'Ozone therapy' endangered patient's life, court

hears
A retired GP put his patient's life at risk performing a 'bizarre'
alternative therapy with no proven benefits to treat a rare form of
non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a tribunal heard

Dr Philip David Alan Jack, 79, was reported to the General Medical Council Photo: ALAMY

By Rhiannon Williams, and agencies

4:11PM BST 21 Oct 2013

Follow

Dr Philip David Alan Jack, 79, administered 'ozone therapy' to treat a rare form of non-Hodgkins lymphoma
in rooms rented from a company in Staffordshire.

The patient had more than 120 consultations with Dr Jack and underwent 'major ozone autohaemotherapy'
around 80 or 90 times, whereby blood is taken out of the patient, mixed with ozone and re-injected into the
vein.

The controversial alternative therapy purports to increase the amount of oxygen in the body by introducing
ozone into the blood.

Proponents of the treatment claim it can be used to treat cancer, AIDS and multiple sclerosis, but there there
are no peer-reviewed papers on the subject.
Furious specialists treating the patient at Leicester Royal Infirmary found out about the unorthodox
treatment and reported Dr Jack to the General Medical Council.

The medic, who retired from general practice in 1988, but is still fully registered, is facing allegations of
misconduct at the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service in Manchester.

The GMC say the treatment exposed Patient A to the 'hazard of fatal septicaemia' and that the doctor, who
also goes by the names Dr Mathew Jack and Dr David Jack, failed to provide effective treatment as it was of
no proven benefit.

Dr Jack has admitted that he should have shared information with Patient A's GP and haematologist, but
maintains that the treatment is beneficial and of no danger to the patient.

"One of the principle issues is whether ozone therapy is an orthodox and potentially dangerous treatment.
We say it is while Dr Jack says it is not," Alan Taylor, for the GMC, said.

"It would appear this process was done simply with him and this patient in the room.

"There was no one else present and the actual process in the rooms was not supervised in any way."

He added: "We also say that this alternative and clinically unrecognised procedure exposed the patient to the
risk of fatal septicaemia."

Patient A was diagnosed with a rare low-grade form of non Hodgkin's lymphoma in October 2010 and was
being treated for the condition by specialists at the Leicester Royal Infirmary.

The hearing was told they adopted a 'watch and wait' strategy towards the patient as his condition was
asymptomatic.

"That is important, we say, because the action of those treating was not to administer any treatment at all,
but to simply watch and wait because the patient was asymptomatic," said Mr Taylor.

But in February 2011 Patient A consulted Dr Jack, an alternative medicine practitioner who retired from
general practice in 1988, in rooms hired from 'Complementary Medical', the sister company of 'Activated
Oxygen Ltd', in Tamworth, Staffs.

"[Those treating the patient] became aware that Patient A was taking an alternative therapy approach and Dr
Jack practices alternative medicine, and that is what this case is effectively about," Mr Taylor continued.

"The treatment involved cutting out refined sugars, an alkaline-rich diet and also ozone therapy from Dr
Jack once every week.

"Professor [Martin] Dyer and his colleagues were very unhappy that Patient A was receiving ozone therapy.

"His view was that there seemed to be no scientific basis to it.'

Professor Dyer, a senior oncologist and haematologist at LRI, wrote to the patient's GP and later reported Dr
Jack to the GMC, in his correspondence referring to the treatment as a 'bizarre therapy'.

Russell Davies, defending, said: 'This is an unusual case because it is entirely true that that there are no peer
reviewed establishment papers establishing the effectiveness of ozone therapy.

"Alternative therapy is an alternative treatment and the establishment does not advocate or support the
administration of alternative treatments with the exception of specific alternative medicines, for example,
acupuncture.
"The GMC assert that the treatment is of unproven benefit, but as you have heard from my learned friend
opening the case there appears to be a circular basis for that conclusion in that it is unproven because it is
not peer reviewed and accepted by established medical practitioners."

A senior oncologist at Manchester's Christie hospital later branded the logic behind ozone therapy as 'total
nonsense'.

Practitioners of the treatment believe that flooding cancerous cells with oxygen can be effective in treating a
tumour.

But Dr Earnest Allen, an expert witness on behalf of the GMC who has 30 years experience in oncology,
told the panel this flies in the face of conventional medicine, whose doctors strive to find ways to cut off
oxygen tumours.

"I think it is unethical simply to embark on a treatment that you don't know what you are treating and not to
have an assessment of the outcome of your treatment," said Dr Allen.

"I think any reasonable doctor would say I'm not going to treat you, there is no treatment indicated.

"I simply could not understand what the treatment was being given for. I could see no benefit to the patient
from this treatment apart from to keep the patient happy that something was being done."

He added: "The patient had been referred by the GP to an eminent consultant haematologist who is
obviously well used to looking after this problem and whether you want to call this mainstream or
complementary or supplementary, I think it's totally unethical to embark on any treatment whatsoever
without consulting the patient's consultant before undertaking anything.

Dr Allen told the panel he had never come across ozone therapy in his 30 years of practice, but started to
research the subject after being asked to look at the case by the GMC.

He explained to the panel that there are thousands of publications on the subject of ozone therapy, but none
published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals.

The hearing continues.