearson said that if Vitamins C and E were shown to be effective in helping asthma sufferers, they might also act to slow deterioration of lung function in other people.

Chairman of the British Lung Foundation, Dr Mark Britton, said the research provided more "exciting evidence" of a link between a healthy diet and healthy lungs.

He said: "More importantly, this study also highlights a new way that people can potentially protect their lungs - as well as helping people with lung disease breathe easy."

The research is published in the medical journal Thorax.

Apples benefits on babies

Pre-birth apples 'benefit babies'

Sunday, 20 May 2007, 23:11 GMT 00:11 UK

Children of mothers who eat plenty of apples during pregnancy are less likely to develop asthma, research suggests.

The University of Aberdeen project quizzed 2,000 mums-to-be on their eating habits, then looked at their child's health over five years.

They found that those who ate four or more apples a week were half as likely to have an asthmatic child compared with those who ate one or fewer.

The study was presented at the American Thoracic Society conference.

The researchers also found a link between eating more fish in pregnancy, and a lower chance of their child developing the allergic skin condition eczema.

Women who ate one or more portions of any type of fish during pregnancy again had almost half the chance of having a child diagnosed with eczema within the first five years.

There are no firm clues as to why apples and fish might be able to produce this benefit - no other foodstuffs were linked to decreases in asthma or eczema.

However, apples are already linked to better lung health when taken by adults, perhaps due to their antioxidant properties, and oily fish in particular contain Omega-3 oils, which, it has been suggested, offer health benefits.

It is, however, notoriously difficult to uncover links between maternal diet and child health, given the numerous other factors which may be involved in the development of diseases such as asthma and eczema.

The Aberdeen team has a group of 2,000 women, who, more than five years ago, monitored their food intake during pregnancy, and then allowed researchers to see what happened to their children.

Proof needed

The project, funded by the charity Asthma UK, has previously revealed links between vitamin consumption in pregnancy and lower levels of asthma.

This time, they feel that while the apparently strong link between apples and asthma does not prove that eating the fruit is the cause of lower asthma rates in children, it does offer a strong argument for a balanced diet during pregnancy.

Dr Graham Devereux, one of the lead researchers, said: "There may well be another factor in the lifestyles of women who eat lots of apples that is influencing this result.

"But it is certainly a clear association, and it is certainly less controversial to encourage women to eat more fruit during pregnancy rather than to take extra vitamins."

Dr Victoria King, Research Development Manager at Asthma UK says: 'This study suggests a simple modification that can be made to a pregnant mother's diet which may help protect her child from developing asthma before the age of five.

"The study supports our advice to pregnant mothers to eat a healthy, balanced diet.

"One in ten children in the UK has asthma so it is vital to continue funding research that could reduce the incidence of childhood asthma.'

More ... on Relationships



MAY 20, 2007.


Judging by the sales of self-help books, you would think relationships are a SKILL, like sawing through metal with a blade, or driving a racing car around an oval.

Readers of these books are fixated on what they think are specifics. The specifics tell them what to do. If X happens, do Y. If he says B, you say K. If she does Z, you do L.

The strategies don’t work. And even if they did, people forget what they are. It’s like watching a puppet whose strings have been cut. Gruesome.


Some people specialize in making impossible demands on their partners. That’s their bread and butter. They know the demand is impossible. They know the other person isn’t going to be able to come through. But they make that demand anyway. They sometimes use the demand as a weapon.

That’s cruel and unusual punishment. If you badly want what that person can’t give and will never give, then walk out the door. Find what you want somewhere else. Stop torturing the other person.

And stop TALKING ABOUT IT OVER AND OVER. Jesus. What is THAT? Stop it.

If you don’t walk out the door, then realize you’re not going to get that thing from the other person. Accept it. Deal with it. Because if you accept the situation, you might just suddenly walk through a whole new door and find out the other person is fantastic in ways you never dreamed of.

Wouldn’t that be something? Something completely unexpected. Something way beyond the rational.


Relationships, on some days, are about a platform where you are having a relationship about your relationship. You are having THAT. And it’s sensational. No, you’re not talking about the relationship. You’re not earnestly discussing it. You’re LIVING a relationship about your relationship. It’s comedy. It’s damn good comedy. Much better than television.


Relationships are impossible. What’s impossible is the demands people place on one another. “You have to do this.” And if you can get past that, if you can drop it, a whole new space opens up. You couldn’t get what you wanted, and you thought you’d just crumble into an old piece of pound cake if you didn’t get that demand satisfied. But you found the opposite was true. By not getting that thing, you got EVERYTHING.


There are many relationships in which one person says, “I really want to do something with my life. I want to follow a dream.” But they don’t. They just talk about it. They talk about it for years. And they begin blaming the other person for their own deficiency. That’s also a load of crap. Stop it. Do what you want to do. Do it. Or give it up. But don’t stand in the middle and get on the other person’s nerves just because you can’t get up the nerve to become a whatever.


Lots of bad relationships speak of a lack of experience with life. A person somehow remains a novice about life. For example, he has no sense of irony. He can’t see the joke in something. He’s still back in the fifth grade taking everything very seriously. Our society is full of these stifled people. In the literal sense of the word, they are retarded.

Eventually, some of them enter the arena of self-blame. This is very fertile ground. They can claim they have a mental disorder. They can seek some kind of help that won’t help at all. They can go on drugs. They can spend 40 years trying to figure out what’s wrong with themselves. They can retire into so-called spiritual systems whose whole thrust is keeping them in a juvenile state of mystery.


You’ll get people who give up on a real relationship and opt for control. But they can’t make it work. They should get a parrot and teach him to speak clever phrases. They should buy one of those little remote-control cars and send it down the street and bring it back.


Lots of people start out feeling they have a great relationship. Then it dries up like the desert. They don’t know what to do. They’ve never faced the idea of inventing something. They have no experience with that. For years, they’ve been patting themselves on the back, because they’ve successfully avoided having to invent anything. They think they’ve won the prize for good citizenship. But then they encounter the desert, and then they get the payoff. It’s not pretty.


Usually in a relationship, one person starts out with more love. He/she loves more. The amount of love is astounding. If the other person has eyes to see, he realizes the love he’s getting is a revelation. It’s boundless and bottomless. At that point, unless he’s a complete dope, he responds. He becomes more than he was. He gives more than he was giving. He enters the miracle.



Diabetes -is it becoming pandemic in children?

Diabetes drug use by US children surges

By Christopher Bowe in New York
Updated: 7:42 a.m. ET May 16, 2007

Soaring obesity in US ­children is creating a dramatic increase in the number taking medicines for type-II diabetes and those with diabetes-related conditions, according to a Financial Times analysis of prescription data.

The analysis, for the FT by Medco, the largest US drug benefits manager, found the number of children taking medicine for Type-II diabetes more than doubled between 2001 and 2005.

In addition, an alarming percentage of children taking Type-II diabetes drugs were found to be taking drugs for serious chronic conditions that normally afflict adults and that are often related to obesity and diabetes, such as hypertension, high cholesterol and asthma.

The steady rise in children using diabetes medicines highlights the increasing public health problem of obesity in the US and around the world. Type-II diabetes was once known as adult-onset diabetes, in which obese or older adults developed insulin resistance and related complications.

Dr Robert Epstein, chief medical officer for Medco, said the children resembled older adults facing chronic problems: "You don't envision that so many kids are taking multiple medications. These kids clearly have a constellation of problems. It looks like the same thing is playing out in children...We really need to take a swipe at obesity."

Detailed data on the problem of Type-II diabetes in children is sparse. But the predictions of diabetes prevalence around the world are dire. The International Diabetes Federation estimates that global prevalence of diabetes might jump to7.3 per cent, or 380m people, in 2025, from 6 per cent and 246m this year. About 6 per cent of the US population, or 18m people, had diabetes in 2002, the American Diabetes Association says.

Type-II diabetes is a growing form of the disease because of its relationship with obesity, and accounts for 90-95 per cent of all cases. In type-II diabetes, the body becomes resistant to insulin, unlike Type-I where the body does not make enough insulin and requires injections.

Medco's analysis of prescription data, which it plans to include in its Drug Trends symposium this week, found a 146 per cent increase over four years in young people aged 10-19 taking Type-II drugs, and 115 per cent increase in all children in the sample.

In Medco data from 2006, children on diabetes medicines also faced other serious problems. About 17 per cent of the boys and 13 per cent of the girls were on drugs for high blood pressure; 5 per cent of both were taking cholesterol-reducing drugs; and nearly 20 per cent were taking narcotic pain relievers, drugs for respiratory conditions and anti­depressants.

Medco reviewed samples of 500,000-600,000 children each year. Of those aged 10-19, about 1.47 per 1,000 were taking type-II diabetes drugs with a clear rising trend.


More about the benefits of OZONE for HEALTH!


What is Ozone:
Through the action of lightning, nature produces ozone for the purpose of purifying the air, and to destroy all organic decay which disease germs and bacteria thrive on. It has however, a greater oxidizing, antiseptic and germicidal power that has been proven for many years. For this reason it is being used with great success for the relief of many diseases.
Like oxygen, ozone is a healthful gas. Oxygen is the most important element we need to survive. We can go without food and water for a couple of weeks, but only a few minutes without oxygen. We are really oxygen burning machines.
Ozone is a highly unstable common gas sometimes called triatomic, or polymeric oxygen. It is manufactured by passing oxygen though a high voltage discharge (corona). Ozone (03) is electrified oxygen (O2) regardless of the technique used to manufacture it.
Ozone is an allotropic form of oxygen: It is oxygen in its most active state: It’s therefore the life giver and a “life sustainer”.

What does Ozone do?
1. inactivates viruses, bacteria, yeast fungi and protozoa
2. stimulates the immune system
3. supports and enhances the healing process
4. cleans arteries and veins
5. breaks up red blood cell clumping
6. purifies the blood and the lymph
7. normalizes hormone and enzyme production
8. reduces inflammation
9. reduces pain, calms nerves
10. stops bleeding
11. prevents shock
12. scavenges free radicals
13. prevents stroke damage
14. reduces cardiac arrhythmia
15. improves brain function, and memory
16. oxidizes toxins, facilitating their elimination
17. increases the amount of oxygen in the blood
18. stimulates production of all protective cell enzymes
19. prevents and reverses degenerative diseases
20. prevents and treats communicable diseases
21. prevents and eliminates auto-immune diseases

Facts About Ozone:
For years the physicians around the world have used Ozone for bringing
curative and relieving results to many, many people. There have been 10-20 MILLION applications of ozone around the world, with virtually 0% side effects.
Ozone is one of the most energetic and useful agents known to science. Its therapeutic action is due to the oxygenation of the blood by the loose molecules (“free radicals”) of oxygen in ozone. It is carried to the various organs and tissues of the body and absorbed, thus oxidizing the waste, and facilitating their elimination. In other words, Ozone increases the metabolism without the expenditure of vital energy.
After careful analytical investigation of disease, this has been repeatedly demonstrated:
Almost all forms of nervous, functional, respiratory and blood disorders can be successfully corrected by oxidative restoration. The effects are perfectly natural; the nerves being left calm, toned with a feeling of buoyancy and exhilaration. It stimulates the vasomotor system through the nerve centers, which fact is clearly shown, increases the redness of skin, a feeling of warmth to the whole body and waste products are more freely eliminated.
Oxidation is the source of Life!! It's lack, causes impaired health, or disease. Its cessation is DEATH!!

False Information On Ozone:

The major exhaust pollutants caused by burning hydrocarbons in oxygen in the internal combustion engine are carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, and sulphur dioxide. Ozone cannot be produced in the internal combustion engine because the hydrocarbon fuel quenches the spark gap.
Ozone has been incorrectly blamed for smog. Carbon monoxide, a deadly poison, is present in smog at about 3000 parts per hundred million. Toxic hydrocarbons are present in smog at about 100 parts per hundred million. Ozone is present in smog only briefly at around 25 parts per hundred million. Ozone has a half life of about 20 minutes.
Ozone in smog is produced by the effect of the sun's energetic photons acting on polluting gases. Single molecules of oxygen are broken off these gases momentarily, but in seconds it reattaches itself to the other gases, which is part of nature's system for cleaning the atmosphere.
The problem is not one of too much ozone in smog, but not enough ozone in the smog. If sufficient amounts existed, the pollutants would all be oxidized and rendered harmless.
Ozone is easy to measure, so they use this deceitful tactic to smear the name of ozone. Carbon monoxide is a proven killer. Ozone is a proven health enhancer. Yet, you never hear of a carbon monoxide alert.

Other Diseases Ozone Treats Or Cures:

Acariasis Cryptospiridiosis
Acrodermatitis Cytomegalovirus
Acute otitis media
Acute vestibulopathy
Addisons disease
allergies/hayfever ALL types
Alopecia Ehrlichiosis
ALS (Lou Gehrig disease)
Alzheimer's disease
Anal fissures
Ankylosing spondylitis
Apthous stomatitis
Arterial occlusion
Athlete's foot
back problems
bacterial infections
Bacterial pneumonia
Bell palsy
blood disorders
Bornholm myalgia
Bronchopulmonary aspergillus
Bullous pemphigus
Burkit lymphoma
Cancer ALL types
candida albicans
candidosis vaginalis
canker sores
Cavernous sinus thrombosis
Cerebral atrophy
cerebral sclerosis
Cerebro vascular accident
Chagas disease
Chicken pox
Chronic pain
Chronic pulmonary disease
chrons disease
circulatory problems
Cirrhosis of the liver
Colorado tick fever
Contact dermatitis
corneal ulcers
Cutaneous larva migrans
decubitus ulcers
Dengue fever
ear infections
Enteric fever
Enteritis necroticans
Environmental hypersensitivity
Epidermoid carcinoma
Epidermolitic keratosis
Epstein-Barr virus
Erythema migrans
Food poisoning
Fulminant varicella
fungal diseases – ALL types
gastrodujodenal ulcers
gastrointestinal disorders
Genital warts
Glomerular membrane disease
Goodpasture syndrome
Gout Ocular trachoma
Graves disease
Guillan-Barre syndrome
Hairy leukoplakia
Heart arrhythmia
Heart disease
Hemolytic anemia
Hemorrhagic fever
Hepatitis ALL types
Herpes ALL types
High Cholesterol
Huntingdon chorea
Ileitis Polyoma virus
Intravascular coagulation
Ischemic optic neuropathy
Kyanasur Forest disease
Landry syndrome
Lassa fever
lung problems
Lupus erythematosus
Lyme disease
Lymphocytic choriomeningitis
Lymphoid pneumonia
macular degeneration
Meniere disease
Molluscum ecthyma
morphine poisoning
mucous colitis
Multiple sclerosis
muscle cramps
Myasthenia gravis
Mycobacterium avium complex
nerve related disorders
Neutropenia colitis
Optic nerve dysfunction
Optic neuritis
Oral erythema
Orbital cellulitis
Parkinson's disease
Pediculosis Urethritis
Pelvic inflammatory disese
Pernicious anemia
Peyronie's disease
Poor circulation
Postpartum fever
Proctitis Acne Cystitis
Prostate enlargement
Pulmonary Fibrosis
Pulmonary toxiplasis
Relapsing fever
retinitis pigmentosa
Reynaud's disease
Reynold's syndrome
Rheumatoid arthritis
Rift Valley fever
scars after radiation
Senile demetia
Senile macular degeneration
Sennutsu fever
sepsis control
Sickle cell anemia
Skin burns
skin problems ALL types
spider veins
Stiatonigral degeneration
strychnine poisoning
sudeck's disease
Tardive dyskinesia
Thoracic zygomycosis
Thrombopenic purpura
Tinea versicolor
Tourette syndrome
Toxic amblyopia
Traveller's diarrhea
Trench fever
ulcus cruris
Uterine spasm
vaccination damage
Varicella pneumonia
Varicose veins
Vascular retinopathy
viral infections all types
Wegener granulomatosis
whooping cough
wound healing disturbances

It was discovered by Schonbein in 1840 and has been used to purify water and treat patients for more than 160 years. Some major cities in Europe have used ozone to purify the municipal water supply since the turn of the century. The Los Angeles municipal water treatment facility uses ozone, and is the largest in the world. Most swimming pools in Europe use ozone rather than chlorine (Chlorine gas is a WMD) to purify water. It has been known for at least 100 years that ozone is highly germicidal in that it will almost instantly kill virtually all viruses, bacteria, fungi, parasites, molds, cancer, etc. It is known to oxidize just about all manmade chemicals also. Go to the Pharmacology section here to see the evidence.

Here’s a short history of ozone. There have been many other events that happened than the ones included here. These are the best of.

Ozone therapy was accepted medicine in the USA from at least 1880 until 1932, a period of fifty-two years.

In 1881 Dr. J.H. Kellogg used ozone in steam saunas at his Battle Creek, Michigan clinic. He wrote about this in his book, "Diphtheria: Its Nature, Causes, Prevention and Treatment."

In 1885, the Florida Medical Association published "Ozone" by Dr. Charles J. Kenworthy, MD, detailing the use of ozone for therapeutic purposes.

In 1896, the electrical genius Nikola Tesla patented his first ozone generator, and in 1900 he formed the Tesla Ozone Co. Tesla sold ozone machines and ozonated olive oil to doctors.

In 1898 Dr. Benedict Lust, a German doctor practicing in New York and the founder of Naturopathy, wrote many articles and books on ozone. Naturopathy has as its foundation the use of heat, light, air and water. Ozone qualifies as the 'air' segment.

In 1902, J.H. Clarke's "A Dictionary of Practical Materia Medica", London, described the successful use of ozonated water --- he called it "Oxygenium" --- in treating anemia, cancer, diabetes, influenza, morphine poisoning, canker sores, strychnine poisoning and whooping cough.

In 1902, Dr. Charles Linder MD, of Spokane, Washington was written up in an article in a local newspaper which stated that he injected ozone into patients as part of his standard medical practice.

In 1904 "The Medical Uses of Hydrozone and Glycozone" by Charles Marchand, a New York chemist. Hydrozone was another name for ozonated water and Glycozone was another name for ozonated olive oil. This book is in the Library of Congress with the US Surgeon General's stamp of approval on it.

In 1910 Sears sold ozone generators.

In 1911, "A Working Manual of High Frequency Currents" was published by Dr. Noble Eberhart, MD, the head of the Dept. of Physiologic Therapeutics at Loyola University, Chicago. He details the use of ozone to treat tuberculosis, anemia, chlorosis, tinnitus, whooping cough, asthma, bronchitis, hay fever, insomnia, pneumonia, diabetes, gout and syphilis.

In 1912, Dr. H.C. Bennett published "Electro-Therapeutic Guide". He described the inhaling of Ozol, which is what he called ozone after bubbling it through eucalyptus, pine or thyme oils.

In 1913, the Eastern Association for Oxygen Therapy was formed by Dr. Eugene Blass and some German associates.

In 1920, Dr. Charles Neiswanger, MD, President of the Chicago Hospital College of Medicine published "Electro Therapeutical Practice." Chapter 32 was entitled "Ozone as a Therapeutic Agent."

In 1929, a book called "Ozone and Its Therapeutic Action" was published in the USA. It listed 114 diseases and how to treat them with ozone. Its authors were the heads of leading American hospitals.

In 1930 The Journal of The American Medical Association published an article called: "The Therapeutic Use of Oxygen in Coronary Thrombosis"

1931 Dr. Otto Warburg wins first Nobel Prize for work proving cancer is caused by a lack of oxygen in the cells. He states in "The Prime Cause and Prevention of Cancer" that the cause of cancer is no longer a mystery, we know it occurs whenever any cell is denied 60% of its oxygen requirements. This occurs
through a buildup of pollution or toxicity within and around the cell which blocks and then damages the cellular oxygen respiration mechanism.

1938 In the Parisian Medical Bulletin, Paul Aubourg, Honorary Electro-Radiologist in the Hospitals of Paris, published "Medical Ozone: Production, Dosage, and Methods of Clinical Application Using Rectal Insufflation” noted that of 465 patients, the colon capacity varied from 150 to 800ccs so everyone was x-ray photographed to determine the proper dosage. Vaginal insufflations were common. Breathable concentrations of ozone were routinely applied to infected sinuses. Intermuscular injections were abandoned as too painful and ineffective. In 8000 applications of ozone, there were no accidents or harmful side effects.

1944 Dr. Otto Warburg won his second Nobel Prize for his work linking cancer to damaged cell respiration due to a lack of oxygen at the cellular level.

1951 Dr. William Turska, Chairman of the Committee on Scientific Research of the American Naturopathic Association published "Oxidation." He pioneered the breathing of Aethozol (ozone passed through selected oils). He also pioneered
and maintained one of the best methods of putting ozone into the body was to put up to 250 cc's directly into the portal circulation through the rectal veins with no pain, discomfort, or side effects. With repeated application, this completely cleans the liver.

1956 Two time Nobel Prize winner Dr. Otto Warburg published in SCIENCE MAGAZINE "On the Origin Of Cancer Cells."

1961 John Wiley and Sons published in the Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, the symptoms of breathing high concentrations of ozone are acute, there appear to be no chronic affects among normally healthy people because the body has the ability to repair such damages. "No free radical reactions which
directly involve ozone have been observed. During the 80 year history of the large scale usage of ozone, there has never been a human death attributed to it."

1980 Dr. Sweet Dept of obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo) & W. Hagar (St Louis Air Pollution Control) publish in Science Magazine, a U.S. peer reviewed scientific journal, their study: "Ozone Selectively Inhibits Human Cancer Cell Growth." Announced "Evidently the mechanisms for defense against ozone damage are impaired in human cancer cells." "All of the cancer cells (lung, breast, uterine and endometrial) showed growth inhibition in ozone at .3 and .5 ppm" while the normal cells were not affected.” "Evidently cancer cells are less able to compensate for the oxidative burden of ozone than normal cells." They also stated that ozone inhibits cancer 40 to 60%, and up to 90%, yet there is no response from mainstream medicine.

1980 The German Medical Society states 384,775 patients were treated with ozone with a minimum of 5,579,238 applications and the side effect rate
observed was only .000005 per application! (That is virtually 0%) The report also stated "The majority of adverse effects were caused by ignorance about ozone therapy (operator error)."

1983 In Italy 58 cases of Herpes Simplex showed complete recovery in two to five days following ozone therapy. "Results, Herpes Zoster: in all patients healing of skin lesions were observed after a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 12 ozone injections. Herpes Simplex: all patients healed after 1-5 injections. Daily endovenous injections of 20cc.

1983 The chairman of neurosurgery Dr. Jewell Osterholm, at Jefferson Medical
College in Philadelphia, announced that stroke damage can be reversed with spinal injections of ozone. Experiments on lab cats showed the procedure does reverse stroke damage.

SUCCESSFULLY TREATED WITH OZONE "OZONE Removes viruses and bacteria from blood, & humans. Successfully used on AIDS, Herpes, Hepatitis, Mononucleosis, Cirrhosis of the liver, Gangrene, Cardiovascular Disease,
Arteriosclerosis, High Cholesterol, Cancerous Tumors, Lymphomas,
Leukemia. Highly effective on Rheumatoid and other Arthritis, Allergies of all types...Improves Multiple Sclerosis, ameliorates Alzheimer’s Disease, Senility, and Parkinson's...Effective on Proctitis, Colitis, Prostrate, Candidiasis, Trichomoniasis, Cystitis... Externally, ozone is effective in treating Acne, burns, leg ulcers, open sores and wounds, Eczema, and fungus."

1986 Dr. Alexander published case histories of AIDS patients treated with
ozone who are now completely healthy and back at work.

In 1987 K.S. Zanker presents ozone has benefit in cancer treatment paper at the 2nd International Conference on Anticarcinogenesis and Radiation Protection Gaithersburg Maryland "The selectively inhibitive effect of medical ozone
prepared from pure oxygen on tumorous human cell cultures has been known for a long time, and has recently been confirmed once more."

In 1987 Cuban (FDA equivalent) National Inst. For Scientific Research conducts ozone animal studies proving ozone is non-toxic, non-mutagenic, non-carcinogenic. (Ozone won't cause toxicity, mutations, or cancer)

In 1987 Strahlenther Onkol in the German Cancer Journal states: "Recently, evidence was provided that ozone has a selective effect on an ovarian
carcinoma, two solid adenocarcinomas of the ovary and one endomentrial carcinoma."

In 1989 "Ozone Science and Engineering" publishes Immunological Examinations In Patients With Chronic Conditions Under Administration Of Ozone/Oxygen Mixtures;" states "A significant increase in IgG, the most important immunoglobulin in the immune system. must be assessed as an immunostimulation. No immunosuppressive effect occurs, On a long term basis, no kind of immunosuppressive behavior caused by ozone application can be found in the dosage range selected.”

In 1989 "Ozone Science and Engineering" publishes “The Influence Of ozone On Tumor Tissue In Comparison With Healthy Tissue" "The in vitro results clearly show that a pronounced influence on tumor metabolism, which does not occur in healthy tissue, is indeed possible with ozone. Because, here in particular, the respiratory cycle and glycolysis as well as general oxygen utilization in tumor tissue are positively influenced by ozone therapy."

In 1989 Cuban M.D.'s are successfully treating sickle cell anemia, ankle ulcers, farm accidents, and ocular (RP, retinitis pigmentosa) disease.

In 1990 Experimental Chemotherapy publication states: "In vitro Synergistic Activity of 5-Fluorouracil with Low-Dose Ozone against a Chemo resistant Tumor Cell Line and Fresh Human Tumor Cells" "Our results indicate that ozone in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) makes a 5-FU resistant cell line susceptible for the combined treatment modality. Furthermore, ozone acts synergistically or at least additive to chemotherapy in different tumor cell suspensions, derived from the breast and the colon."

In 1992 Science and Technology section of the Canadian Government's Supply and Services Dept publishes "Better Blood Sterilization With Ozone.” “The products of this research have worldwide applications,' says DND's Capt. Shannon. 'In the right concentration, ozone sounds almost too good to be true. We're trying not to be overly enthusiastic, but the data so far is very compelling.”

Ozone works by it’s unstable form. That extra molecule (O3) breaks off and combines with other molecules, and oxidizes them. What is left is oxygen. (O2) This process happens in about an hour. Half of the ozone is gone in about a ½ hour, and oxygen is left.
This process oxidizes all toxins, boosts the immune system, kills unhealthy cells, & helps healthy cells. Ozone also kills all virus, bacteria, molds, mildew, fungus, and cancer.
The way ozone does all this is the extra molecule of oxygen makes ozone unstable. This molecule breaks away and travels throughout the body and joins other molecules. For instance, if there’s carbon monoxide (CO1) in your body, that extra molecule will join with it and turn it into carbon dioxide. (CO2) Your body doesn’t know how to eliminate carbon monoxide, and it will kill you if you get enough, but your body knows how to handle carbon dioxide and will eliminate it. That’s how ozone oxidizes toxins.
The way ozone boosts the immune system is by eliminating toxins, this frees up the liver and immune system to do the job they’re supposed to do again. Virtually every person who has a serious disease is filled with toxins. The liver can no longer eliminate all of them, and passes them on where they circulate throughout the body. When toxins enter the body, the immune system has the job of eliminating them. This makes the immune system weakened, and more defenseless. So by doing the job of the liver & immune system, ozone allows them to do their job again. There are several doctors that say ozone seems to actually take the place of the immune system. The most famous doctor saying this is Dr. Atkins. (Known for the Atkins diet) He treated several people with cancer in his clinic using ozone with good results, until the FDA (Federal Disaster Agency) invaded his office, took all his patient information, and his ozone machines, resulting in patients dying from cancer.
The way ozone kills unhealthy cells, and not healthy ones is through enzymes. All healthy cells have three enzymes that protect them from being oxidized. All healthy cells love oxygen and require it to operate properly. Every cell is really a oxygen burning machine. All unhealthy cells don’t have these enzymes to protect them from being oxidized. This makes ALL unhealthy cells, including ALL cancers defenseless to ozone. Actually cancer is very easy to kill if you can get enough ozone to the tumor. Cancer cells also loose their ability to process oxygen properly, and start processing sugar instead. This is why cancer patients shouldn’t eat sugar. So it is the lack of oxygen, toxins, and lack of proper nutrition that is the cause of ALL cancers.
The way ozone kills all virus, bacteria, molds, fungus, and cancer is they are all organisms that live in low oxygen environments. All of these except cancer lived on Earth before there was oxygen. They all thrived openly everywhere until oxygen thrived on Earth. Then they had to find places to hide like in dirt, plants, animals, decaying organic materials, and places in people that are low oxygen environments.

Now the way ozone cures cancer is the same way it kills the above-mentioned organisms. It was proven in the 40’s by Otto Warburg that cancer sets in when the amount of oxygen normally in the body lowers by 40%, and the cells start using sugar for power instead of oxygen. Think about this, have you ever heard of heart cancer? It doesn’t exist. There is cancer in places around the heart, but not actually in the heart. Oxygen is delivered straight to the heart from the lungs. Cancer is a lower life form like virus, bacteria, etc. Cancer loves sugar, and can’t use oxygen anymore, and doesn’t have the enzymes to protect them from oxidation. So cancer can be killed by ozone.

Ozone (O3) is just oxygen (O2), the air we breath, with an extra molecule of oxygen added. Several ozonides, peroxides and aldehydes are formed during ozone therapy. All are effective in fighting cancer and any disease. A recent study on Vitamin C http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1798 proved “that the growth of cells exposed to vitamin C was reduced by at least 99 per cent. Why it killed cancer cells but not normal cells was unknown, said the researchers. It was possible the hydrogen peroxide caused damage that was repaired in normal cells but not in sensitive cancer cells.” Hydrogen Peroxide is a ozone by product! One reason they didn’t mention, and probably don’t know about vitamin C, is Vitamin C tricks cancer cells into thinking it’s sugar. The tumor sucks it up like it’s sugar, and is killed from the inside out. So this is a very effective combination with ozone. Ozone will kill the tumor from the outside in, and Vitamin C will kill it from the inside out.
There is one thing everyone should know about ozone. There are basically two kinds of ozone. There is medical grade ozone and non-medical grade ozone. Ozone made from pure oxygen, and ozone made from the air we breath respectively. Since the air we breathe is mostly nitrogen, and has pollution in it, ozone made from this will contain nitrous oxide along with other toxins. Nitrous oxide and these other toxins aren’t good for the body. So if you’re really serious about curing, or have a serious disease, then you should get a medical grade ozone generator. A medical grade generator will produce MUCH more purer, and effective ozone. It uses an oxygen tank to make ozone.

Ozone is very effective alone or in combination with other therapies, conventional, or alternative. Ozone is electrified oxygen, and there’s no disease that more oxygen won’t produce better results in.

This is a general summary of the studies on ozone therapy. There are MANY doctors in Germany and other countries in Europe, Russia, and Cuba, that are treating patients that haven’t done studies. So this is only published studies that I can find. There are many studies in Russia and other countries that haven’t been published in PubMed. I would also like to say there are several studies showing ozone can eliminate chemo resistant cancer too.

Clinical Studies:
Total Clinical Studies: 143

20 on cardiovascular diseases. 30 on Surgery and wound healing. 15 on eye disease. 15 on skin disease. 20 on Orthopedic bone and joint disorders. 20 on cancer. 13 on digestive disease. 25 on Dentistry and mouth disease. 15 on viral disease. 5 studies on Ear and tracheal disease. 5 on liver disease. 2 on Hematological disease. 5 on Gynecology. 5 on blood and tissue. 1 on hormones. 3 on the immune system. 5 on Dementia and Parkinson's disease. 3 on Asthma. 1 on Diabetes. 1 on Fibromyalgia. 7 on burns. 2 on Sepsis. 3 on various pathologies. About 15 on various other clinical studies. 3 on Veterinary. 4 using what is called Vasogen's immune modulation therapy, which includes only about 10 cc of blood ozonization and exposure to heat and UV-light.

Preclinical studies:
Total Preclinical Studies: 48

13 studies on cytokines and immunity, In vitro studies:
Studies on the ozone/H2O2 killing action against various pathologies
HIV – 3 studies, Malaria – 3, Oral pathologies – 3, Oral pathologies – 2, Wound infections – 1.
Studies on the ozone/H2O2 killing action against cancer cells – 6
Studies on the protective effects of ozone/H2O2 oxidative preconditioning – 20
Studies on the effects of ozone on the cellular energy metabolism – 4
Ozone/H2O2 therapy in cancer: Animal studies – 10
Ozone/H2O2 therapy in various pathologies: Animal Studies – 30
Other animal studies – 5
Studies on the hemotoxicity of ozone therapy – 10
Studies on the ozone therapy genotoxicity – 7
Other Ozone/H2O2-therapy-related toxicological studies – 7
Ozonized substances: Preparation, toxicology, genotoxicity and properties – 18
Ozone therapy: Technique and technology – 4

Hypotheses, reviews and comments:
Total: 32

General – 18
Viral diseases – 2
Sickle cell anemia and â-thalassemia – 1
Orthopedic problems – 3
Cancer/oncology – 2
Asthma – 1
Ophthalmology – 1
Dentistry – 2
Toxicology – 1
Autohomologous immune therapy (AHIT) – 1

Quantity of Papers:
There are VERY good papers showing ozone is effective against disease, and cancer. Such organizations as the Florida Medical Association, the Library of Congress, the US Surgeon General's, the head of the Dept. of Physiologic Therapeutics at Loyola University, Chicago, President of the Chicago Hospital College of Medicine, the American Medical Association, the American Naturopathic Association, the Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, the Dept of obstetrics and Gynecology, the Washington University School of Medicine, the St Louis Air Pollution Control, Science Magazine, Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, the National Inst. For Scientific Research (Cuban FDA), the German Cancer Journal, Supply and Services Dept. ( The Science and Technology section of the Canadian Government's)

Conclusiveness of Papers:
A few papers show total elimination of tumors. Several show reduction in tumors. Several show ozone is good in combination with conventional treatments. Something about ozone in studies, is either they don’t apply it in high enough frequencies, or long enough time in each application, or in high enough concentrations like you can do at home.

Standalone Ability:
Ozone has great standalone ability. Some studies done, didn’t include any combinations of other treatments. Some are in combination with conventional treatments like chemo.
Personally I believe any alternative treatment should include juicing and raw foods, since all disease is caused by deficiency (in nutrition) and toxicity. (from manmade products) I also believe Vitamin C IV’s are also the perfect combination to ozone. Killing the tumor from the inside out with Vitamin C, and outside in with Ozone. Combinations with other treatments are not required at all, as long as you get enough ozone to the problem area.

Ease of Use and Protocols:
There are many ways to use ozone, as one expert says, any way is ok. There are some ways that are better for certain diseases than other ways. It’s usually relatively easy to use. Most applications require a ½ hour at the most. Some require going to a doctor. The most common application, ozonated water, only takes 15-20 minutes of ozonating water and drinking it.
I’m just going to list the more common ways it’s applied, with a brief description. There are other ways to apply it, but they are still in the same categories as the ones listed below.

The methods can be grouped into five categories:

1. Injection - Autohemotherapy - withdrawing 50-500 cc of blood into a container, injecting ozone into it, shaking it up to mix the two, and then infusing it back into the patient over 20 - 30 minutes as an IV drip. Direct Injection – injecting ozone into a vein, artery, muscle, joint, or tumor. There is also what is called RHP Therapy that larger amounts of blood than 500cc’s and puts in back in the body. This is probably the most effective way to use ozone for curing all kinds of diseases. You can see a picture of this therapy being done at http://www.ozoneuniversity.com/RHP.htm You can see the difference in the blood color with your own eyes.
2. Insufflation – Using a metal tube, or plastic adaptor for areas like ears, vagina, rectum, or urethra.
3. Inhalation – Breathing ozone that is bubbled through olive oil, or eucalyptus oil. You can also just turn on the generator on in the room and leaving it on while you’re in there.
4. Ingestion - Ozonating water is putting ozone in a glass of water for 10-20 minutes, and drinking it.
5. Transdermal – Bagging is closing off an area of the body with a plastic bag, and applying ozone to that area. Body Suit is a suit that covers the whole body, so ozone can be applied to the whole body. Ozonated Olive Oil is applying ozone to olive oil for about two weeks, and applying it oil to areas on the skin. Using a funnel connected to the output of the ozone generator, and covering an area of the body. Steam Sauna is a container you can sit in with the head outside of it, with steam and ozone applied to the rest of the body. All of these applications are usually for 15-30 minutes.

Ozone is great at preventing cancer, since cancer happens when the oxygen level in cells is lowered by 40%. Ozone will keep this from ever happening, as long as you drink 1 glass of ozonated water daily. It’s easy and cheap. 15-20 minutes, and only a few cents at the most to make.

Side Effects:
First of all I’d like to say ozone has been used in Europe for about 50 years, and in other countries like Russia, and Cuba for years now. A 1982 German study of 384,775 patients (5,779,238 applications) documented only a 0.000005% rate of adverse side effects. This is the standard for 0%. This is MUCH, MUCH, safer than ANY drug. Several thousand people die from aspirin each year in America each year, for example.
There are some detox symptoms such as low-grade fever feeling, nausea, sore lungs, or a tired feeling when starting to use ozone. These symptoms usually subside within a few days, and are replaced with a feeling of well being & more energy.
Also there is the famous ozone rash. This happens to 80% of people who apply ozone to the ears. It can be very annoying, itchy, and will also ooze lymph fluid that contains toxins, out of the ears. A very few people can also get the rash, or a mild version when “funneling” the skin. The rash is actually a good thing though. This is the body eliminating toxins, and will go away when the toxins are gone, leaving fresh healthy skin.
So all the “side effects” are really ozone doing it’s job, eventually go away, and eventually will make you healthy again.

Ozone is compatible with just about any treatment, even chemo or radiation. There have been studies showing ozone actually enhances the effects of chemo and radiation, so the patient requires less of them to kill cancer. (As was the case with my wife) Also ozone helps heal the bad effects of chemo and radiation too.
One conflict with ozone is taking drugs, supplements, or even food at the same time. Since ozone oxidizes just about anything, you shouldn’t take ozone 1 hour before, or 1 hour after anything else, to be safest. It won’t harm you if you do, but it will help eliminate the desired result of the other things you put in your body if you do. My family has drank ozonated water MANY times right after dinner with no bad effects ever, but it’s better to be on the safe side. “First do no harm.”
Also don’t use DMSO and ozone together; there have been reports of problems with this combination. There was nothing serious requiring hospitalization, but keep them 8 hours apart to be safe.

Years Available:
It was discovered by Schonbein in 1840. So it has been around longer than any drug, and doesn’t cause any ill side effects, like ALL drugs do.

Cost per Month:
You can buy the least expensive generators for $120-$300 which are good for ozonating water. That is the total cost of operation for this type of generator.
If you are serious about be healthy again, you need a medical grade generator. These can range from $600-$1,800. These require an oxygen tank to make pure ozone, which costs about $75 for the tank, and about $15 to fill it each time. So it would cost about $700-$1,900 for total set up, and then about $7-8 a month.

Critical Information:
Ozone has great oxidative abilities, which can be a down fall when it comes to combining other things with it at the same time. Since it can oxidize just about anything, the rule of thumb is like with swimming. Take ozone an hour before, or an hour after anything else. For instance even when eating.
One other potential problem with ozone is getting it in your eyes. Although it doesn’t damage your eyes, they will turn red, and burn a little for 2-3 days. Now this is in high concentrations, not in normal use. This is with medical grade ozone for instance when ozonating the face area. There are studies showing eye problems can be cured using ozonated water in the eyes. So it does no damage. The reason for the redness is because of a ph change in the eyes, which is good. It’s just that ozone does it instantly that makes it turn red.
It’s the same if you get a really concentrated breath of medical grade ozone to the lungs. It will instantly oxidize all the toxins in your lungs, and the natural reaction is coughing. In reality it’s a good thing, but the symptoms seem to be bad. Again this is with medical grade ozone usually.
Also people may seem to be having a bad reaction when using ozone, like dizziness, faintness or maybe a flu like symptom. These are detox reactions. Some people may also feel energy. So as you can see the symptoms can vary greatly. The bottom line is if you keep it up, after maybe taking a day or two off, you will get through these symptoms, and be on your way to health again.

Here are a few links for ozone testimonials for a verity of diseases or problems. You can find more by doing a search for ‘ozone testimonials.”
All Kinds Of Disease
All Kinds Of Disease
Air and Breathing Problems
Air And Breathing Problems
Skin Problems
Breathing Problems

Email Forums:
Here are the best one’s I’ve found, but there are more.
Here is Dr. Pressman’s ozone group where you can ask him questions.
Here is another good ozone group.

There are MANY manufacturers of ozone generators. Too many to list. I’m going to list just the few I recommend. You can do a search for either “ozone generators”, or “medical grade ozone generators”, to find more.
1. The best medical grade generator on the market is from http://www.plasmafire.com It is made by Dr. Pressman, and cost $1,800. (beta model) It comes with all the equipment you need to apply it all the different ways.
2. Here is another medical grade generator. http://www.longevityresources.com/htdocs/o...ator-ext50.html
$895, but you have to buy the other things to apply the ozone.
3. Here’s a non-medical grade generator for about $300, but does not make any Nitrous Oxide, which is good. http://www.justmagnotherapy.com/ozone-generator.html





MAY 16, 2007. Most people have no idea what their deepest feelings are, and wouldn’t recognize them if they floated in on a barge decorated with a thousand wreaths of gardenias.

In the psychological jargon, “deepest feelings” translates into “what makes me feel most vulnerable.”

You can see a husband and wife sitting on a talk show, can’t you? They both look exhausted and teary, drained and helpless. And this is supposed to be a good sign. A sign of a breakthrough. The two people aren’t the same as when they walked out on the stage.

But so what? It doesn’t take a genius to reduce two confused human beings to tears.

Softening two people down to marshmallows doesn’t bring about a “rescue” of their relationship.

A person’s deepest feelings emerge when he/she is CREATING, and those feelings come into a state of visibility then and only then.

So what does that say about love and relationships? It says that these two forces are created, too.

If you’ve got something else, you’ve got a problem.

And no amount of “exposing feelings” is going to solve that.

The best thing two people can talk about together, if they need to, is re-starting the creative engine of each of them, when it slows down.

Even if you define love as a lightning bolt that strikes both people irrevocably in a moment, what happens when that moment is long gone? What’s happening five years later? The film director, John Cassavetes, once described love as an old-fashioned clock. It runs down, and you have to wind it up again.

Create it again. Start the river moving between two people.

Each person is creating for himself/herself, and both people are creating together.

Leave any part of that out, and you’re in a fix.

What they show you on TV is a set-up. You get two people out there under the nights, and one person has been very nasty to the other person, and the host of the show will somehow start repairing that. Well, why are these two people still together? One is being a complete shit to the other. What’s the problem? Leave. Get out. Separate. And let the victimized person try to figure out how to avoid making such a bad choice the next time.

I know. That solution is much too simple for entertaininment television. People want to see suffering and pain and injustice. So why not just give one person a toxic drug that drives him nuts and let him attack the other person? It would offer about as much insight, which is to say, none.

“He said he was going to buy me a new car, and then he got drunk and smashed up the old one, and I had to pay for it. What can we do to solve this?”

I don’t know. How about two mind transplants?

At least with Jerry Springer, you know what you’re getting. Two or three goofballs who are already fairly crazy and are acting even crazier for the camera. But with the more “sophisticated” shows, there is a pretense that sage advice is being doled out. Newsflash. It’s all moronic showbiz.

Think of any bad relationship this way. You’ve got two people, and nearby there is a muddy swamp filled with mosquitoes and old car parts. Neither person is creating what he/she wants in life. The idea of doing that has disappeared. So they’re slowly lumbering around, trying to avoid an even deeper misery. As the years pass, they move into a well-rounded hypnotic state. Finally, without noticing it, they enter the swamp.

There is a solution for this? There is a fixit doctor who is going to make this work? You can bet the farm against it.

Reality dictates nothing. Changing reality is a one step up from reality itself. Creating reality is THE option.

Along with myth #1 comes a corollary: “Communicate EVERYTHING.”

This is a real whopper. It’s about as effective as self-performed intestinal surgery. Only, in the long run, it’s a lot more boring. Usually, in the communicate-everything league, one person takes the lead. Not just once, but day after day, week after week, year after year. The “communicator.” Something has made this person into the most introspective creature in five galaxies, and the introspection then turns into a Volga River of me-ness and me-feeling-this-ness. The River turns out to be endless. Each new “revelation” is swept under the tide for tomorrow’s next gush. Such people are often products of therapy.

In other words, the society is basically going crazy when it comes to relationships.

And then, to cap it off and make the population think there is some kind of wonderful payoff near the end of the line, we are fed images of very old people, together, sitting on their porches, barely able to speak, but assuredly “full of wisdom.” They made it through. They triumphed.

Really? Wisdom?

Show me two people at 85 who are each still creating a storm, and I’ll think about wisdom. Then, we’re in the major leagues.

Here is the secret. Most people want to believe that a relationship is the grand solution to abandoning the act of creating. The former stands in for the latter. The irony is, a relationship is one of the great tests of the capacity and determination to create.

So the grand solution---using a relationship to cover over a lack of creating power---doesn’t work. It just turns a more powerful searchlight on the basic problem.

Tap dance around that, put on a blindfold, take a pill, turn on the latest relationship guru on TV, read the latest self-help tome, it doesn’t matter. You’ve got your bottom-line electric crackling inventive energy, or you’ve got your boredom. It’s the game of the week, every week. That choice.

Near the beginning of this piece, I said that only through creating does a person discover what his deepest feelings are, as they emerge. Minus creation action, focusing excessively on what you are feeling now, or were feeling, is a shadow game with no resolution.

When you double that game with two people chasing shadows together, the effect is even more numbing, in the long run.

In the process, people are discarding I CREATE and substituting I FEEL.


Modern dentristry-a pleasure, not a scarry way!

Miracle Ozone Dentistry - A New Anti-Decay Dental Practice

By Dr Julian Holmes

Let me paint you a picture. Every Monday morning, dental practices over the world power up for a week's worth of drilling and filling, tooth removal, and reconstruction work. Queues of fearful patients, tearful children being comforted by anxious parents, people in considerable pain, line up outside the doors to their dental surgeries. Once inside, these patients are subjected to the traditional smells of oil of cloves, disinfectants, and the noises of the high pitch whine of the dental drill; the odd scream or two filters through the hushed, usually silent waiting room into the street outside. It is a sad fact of life that every dentist is trained that if there is an area of decay in your tooth, the only way to treat this is to drill the decay out or amputate it, and then place a filling that will have to be replaced at some stage.

For a small minority of patients, where their dental practices have chosen to invest in a new technology, the opposite happens almost every day. The queue is one of bright, cheerful adults and children; there are few smells to associate this practice with the traditional one down the road. The noise of the drill is seldom heard, and happy smiling faces emerge from the treatment room.

Since 1998 researchers, lead by Professor Edward Lynch from Queen's Dental Hospital and Belfast University, Ireland, have opened a radically and revolutionary way forward. The dental profession no longer has to destroy tooth tissue to eliminate bacteria. A simple 60 second (average treatment time) treatment with a device that delivers a burst of ozone will destroy all the bacteria that caused the infection and the decay. It destroys all the organic effluents that are produced by these bacteria; this is shown in Fig 1 opposite. The top data shows the spread of organic bio-molecules produced by an active carious lesion. The lower data shows the effect of 10 seconds of ozone; the profile now consists of a single main spike of acetate acid, and the other oxidation by-product is carbon dioxide. This H MNR research proved that ozone worked as a pharmaceutical approach to caries in-vitro. By effectively sterilising the lesion, minerals from the patients own saliva will re-enter the areas of mineral loss to harden them. Once hardened, it is more resistant to future bacterial attack and mineral loss.

There is in all our mouths a natural balance. Your tooth surface losses minerals into your saliva at certain times, usually just after you start to eat. These acidic conditions favour mineral loss. The normal acid/alkaline balance exists in the oral cavity. When bacteria attach themselves to a tooth surface, they set up a complex community of some 450 different bacterial types over a period of time. If patients skimp on using a tooth brush, or forget to use dental floss on a regular basis, these communities of bacteria evolve into one which produces large volumes of acids. These acids attack the tooth surface, dissolving out the minerals, leaving a hole or cavity. As this cavity now gives the bacterial colonies a degree of protection, tooth brushing cannot remove the bacteria and so the process of decay accelerates.

Yet decay is only an infection process that leads to the softening of the tooth, and the formation of a cavity, so could this infection be treated with, say, antibiotics? The bacteria that cause tooth decay are often found deep within the structure of the tooth, so their removal has to date only been by amputating the infected part of the tooth. Antibiotics and other pharmaceutical agents cannot penetrate deep enough through bacterial pellicle and tooth structure to eliminate acid niche environment. This teaching and technique is based on sound engineering principles that originate from the Victorians! Despite modern advances, there is no simple test that can be applied to a cavity to tell the dentist if they have removed all the infection! ­ or enough tooth material! And if areas of infection are left behind, there is a good chance that the filling placed will fail at some time in the future.

In an attempt to prevent further infection and to restore the tooth to its original shape and function, a filling is then placed. Studies over the years have shown that fillings do not last very long, any where from 6 months to several years. But once a tooth has had part of it amputated, there is no going back. For each time the filling needs to be removed and replaced, there is a little less of the original tooth left and a larger filling. A point is reached where there is no option but to opt for expensive reconstruction work with advanced dental care or have the tooth removed.

The dental professions goal is to help and educate the patient, how to avoid them entering into this cycle of tissue amputation and periodic filling replacement. Oral care education and modern toothpastes have helped reduce the number of cavities, but in poorer communities, those with disabilities and in long term institutions, as well as our aging population, decay is still prevalent. And diet advice is often lacking, so although patients may think they are doing well at home, the process of decay continues! The days of 'Wait & Watch' are over ­ the profession is not entirely sure of what it is watching unless clinicians are using advanced clinical diagnostic tools.

Dental Ozone is a completely new way to look at decay. In the early stages of mineral loss, no use of the drill is required. The treatment is simple, inexpensive (certainly less than the cost of a filling), and requires no injection of anaesthetics. This does of course depend on the use of modern diagnostic equipment, such as the DIAGNOdent (KaVo GmbH). This laser is more accurate than x-rays, and far superior to the traditional mirror and probe that dentists often use. The mirror and probe are tools that can find holes, not diagnose areas of first stage decay. And research has shown that x-rays are very poor to visualise decay in a tooth surface, until it is 2-3 mm inside the inner layer of the tooth.

If the area of decay is deeper, and more extensive, Ozone still has a role to play. The dental drill may need to be used to remove the cover of enamel over the decay, but this can also be carried out with air abrasion. No local anaesthetics are required, and Ozone is used to sterilise the area of decay, without the need to amputate a large volume of tooth structure. In this way, damage to the tooth is limited, and the inherent strength is preserved. Even in really deep areas of decay, Ozone can be used to preserve tooth tissue.

When Ozone is combined with traditional care, then there are a number of advantages that patients and the dental profession can make use of. Ozone can be used to sterilise a cavity before a filling is placed, so there will be virtually no sensitivity after the local anaesthetic wears away. It can be used to eliminate sensitivity after new crowns or veneers are placed. And where wear facets have produced sensitive areas at the necks of teeth, in most cases a simple 40 second application with ozone can eliminate this sensitivity. There are many more applications for Ozone in a general dental or medical practice, and the studies for some of these can be found on www.the-o-zone.cc. This www site not only allows you to find a dental practice which has and uses Ozone, but also allows you to view the research papers that have been published from centres around the world.

There is not a single facet of a medical, dental or veterinary practice where ozone cannot be used in some form for the benefit of patients ­ from the general to specialist practice and health care centre all can take advantage of this new technology.

So, perhaps a Monday morning at a dental practice that has invested in modern technology is no longer the stressful, painful and anxious visit that it used to be. The waiting room in this practice are full of smiles, people chatting to the dental team members as they wait with happy anticipation at being called through for their turn in the treatment room. Mums and dads with children have no fear or anxiety, as they are reassured that modern technology has opened a door for them, that most of the older population had never believed possible. For both the patient and the dental practice, it is a technology that has a winning solution for both; the treatment is fast, it is predictable, it is painless, and also reduces the long-term cost of the treated tooth. For the dental practice, the treatment times are reduced, it is profitable, and the treatment less stressful. For the patient, modern technology has allowed them to have a 21st century treatment, rather than one that is old fashioned, and out-dated.

In a lead article published in 2003 I wrote;
'In the vast majority of dental practices - not just in the United Kingdom and Europe, but throughout the world - the primary method to reverse the effects of decay remains 'drill and fill'. The entry of a patient into the cycle of drill and fill is irreversible. Once a hole is drilled into a tooth, the patient always will have it; and no matter how good a clinician each dentist perceives themselves to be, any restorative material will fail at some time.'
The dental profession has not kept up with their medical counterparts in finding a holistic treatment method for what is a prevalent infection ­ caries. The Victorian principles of amputation to establish a sound foundation for restorative care no longer are valid in the light of new published research and clinical experience.
Ozone at last offers the dental profession this new approach instead of the out-dated and Victorian amputational model.
Dr Julian Holmes, 2007.
The Ozi-cure is a self-contained device to generate ozone gas from air for the use in Dental, Medical or Veterinary Practice for surface application.

The Ozi-cure Dental Unit manufactured by O3 and distributed in Germany by American Dental GmbH. The Ozi-cure achieved CE and Medical Directive Certificates in November 2006.
The treatment times used in dental ozone treatment are short from 10 to 60 seconds (Baysan and Lynch, 2001). The area to be treated and the application of ozone is carefully controlled by localised 'bagging' and high-volume suction.
The use of ozone in dental practice takes dental care into the 21st Century. It sets the standard of a modern pharmaceutical method to treat dental and medical patients;

Studies from Europe (Abu-Salem et al, 2003; Baysan and Lynch 2001; Holmes, 2003; Holmes and Lynch, 2003) have shown conclusively that the use of ozone in dental care is effective as a non-destructive method to manage decay and its destructive effects. The use of ozone has been shown to be the ideal way to manage anxiety of patients ­ young and old - and their carers (Dahnhardt et al, 2003; Domingo et al, 2004).
The effects of ozone reduce tooth destruction in routine preparation (Clifford, 2004; Holmes, 2004; Holmes and Lynch, 2004) and ozone reduces the time and the cost of dental care (Domingo and Holmes, 2004; Johnson et al, 2003) and raises the practice income. In Endodontics, ozone is effective against Enterococcus faecalis (Chang et al, 2003).
Professor Velio Bocci from Milan University (1994) has emphasised that the potential toxicity of O3 should not preclude its employment for medical, dental & veterinary purposes. This statement has been echoed by thousands of health professionals who use ozone in clinical practices around the world, and millions of patients that have been treated.
The correct operation of the Ozi-cure meets all current Health and Safety Regulations in all countries. The Ozi-cure is completely safe when used according to the Ozi-cure Operating Instructions.
Ozone is perceived to be a dangerous gas; let's put this into a scientific context. In 1978 an FDA Report showed that 1.5 million people were hospitalised by pharmaceutical reactions, and there were 140,000 deaths from prescription drug usage.
In stark contrast, a 1980 German Medical Society Report for Ozone Therapy cited 5.6 million ozone treatments carried out for that year. Of the 5.6 million ozone treatments, there were just 40 reported cases of side effects (0.000007%), and 4 deaths from inappropriate administration of ozone gas. Ozone remains the safest and effective pharmaceutical treatment.
In World War I, ozone was used to treat wounds, burns and infections. The modern development of ozone's application to Medicine began in the 1950s in Europe, Australia, Israel, Cuba, Brazil and Columbia. Today, over 9000 doctors, dentists & vets worldwide now routinely use ozone in their clinical management.
Research in Cuba, Europe, the USA and South Africa concerning the anti-microbial efficacy of ozone has continued over the last twenty years and has conclusively shown the ability of both gaseous and dissolved ozone to eradicate a wide range of bacteria, bacterial spores and viruses (Baysan and Lynch, 2001; Ishizaki, 1986; Katzeneleson, 1974; Vaughan, 1987; Whistler and Sheldon, 1989).
A clinical guide for the use of ozone in dental and medical practice is included with every Ozi-cure device sold.
Abu-Salem OT, Marashdeh MM, Lynch E: Ozone Efficacy in Treatment of Occlusal Caries in Primary Teeth. IADR Abstract 2003
Baysan A and Lynch E: Management of root caries using ozone in-vivo. Journal of Dental Research 2001; 80:37
Bocci V: Autohaemotherapy after treatment of blood with ozone, a reappraisal. Int Med Res 1994; 22: 131-144.
Chang H, Fulton C, Lynch E: Antimicrobial Efficacy of Ozone on Enterococcus faecalis. IADR Abstract 2003.
Clifford C: Reversal of Caries Using Airbrasion and Ozone- Nine Month Results. IADR Abstract 2004
Dahnhardt JE, Jaeggi T, Scheidegger N, Kellerhoff N, Francescut P, Lussi A: Treating Caries in Anxious Children with Ozone: Parents' Attitudes after the First Session. IADR Abstract 2003
Domingo H, Abu-Naba'a L, Al Shorman H, Holmes J, Marshdeh MM, Abu-Salem AT, Freeman R, Lynch E: Reducing Barriers to Care in Patients Managed with Ozone. IADR Abstract 2004.
Domingo H and Holmes J: Reduction in treatment time with combined air abrasion and ozone compared to traditional 'Drill & Fill'. IADR abstract 2004.
Holmes J: Clinical reversal of root caries using ozone, double-blind, randomised, controlled 18-month trial. Gerodontol 2003: 20 (2): 106-14.
Holmes J: Restoration of ART and Ozone treated primary root carious lesions. IADR Abstract 2004.
Holmes J and Lynch E: Arresting Occlusal Fissure Caries Using Ozone. IADR Abstract 2003.
Holmes J and Lynch E: Reversal of Occlusal Caries using Air Abrasion, Ozone, and Sealing. IADR Abstract 2004
Ishizaki K: Inactivation of bacillus spores by gaseous ozone. J Applied Bacteriol 1986; 60: 67-72.
Johnson N, Johnson J, Lynch E: Cost Benefit Assessment of a Novel Ozone Delivery System vs. Conventional Treatment. IADR Abstract 2003.
Katzeneleson E: Inactivation of viruses and bacteria by ozone. In chemistry of water supply, treatment and disinfection. Ann Arbor Science Publishers Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich, 1974,