Hydrogen Peroxide

Hydrogen peroxide, H2O2 , was discovered in 1818. It is present in nature in trace amounts. Hydrogen peroxide is unstable, it decomposes violently when in direct contact with rough surfaces or traces of organic or particulate matter. Light, agitation, heating, or chemical substances like carbonates, proteins, chlorides, charcoal, and iron all accelerate the rate of hydrogen peroxide decomposition in solution. One volume of 30% hydrogen peroxide solution will yield 100 volumes of oxygen gas when it decomposes.

At 30-35 %, so-called "food grade" hydrogen peroxide is caustic, producing severe skin burns. It can start a fire if allowed to dry on a combustible surface.

Among the earliest proponents of the use of hydrogen peroxide as a treatment for degenerative diseases like cancer was Father Richard Willhelm, . In the 1940's, while working with a microbiologist at the Mayo Clinic, he "learned that bacteria can gnaw at the joints, cause inflammatory arthritis, give off calcium waste that cements bones together, lodge in the liver and kidney and form stones, leave hard deposits on walls of arteries, short circuit the energy in the brain, cut off the blood supply to cells and cause a loss of oxidative metabolism." From Koch and Warburg's work he heard that "cancer doesn't like oxygen," and because he knew that hydrogen peroxide gave off oxygen when it decomposed, he concluded that it should be used to treat diseases which were the result of "inadequate oxygen metabolism." Willhelm referred to hydrogen peroxide as "God's given immune system."

Willhelm met Walter Grotz, a retired US postal system employee, in 1982. When Grotz complained about the pain that his arthritic condition was causing, Willhelm suggested that each day for several weeks Grotz drink from l to 7 glasses of pure water to which a few drops of "food grade" 35% hydrogen peroxide had been added. Grotz said that doing this made him pain free, and he became Willhelms disciple. As a result of their travels, spreading word about peroxide, peroxide became popular for many other uses such as misting flowers, disinfecting aquariums, oxygenating garden soil, bathing pets, treating livestock and fowl, and washing vegetables and farm crops . Most often however it was promoted as a treatment for human illness because, as Willhelm put it, "hydrogen peroxide joyfully relieves asthma, arthritis, multiple sclerosis, emphysema, cancer, the common cold, herpes, candidiasis, angina, malaria, gingivitis, tumors, warts, lupus, psoriasis, moles, amoebiasis and hemorrhoids."

Proponents also suggested that patients treat themselves at home by drinking hydrogen peroxide, using it for brushing their teeth, enemas, high colonics, or douches, soaking in a bath with it, or massaging it into the skin. Instructions for preparing the peroxide to be drunk are given in newsletters from "health food" companies that sell what is called "food grade" hydrogen peroxide . One proponent states that it takes one week to "clean out" both the "good and bad" flora in the stomach: "When hydrogen peroxide comes in contact with virus and streptococcus (the bad flora) in your stomach, it liberates free oxygen. If your stomach feels queasy after you drink the (peroxide) solution, the peroxide is seeking out and destroying virus and streptococci. The normal flora, the good ones, can then be replaced by eating plain yogurt and health food supplements that contain acidophilus, bifidus and bulgaricus."

Proponents suggest that hydrogen peroxide can also be administered by soaking for 30 minutes each day in half a bathtub of water containing a pint of 35% "food grade" peroxide, by spraying a 3% solution of "food grade" hydrogen peroxide on ones body, massaging it into the skin three times a day, and by rubbing a gel containing 35% "food grade" hydrogen peroxide, glycerin, and Aloe Vera into the skin . Wilhelm describes a "do it yourself" recipe for making hydrogen peroxide pills for those who are unable to drink it. It calls for mixing baking soda and food grade 35% hydrogen peroxide, allowing the mixture to dry overnight and placing the pulverized powder into capsules. The patient takes three pills per day .

Another proponent proposes intravenous infusion of hydrogen peroxide as oxidative therapy . "There is no distinct class of patients that are best suited for intravenous hydrogen peroxide therapy because of the wide variety of pathological conditions that improve from oxidative detoxification, the oxygenation of hypoxic tissues and the stimulation of the immune system that an intravenous infusion of hydrogen peroxide induces. Specific benefits are seen in patients with peripherovascular, cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases, arrhythmias, emphysema, asthma, cancer, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson's disease, migraine, cluster and vascular headaches, allergies, and pain.

In directions for injecting hydrogen peroxide intravenously one is instructed to prepare 100 ml aliquots of sterile l5% hydrogen peroxide infusion solution made from 30% "food grade" hydrogen peroxide and sterile water to be stored frozen in sealed vials. For injection, the stock is diluted with 5% dextrose to give the final 0.075 % product .

When ozone is introduced into blood, it reacts with water in red cells producing hydrogen peroxide. This aqueous decomposition of ozone also produces bactericidal and membrane-damaging free radicals . Ozone used for treatment is prepared by creating an electric spark in a chamber of pure oxygen. The final mixture contains between 0.l and 5.0% ozone, concentrations that are equivalent to from l.0 ppm to 50 ppm ozone in pure oxygen.

Under normal conditions, hemoglobin in blood leaving the lungs is 98% saturated with oxygen. The hemoglobin in one liter of blood can carry about 200 ml of oxygen, and about 50 ml of this is extracted each time it passes through tissue capillaries. The metabolism of a normal 60 kg adult requires delivery of between 200 and 250 ml of oxygen each minute . Since the amount of hydrogen peroxide that is infused into a patient during one "oxidative therapy" session, yields a total of 100 ml of oxygen per day, the treatment can make no significant contribution ones oxygen requirements .

Is hydrogen peroxide bactericidal and viricidal?

Phagocytosis is the principal mechanism for the removal of pathological bacteria and fungi . Activated phagocytic cells are drawn to the site of infection, attach to the infectious organisms, and ingest them. The killing of the organisms takes place inside the phagocytic cell. Enzymes generate superoxide free radicals which are fused by superoxide dismutase to produce hydrogen peroxide.

Hydrogen peroxide oxidizes cellular chloride in the cell to the killing chloride free radical.

Proponents of oxidative therapy propose that hydrogen peroxide kills bacteria because of their low levels of peroxide-destroying enzymes. But there is no evidence of oxygen intolerance in anaerobic organisms. Although proponents allude to a variety of antibacterial, antiviral, and anti-parasitic actions of hydrogen peroxide , they admit that no peroxide-related germicidal activity is found when hydrogen peroxide is infused into patients infected with a variety of organisms . The absence of hydrogen peroxide bactericidal activity has been confirmed by independent investigators . For instance, there is no bactericidal when hydrogen peroxide is infused into blood of rabbits infected with peroxide-sensitive E. coli.

Moreover, increasing the concentration of peroxide ex-vivo in rabbit or human blood containing E.coli produced no evidence of bactericidal activity. Lack of effect of high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide was directly related to the presence of the peroxide-destroying enzyme, catalase. To have any effect, high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide would have to be in contact with the bacteria for significant periods of time. But the large amounts of hydrogen peroxide-destroying enzymes normally present in the blood makes it impossible for peroxide to exist in blood for more than a few seconds. One must conclude that hydrogen peroxide introduced into the blood stream by injection or infusion cannot act as a germicide in human blood.

Hydrogen peroxide does participate in the bactericidal processes within activated phagocyte cells. But when it escapes from the cells into the adjacent extra-cellular space during the inflammatory process, it becomes a major contributor to the tissue damage seen in lung disease, malignancies, and hemolysis. The presence of pharmacological concentrations of hydrogen peroxide in the blood is clearly a double-edged sword which can easily cause as much harm as it can cause good .

Can infused hydrogen peroxide raise blood oxygen levels?

When this venous blood reaches the lungs, it is carrying more oxygenated-hemoglobin than normal. Less oxygen from inspired air is required to saturate it. When arterial blood leaves the lungs it is almost fully (98%) saturated with oxygen and so it becomes impossible for the intravenous infusion of hydrogen peroxide advocated by "oxygenation" proponents to further increase the amount of oxygen carried to the tissues.

...limit of 20 lines reached, additional matching lines are not shown...

Suit Alleges Death from IV Hydrogen Peroxide

James M. Shortt, M.D., who practices "longevity medicine" in Greenville, South Carolina, is being sued by the survivors of Katherine Ann Kurtz-Bibeau, a 53-year-old Minnesota woman who died in March 2004 after undergoing intravenous hydrogen peroxide treatment for multiple sclerosis. The clinic where Shortt works and the pharmacy that supplied the product are also named as defendants. The lawsuit alleges:

The autopsy report attributed her death to complications caused by the hydrogen peroxide infusion, which the pathologist said "had no legitimate use . . . in the medical literature."

6. Ms. Bibeau, then 52 years of age, had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and began investigating natural and alternative treatments for her disease. Ms. Bibeau, who was residing in Minnesota, learned of treatments promoted by Defendant Shortt in his clinic, Health Dimensions, LLC, for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Defendant Shortt held himself out as a “longevity physician.” The centerpiece of Shortt’s treatment for Ms. Bibeau was intravenous administration of hydrogen peroxide, referred to euphemistically by Shortt as “oxidative therapy.”

7. The risks of severe injury and death associated with the ingestion of hydrogen peroxide are well documented in the medical and pharmacy literature. The intravenous administration of hydrogen peroxide has been associated with severe side effects, including acute hemolytic crisis, air embolism, hemorrhage, and death.

8. Despite these well documented risks of hydrogen peroxide ingestion, Defendant Shortt proceeded to treat Ms. Bibeau’s multiple sclerosis with intravenous administration of hydrogen peroxide. Upon information and belief, patients with chronic illnesses from across the United States and even Europe came to Defendants’ clinic in West Columbia, South Carolina, for treatment.

9. Ms. Bibeau was initially seen by Defendant Shortt on October 21, 2003, and underwent a battery of diagnostic studies in search of an alleged virus or bacteria which Defendant Shortt contended was causing his patient’s multiple sclerosis. Although Defendant Shortt was unable to identify any such virus or bacteria from his laboratory studies, he nevertheless recommended intravenous hydrogen peroxide therapy to treat Ms. Bibeau’s multiple sclerosis. Defendant Shortt told Ms. Bibeau that the hydrogen peroxide would be very good at killing this unknown bacteria or virus allegedly causing her multiple sclerosis.

11. Upon information and belief, Defendant Shortt submitted to Defendant Congaree Pharmacy a prescription drug order for 3% hydrogen peroxide for intravenous ingestion by Ms. Bibeau. Upon information and belief, Defendant Congaree Pharmacy packaged and labeled the hydrogen peroxide and dispensed it to Defendant Shortt for administration to Ms. Bibeau. Defendant Congaree Pharmacy dispensed the hydrogen peroxide notwithstanding the fact the government approved label for 3% hydrogen peroxide provides for “external use only” and the well-documented risks of adverse reactions and potential fatal complications associated with ingestion of hydrogen peroxide. Upon information and belief, Defendant Congaree Pharmacy failed to warn Ms. Bibeau of the risks associated with hydrogen peroxide ingestion, perform a drug regimen review, make a determination of therapeutic appropriateness, consult with the prescriber regarding the potential life-threatening complications, interpret and assess the potential adverse reactions or side effects associated with hydrogen peroxide ingestion, or provide pharmacy care to Ms. Bibeau.

12. Ms. Bibeau received the intravenous hydrogen peroxide compounded by Defendant Congaree Pharmacy in the offices of Defendants Shortt and Health Dimensions on March 9, 2004. Ms. Bibeau was medically stable prior to the administration of intravenous hydrogen peroxide and had no prior history of an underlying bleeding disorder or air embolism. Ms. Bibeau complained of abdominal pain and nausea following the administration of intravenous hydrogen peroxide. She returned two days later, March 11, 2004, with signs and symptoms of a bleeding disorder. This included bruising on her hand and arm despite no history of trauma, abnormal amounts of blood in her urine, and severe vaginal bleeding. She was also documented feeling weak, which is another sign consistent with depletion of blood volume.

13. Despite these changes following the administration of intravenous hydrogen peroxide, no medical evaluation was conducted to determine whether Ms. Bibeau was experiencing complications from the therapy provided by Defendant Shortt two days earlier. This would have included, but not necessarily limited to, an assessment of the patient’s blood volume and platelet status by ordering one of the most common laboratory tests in medicine, a complete blood count. Further, to the extent Defendant Shortt was unwilling or unable to conduct a competent medical evaluation in response to Ms. Bibeau’s troubling new signs and symptoms following intravenous administration of hydrogen peroxide, Defendant Shortt could have referred her to another physician or to a local emergency room to conduct such a medical evaluation. Defendant Shortt conducted no further evaluation of Ms. Bibeau, provided her no treatment for her evolving medical conditions arising secondary to the intravenous administration of hydrogen peroxide, and made no referral to another physician.

14. Emergency medical services were summoned on March 12, 2004, when Ms. Bibeau was noted by family members to be weak and confused with evidence of widespread bruising without a history of trauma. Ms. Bibeau was initially treated at Providence Hospital Northeast and then transferred to the primary campus of Providence Hospital shortly thereafter. An initial evaluation revealed a profoundly low platelet count and multi-organ failure. Despite valiant and aggressive efforts by her treating physicians, Ms. Bibeau continued to decline and ultimately failed to respond to treatment. She ultimately died on March 14, 2004, with diagnoses including septic shock, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and multi-organ failure. The death summary also pointedly addressed the role of Defendant Shortt’s “alternative intravenous treatment” in Ms. Bibeau’s death. A subsequently performed autopsy determined that Ms. Bibeau’s death was the result of “cardiac arrest due to systemic shock and DIC due to iatrogenic infusion of hydrogen peroxide.” The pathologist further noted in the autopsy report’s summary that “here is no legitimate use for the infusion of hydrogen peroxide in the current medical literature.”

a. administration of intravenous hydrogen peroxide therapy;

b. failure to disclose to the patient the material risks of intravenous hydrogen peroxide therapy;

d. utilization of a medical therapy, intravenous hydrogen peroxide therapy, which is medically contraindicated and documented to cause severe injury and/or death;

f. failure to work-up signs and symptoms consistent with complications from the intravenous administration of hydrogen peroxide;

h. failure to treat Ms. Bibeau for her acute hemolytic crisis and other complications from the administration of intravenous hydrogen peroxide or to refer Ms. Bibeau to another physician for such treatment; and

a. filling and dispensing a prescription for 3% hydrogen peroxide for intravenous ingestion;

b. failing to warn Ms. Bibeau of the risks of severe and potential fatal complications associated with hydrogen peroxide ingestion;

g. dispensing hydrogen peroxide for human ingestion when the government approved label provided for “external use only;” and

Johnson then recommended intravenous hydrogen peroxide treatments as well as ozone therapy. E.H. declined the ozone therapy but agreed to the hydrogen peroxide treatments.

The hydrogen peroxide treatment was a hydrogen peroxide and saline solution administered intravenously into a vein in the arm, with each treatment taking approximately four hours. Johnson recommended thirteen such treatments. After E.H. had received approximately two intravenous hydrogen peroxide treatments, Johnson installed a PICC line1 in her arm to facilitate the subsequent intravenous treatments. Just prior to receiving her fourth or fifth treatment, E. H. suffered pain in her head and dizziness. Johnson diagnosed this as a "mini-stroke." As treatment, Johnson administered large doses of vitamin C through intramuscular injections into E.H.'s buttocks. When E.H. later developed upper respiratory problems, Johnson gave her additional vitamin C injections. In total, E.H. received seven hydrogen peroxide treatments and three vitamin C treatments, for which she paid Johnson $4,500.

Later, E.H. began complaining of pain in her buttocks and hip area where the vitamin C was injected, indicating an infection in that area. Johnson told her that antibiotics were not compatible with the hydrogen peroxide therapy. Instead he prescribed charcoal poultice compresses, which he made by mixing charcoal and water in a coffee can. Johnson then soaked paper towels in the charcoal solution and affixed them to E.H.'s buttock with paper tape.

Not surprisingly, the pain in E.H.'s hip area worsened. Johnson finally referred her to a surgeon. The surgeon recommended that E.H. begin taking antibiotics and have an ultrasound test on her hip to determine the source of the pain. At the same time, the PICC line in E.H.'s arm for the hydrogen peroxide treatments caused her arm to become red and ache. E.H. then went to see her former physician, Dr. Sylvia Shoffner ("Dr. Shoffner").

The Board issued an Order of Summary Suspension, in which it found that in October 1999, E.H. began seeing Johnson. The Order recited that Johnson diagnosed her as having polysystemic candidiasis; that Johnson told her that he could cure the illness using intravenous hydrogen peroxide treatments; that Johnson injected high doses of vitamin C into inappropriate injection sites that resulted in a large abscess that had to be surgically removed; that Johnson accepted barter payments from E.H.; and that Johnson advertised hydrogen peroxide therapy and ozone treatments on his internet web site. The Order of Summary Suspension concluded that, "as a result of the medical treatment received by from , the patient was misdiagnosed, treated outside the standard of care, and suffered injury as a result." The Order of Summary Suspension also stated:

testified that Johnson told her that he did not want to use traditional medicines because previous studies conducted on E.H.'s liver showed abnormalities and traditional antibiotics might adversely affect her liver. Therefore, Johnson recommended intravenous hydrogen peroxide treatments. E. H. said that she received seven intravenous hydrogen peroxide treatments that each took four hours. E. H. testified that, during one visit to Johnson for a hydrogen peroxide treatment, she had symptoms of an upper respiratory infection. To treat the upper respiratory infection, Johnson recommended vitamin C injections, telling her that antibiotics would aggravate her candidiasis.

E.H. also testified that the PICC line inserted in her arm to facilitate the series of intravenous hydrogen peroxide treatments became loose, that there was an opening between the tape holding the PICC line and her skin, and that her arm became red and ached where the PICC line was inserted. When E.H. told Johnson about this, Johnson told her that re-dressing the PICC line was not included in her pricing plan. He did, however, change the dressing, for which he charged her an additional fee.

showed no indication of candida in the blood. Even if E.H. had had candida in her blood, Dr. Shoffner testified, intravenous hydrogen peroxide treatments were "bsolutely not" the appropriate treatment for candida. Dr. Shoffner explained that there was a difference between vaginal or urinary candidiasis on one hand, and systemic candidiasis, or candidiasis of the blood on the other. She said that typical sufferers of systemic candidiasis are "ritically ill patients . . . undergoing a lot of antibiotics, or they're a dialysis patient, or they're chemotherapy patients," and that candidiasis is properly treated with the use of one of two antifungals. As to the vitamin C injections, Dr. Shoffner noted that vitamin C does not have to be injected into a patient because it is readily absorbed into the gastrointestinal tract, and therefore, can be administered orally. Dr. Shoffner testified unequivocally that injection of hydrogen peroxide or vitamin C as a remedy for candidiasis was not within the standard of care, and that injecting vitamin C into a patient near the crease of the buttocks was not within the standard of care.

At the hearing, TDOH also proffered the testimony of an expert witness, Dr. James Roth ("Dr. Roth"). Dr. Roth testified that, in his experience, there was never a proper use for intravenous administration of hydrogen peroxide, and that studies showed that it could in fact cause convulsions, hemolytic anemia, brain gas embolism, cardiomegaly, and death. He acknowledged that there were two studies, one in 1969 and one in 1996, that supported the use of hydrogen peroxide injections, but maintained that intravenous hydrogen peroxide injections were not appropriate medical treatment. Dr. Roth noted that intravenous administration of hydrogen peroxide is not an FDA-approved use of hydrogen peroxide.

Next, Petitioner/Appellee Johnson testified. Johnson stated that E.H. came to see him because she sought an alternative approach to her illnesses. He admitted that he treated her by administering intravenous hydrogen peroxide treatments. Johnson said that he was very familiar with one of the physicians whose study was noted by Dr. Roth, and Johnson cited two additional studies, both occurring in approximately 1920, that supported the use of hydrogen peroxide treatments. Johnson asserted that he believed that the use of intravenous hydrogen peroxide treatments was within the standard of care in the Nashville medical community.

In its written Order revoking Johnson's medical license, the Board found that Johnson diagnosed E.H. as having polysystemic candidiasis; that Johnson recommended that he treat her illness with intravenous hydrogen peroxide treatments and also recommended ozone treatments; that Johnson administered vitamin C injections into E.H's hip and buttock area in inappropriate injection sites; that there was "no medical substantiation of the diagnosis reached by "; that Johnson "violated the standard of care in the community through his use of hydrogen peroxide treatments for the treatment of candidiasis"; and also that "the patient suffered an injury as a result of said treatment." The Board concluded that Johnson engaged in unethical and unprofessional conduct as contemplated in section 63-6-214(b)(1) of the Tennessee Code Annotated, and that his treatment of E.H. "constituted gross malpractice, a pattern of continued or repeated malpractice, and incompetence and ignorance in the course of medical practice pursuant to T.C.A. § 63-6-214(b)(4)." The Board, for the welfare and benefit of the citizens of Tennessee, ordered that Johnson's license be revoked, and that he be assessed $11,000 in civil penalties.

The chancellor then considered the Board's decision that Johnson's license should be revoked. Referring to the Board's discussion of Johnson's ability to practice alternative medicine without a medical license, the chancellor concluded that the Board revoked Johnson's license based on its desire to prevent him from further administering intravenous hydrogen peroxide treatments to patients.

In this case, the chancery court found that the Board's decision to revoke Johnson's medical license was prompted by a desire to prevent him from practicing "alternative medicine." In the proceedings before the Board, however, there was ample evidence that, regardless of whether it is considered "alternative medicine," Johnson's treatment of E.H. went well beyond unorthodox, that it was below the standard of care, and was in fact dangerous. The Board heard expert testimony that the treatment methods recommended and utilized, indeed advertised by Johnson, were not simply ineffective to treat E.H.'s maladies, but could have resulted in more serious consequences, even her death. The evidence showed that Johnson recommended ozone treatment, a poison, administered hydrogen peroxide intravenously, a dangerous treatment, injected vitamin C near E.H.'s rectum, resulting in a potentially life-threatening abscess, and then treated the abscess with a charcoal poultice mixed in a coffee can. For this Johnson charged E.H. in excess of $4,500, and nevertheless maintained in his testimony before the Board that his treatment of E.H. was within the standard of care in the Nashville medical community. Based on this record, the Board's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, was not an abuse of discretion, and was clearly supported by substantial and material, indeed compelling, evidence. Consequently, we must reverse the decision of the chancery court, and uphold the Board's decision to revoke Johnson's medical license. The chancery court's decision upholding the civil penalties assessed against Johnson was not appealed, and is therefore affirmed.

E.H. testified that she brought her own chair, a recliner, to Johnson's office. Presumably, this was to make her more comfortable for the lengthy hydrogen peroxide treatments.

Hydrogen Peroxide for AIDS and Cancer

The Food and Drug Administration warned today that industrial strength hydrogen peroxide illegally promoted to treat AIDS and cancer has caused at least one death in Texas and several injuries requiring hospitalization.

The products are sold as "35 percent Food Grade Hydrogen Peroxide" to be diluted and used in "Hyper-oxygenation Therapy" for AIDS, cancers and more than 60 other conditions. FDA said there is no proof that either the product or the therapy has any medicinal value.

FDA in February, while trying to halt the distribution of 35 percent hydrogen peroxide by a distributor operating in Brownsville, Texas, learned of two incidents that occurred last year. In August, a 4-year-old girl in Dennison, Texas, poured a drink for her two brothers from a quart bottle that she mistook for water. The resulting injuries required more than six months of medical care and cost thousands of dollars in expenses. Then in September, in Conroe, Texas, a mother poured what she thought was water from a bottle in her refrigerator for her two children and a neighbor's child. Her children were severely injured and the neighbor's child died after drinking the liquid.

Materials promoting the product often include printed pages resembling magazine articles along with alleged testimonials that blend various medical facts with fictitious claims and offer the view that hydrogen peroxide's benefits are suppressed by the medical establishment and the government.

The promotion of hydrogen peroxide as a home remedy has continued and has reappeared despite efforts of FDA beginning in 1985 to get distributors of 35 percent hydrogen peroxide to stop making the illegal claims. FDA is not aware of any medical benefits from consuming hydrogen peroxide in any form; no information or applications have been submitted to the agency to support any drug claims for taking this chemical internally.

Various types of oxidizing agents are discussed in the popular literature on unconventional cancer treatments and at meetings sponsored by advocacy and information groups such as the Cancer Control Society (162). Although not apparently widespread in the United States, the use of oxidizing agents has been reported at clinics in Mexico and West Germany where U.S. cancer patients are treated (289,588). The most commonly mentioned treatments of this type are ozone (a gas), hydrogen peroxide (a liquid), antioxidant enzymes, and related products (853). Oxidizing agents such as ozone and hydrogen peroxide are commonly available and have a variety of mainstream uses: as antiseptic, disinfectant, and cleansing agents, as laboratory chemical reagents, and in the food packaging industry. In addition to their use in unconventional cancer treatments, oxidizing agents are also proposed as components of unconventional treatments for AIDS, cardiovascular disease, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, and a variety of other conditions (96,297).

Hydrogen peroxide is given in dilute form by various routes -- oral, rectal, intravenous, vaginal, and in bathing. Proponents state that hydrogen peroxide oxidizes toxins, kills bacteria and viruses, and stimulates immunity (364). One unconventional practitioner, Kurt Donsbach, who treats cancer patients in Tijuana, formulated a line of products using hydrogen peroxide, including ear drops, nasal spray, and tooth gel. Donsbach states that every cancer patient at his clinic in Tijuana receives dilute "infusions of the 35% food grade hydrogen peroxide throughout their entire stay" (262). In 1988, the U.S. Postal Service issued Donsbach a cease and desist order to stop him from claiming that the hydrogen peroxide used orally or intravenously is effective against cancer or arthritis, or that it is fit for human consumption (69). Another clinic, the Gerson clinic in Tijuana, has recently added ozone therapy to their regimen, partly on the basis of the laboratory study by Sweet and colleagues referred to above (401). Patients at the Gerson clinic are commonly given ozone enemas, consisting of 500 to 1000 cc of ozone given rectally in less than one minute (318).

Oxidizing agents, such as ozone and hydrogen peroxide, can destroy cells, including those of the blood-forming organs, and at some doses, can be seriously damaging or even lethal (860).

Practitioners who advocate this type of therapy argue that diseases develop in people whose bodies lack sufficient oxygen. They claim that hydrogen peroxide is an effective treatment because it increases the cellular oxygen levels, thereby correcting the alleged deficiency. "Oxidative therapy" has also been promoted for the treatment of cancer, asthma, emphysema, AIDS, arthritis, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease. There is no scientific evidence that lack of cellular oxygen occurs as described by "oxidative therapy" proponents, that swallowing or injecting oxygen-rich substances actually effects cellular oxygen levels, or has any effect on the diseases it is used to treat. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society and the American Cancer Society have both warned that hydrogen peroxide therapy has not been proven safe or effective. The National Multiple Sclerosis Society was made in response to the death of a woman who had received hydrogen peroxide therapy .

Important medical alert: Hydrogen peroxide. National Multiple Sclerosis Society Web site, Sept 2004.

American Cancer Society. Questionable methods of cancer management: Hydrogen peroxide and other "hyperoxygenation" therapies. CA—A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 43:47-55, 1993.

Suit alleges death from IV hydrogen peroxide. Quackwatch, revised Oct 7, 2004.

encouraged him to open the Carolina Center for Alternative and Nutritional Medicine in Raleigh in 1994, where he offered "supplemental nutrition therapy," intravenous ozone and hydrogen peroxide, EDTA chelation therapy, lymphatic massage, and colon hydrotherapy and "detoxification." In 1998 and 1999, his treatment typically cost about $3,800 for the first week and $1,600 for each additional week. During this period, patients were asked to sign a "Request for Admission" form which stated that "the Carolina Center has a goal of collecting laboratory and clinical data for research purposes." However, I am not aware of any research report that Pittman has published.

In an article posted to the Internet in 1998, Pittman claimed that "chronic oxygen deprivation" is a major cause of disease and that "bio-oxidative therapy" with ozone or hydrogen peroxide can "(1) increase metabolic efficiency of all cells; (2) stimulate cellular immunity (protects against infections) and suppress humoral immunity (allergic reactions); (3) regulate cytokines which control the action of all immune system cells; (4) regulate hormone production; (5) increase energy production; (6) exert a direct killing effect of bacteria, viruses, yeasts, and cancer cells; and (7) stimulate the production of more natural antioxidant enzymes." However, these notions are unsubstantiated and lack a scientifically plausible rationale.

Whereas after attempting other forms of treatment, Dr. Pittman decided to treat the above conditions with ozone and a diluted form of hydrogen peroxide, administered intravenously (IV), and

Whereas because of the risk of hemolysis, it is important to be aware of a patient's hemoglobin and hematocrit lab values before instituting and during IV hydrogen peroxide treatment, and

Whereas by instituting IV ozone and hydrogen peroxide treatment on a patient who indicated on her initial intake form she was a member of Jehovah's Witnesses without being more attentive to her hemoglobin and hematocrit, the possibility that she might require a blood transfusion but might refuse it, and documentation of these matters, Dr. Pittman departed from, or failed conform to, the standards of acceptable and prevailing medical practice, within the meaning of 90-14(a) (6) which is grounds under that section of the North Carolina General Statutes for the board to annul, suspend, revoke, condition, or limit Dr. Pittman's license to practice medicine and surgery issued by the Board, and

2. Dr. Pittman will not use IV ozone or hydrogen peroxide therapy in his practice until the Board explicitly orders otherwise.

98. Bradford, R.W., and Culbert, M.L., "Hydrogen Peroxide," Health Consciousness 10(1):28-29, 1989.

262. Donsbach, K., Hydrogen Peroxide, booklet, (no publisher listed), 1987.

860. Turner, F.J., "Hydrogen Peroxide and Other Oxidant Disinfectants," Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation, 3rd ed., S.S. Block (ed.) (Phildelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger, 1983).

American Cancer Society. Questionable methods of cancer management: Hydrogen peroxide and other "hyperoxygenation" therapies. CA—A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 43:47-55, 1993.

In South Carolina, the widow of a man who died of prostate cancer filed suit against a Lyme doctor who gave her husband intravenous hydrogen peroxide and falsely diagnosed him as having Lyme disease. The doctor also prescribed testosterone, which caused his cancer to rapidly advance, resulting in his death about six weeks later.

Hoxsey treatment, 75 hydrogen peroxide infusions, 114 Immuno-Augmentative Therapy, 131

The nutritional supplementation recommended by Kelley consisted of 25 supplements (enzymes, vitamins, glands, minerals, hydrogen peroxide, aloe vera, bile salts, freeze- dried liver, etc.) that were to be taken for a two-year period. In the standard protocols, patients were classified as "hard tumor" and "soft tumor" patients and were recommended the same list of supplements, although "soft tumor" patients were advised to take a few extra foods. Some patients were given specific recommendations tailored to them and in these, patients often were advised to take additional supplements beyond the 25 listed in the standard protocol. Patients were referred to Kelley's Nutritional Counseling Service in Texas for additional information.