Rectal Insufflation vs. Major Autohemotherapy: Pros and Cons
Ozone Therapy
Ozone therapy is gaining recognition for its potential health benefits, and two common methods of administration are rectal insufflation (RI) and major autohemotherapy (MAH). Both involve introducing ozone into the body, but they differ significantly in their approach. This blog post will explore the differences between these two methods, drawing on information presented in the study "Ozone in Medicine: Clinical Evaluation and Evidence Classification of the Systemic Ozone Applications, Major Autohemotherapy and Rectal Insufflation, According to the Requirements for Evidence-Based Medicine," to help you understand which might be a better fit for your needs.
What is Ozone Therapy?
Ozone therapy involves the use of medical-grade ozone (O3), a highly reactive form of oxygen, to potentially improve various health conditions. While research is ongoing, many studies from around the world suggest ozone therapy may offer benefits related to immune function, circulation, and reducing inflammation. It's important to note that ozone therapy is still considered complementary and alternative medicine, and its efficacy is a subject of ongoing scientific investigation. We recommend that you consult with a qualified healthcare professional before starting any ozone therapy.
Major Autohemotherapy (MAH)
MAH involves drawing a small amount of blood from the patient, mixing it with ozone gas, and then reinfusing the ozonated blood back into the patient's bloodstream intravenously. This method allows the ozone to directly interact with the blood components, potentially triggering various biological responses.
- Pros: MAH allows for a more direct and potentially systemic distribution of ozone throughout the body. It's often considered a more potent form of ozone therapy.
- Cons: MAH is an invasive procedure requiring a blood draw and intravenous infusion, which may carry a slightly higher risk of complications compared to RI. MAH requires the use of a blood thinning agent such as Herapin which can have severe side-effects.
Rectal Insufflation (RI)
RI involves introducing ozone gas into the rectum. The ozone is then absorbed through the rectal mucosa and enters the bloodstream. This method is less invasive than MAH.
- Pros: RI is a less invasive and generally more comfortable procedure than MAH. It can be easily administered in a clinical setting or even at home (with proper training).
- Cons: RI may result in a lower systemic concentration of ozone compared to MAH, as the ozone must be absorbed through the rectal lining before entering the bloodstream.
Comparing the Two:
The study mentioned earlier highlights the importance of evidence-based medicine when evaluating ozone therapies. While both MAH and RI have been used in clinical practice, the level of scientific evidence supporting their use for specific conditions varies.
- Invasiveness: MAH is more invasive than RI.
- Ozone Concentration: MAH typically leads to higher ozone concentrations in the bloodstream compared to RI. This is not always a good thing. According to best practice, ozone therapy should "start low and go slow." For this reason, home ozone therapy using protocols such as RI on a regular basis such as three times per week, gradually building up over time is a very valuable approach
- Administration: MAH requires a trained medical professional for blood draws and IV infusions plus blood thinning agents. RI can be easily self-administered after proper training. This is why Natural Ozone have spent vast resources building up the library of videos, articles and scientific papers known as the Knowledge Centre to assist clients in their training.
- Cost: MAH procedures typically cost upwards of NZD250 for each clinic visit due to the increased complexity and medical supervision required. Home ozone therapy requires a set-up cost starting from around NZD1700 but after that, the cost is negligible for years to come.
- Access: While many countries around the world including Spain, Italy, China, Russia and Cuba give access to ozone therapy through their public health system, in other places such as New Zealand, Australia and the USA, access to clinic based treatments such as MAH is very restricted or even non-existent. Home ozone therapy can be performed by most people, even those with chronic illnesses.
Which is Right for You?
The best method of ozone therapy for you will depend on your individual health needs, preferences, and the recommendations of your healthcare provider. Factors to consider include:
- Specific Health Condition: Some conditions may be better suited to one method over the other.
- Tolerance: If you are uncomfortable with needles or blood draws, RI might be a preferable option.
- Cost: RI is generally more affordable than MAH.
- Availability: The availability of practitioners trained in each method may vary.
Conclusion:
Both rectal insufflation and major autohemotherapy offer different approaches to ozone therapy. While MAH provides a more direct and potentially higher dose of ozone, RI is a less invasive and more accessible option. It's crucial to discuss your individual needs and health goals with a qualified healthcare professional to determine the most appropriate and safest course of treatment. Further research is needed to fully understand the benefits and risks of both methods and to establish clear guidelines for their use in various health conditions.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Please consult with a qualified healthcare professional 1 before starting any ozone therapy