The controversy generated by the compassionate use of ozone therapy in COVID-19 patients
\nopens the debate about who is entitled to decide what is a pseudo therapy and based on what
\ncriteria.
\nDuring the summer of 2021, a strong controversy was generated [fusion_builder_container hundred_percent=”yes” overflow=”visible”][fusion_builder_row][fusion_builder_column type=”1_1″ background_position=”left top” background_color=”” border_size=”” border_color=”” border_style=”solid” spacing=”yes” background_image=”” background_repeat=”no-repeat” padding=”” margin_top=”0px” margin_bottom=”0px” class=”” id=”” animation_type=”” animation_speed=”0.3″ animation_direction=”left” hide_on_mobile=”no” center_content=”no” min_height=”none”][in Spain] regarding the
\npossibility of using an experimental treatment with ozone as a last resort in COVID-19 patients.
\nIn August 13th, a court in the Valencian Community forced the [public] Hospital de La Plana [VilaReal, Castell\u00f3n] to allow the entry of doctors who are experts in ozone therapy to treat a critical
\npatient. This fact initiated a series of reactions and statements by various professional groups
\nand associations, who were against of a hypothetical judicial interference in medical matters. For
\nthis they argue that ozone therapy does not have “scientific evidence” and that it is a “pseudotherapy”, despite not being part of the list of pseudo-therapies of the Ministry of Health, and
\ndespite the fact that the patient recovered after treatment. Faced with this situation, the
\nundersigned have taken the time to review the scientific literature on ozone therapy, which is
\nwhat allows us to determine its degree of “scientific evidence” or its possible consideration as
\n“pseudo-therapy”.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n