EBO2 (EBOO) for Mold Toxicity and CIRS: Clinic Claims, Mycotoxin Tests, and the Evidence

If a clinic has offered EBO2 (also called EBOO) to clear mold toxins, or has suggested a urine mycotoxin test to decide whether you need it, this guide sets both against the record: what clinics’ own pages claim, what the tests can and cannot show, what the one EBOO case report on mycotoxins measured, and what CDC and medical societies describe as the response to a moldy building. The short answer is that no study has tested EBO2 in people with mold-related illness. The single case report that measured urinary toxins followed one 88-year-old woman, without a comparison, and its own table shows several results higher at the last test than at the first. CDC says there is no FDA-approved test for mycotoxins in human urine [3]. A list of questions to take to a clinic is near the end.

What clinics’ EBO2 pages say about mold

We read the EBO2 pages of the clinics in our directory and recorded, in each clinic’s own words, the health benefits it claims. As of October 4, 2026, we could read the pages of 174 clinics. 151 of them claim detoxification of some kind, and 90 claim a benefit for Lyme disease or mold illness; we record those two together, so the “From our data” bar below counts them as one. To separate them we use the wording itself: the claim wording we recorded names mold, mycotoxins, biotoxins, or chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS) for 51 clinics. We save up to four quotes per clinic, so that count is a floor.

Within those 51 clinics:

• Mold is almost always one item in a list. 48 of the 51 name it in the same sentence or list as other conditions, and 40 of the 51 also name Lyme disease.
• Detoxification is the frame. 49 of the 51 also claim detoxification. In the wording of 7, the procedure removes, neutralizes, or destroys mold or mycotoxins.
• Most pages do not say whether EBO2 is FDA-approved. 43 of the 51 EBO2 pages do not say whether EBO2 or its equipment is FDA-approved, 6 say EBO2 is not FDA-approved, and 2 say their equipment is FDA-cleared, registered, or approved, which concerns a device and not the treatment; our guide to EBOO devices and FDA status explains the difference.
• 12 of the 51 pages carry patient testimonials.

The specific terms are rarer than the general ones: across all 174 readable clinics, the recorded wording of 8 uses the word mycotoxin, 3 biotoxin, and 2 CIRS. We publish these claims only as counts. A claim on a clinic’s page is the clinic’s statement, not evidence. Our guide to reading a clinic’s EBO2 page covers “detox” wording, and our guide to what the filter removes looks at the device side of the “toxin” claim.

What has been studied: one case report and a food-science literature

No entry in our research library tests EBO2 or any other ozone therapy in people with mold-related illness or CIRS. Of the six entries the library tags as EBOO studies, listed in the “From our data” table below, one measured mycotoxins. The other relevant entry is about grain.

What the one EBOO case report measured

The Bennett report is the only published measurement we found of toxins before and after EBOO, so its details matter. Read in full, it shows the following [8].

• The patient and her exposure. She came to the clinic about heavy metal toxicity as a possible contributor to anemia she had had for about 10 years. She lived in an old building with plumbing and wiring from the 1930s and described being constantly exposed to heavy metals, mold, and other toxins there; the report describes no change to that exposure, although its own background section says management of high mycotoxin levels “is primarily supportive and focuses on preventing further exposure”.
• The tests. Urine samples went to a clinical laboratory that based its reference ranges on national survey data and about 1,000 apparently healthy people, with the upper limit at the 95th percentile. Results are given as toxin per gram of creatinine, and her urine creatinine varied from 1.59 to 0.49 to 2.28 mg/mL across the three tests, the last above the laboratory’s range.
• What was selected. The laboratory panel covered 29 mycotoxins. Four were above the laboratory’s range at the first test and none at the last. The 64.8% average decline is for the seven mycotoxins the report lists as “high and suboptimal” at baseline, and three of those seven were inside the range to begin with. Of all 29, nine were higher at the last test than at the first, all within range; ochratoxin A, for example, went from 1.74 to 3.00 ng/g.
• The metals. All four heavy metals the authors tracked were within the laboratory’s range at the first test. Nickel rose from 7.47 to 9.77 µg/g, and barium rose between the two series after falling during the first.
• The patient’s course. Her hemoglobin was 7.4 g/dL at the start, 6.8 after the first series, and 7.5 after the second, which the report calls largely unchanged. At a later visit she said she felt more tired than after the first series, and her care turned to her anemia under her hematologist.
• The authors’ own words. They write that the mechanism “cannot be established from a single case” and that follow-up monitoring could show “whether the EBOO is the source of the large decline in toxin levels”. They declare no financial relationships with organizations interested in the work.
• Reporting. The paper dates the first test both December 19, 2024 and December 19, 2025, while the later tests are dated February and April 2025.

With no untreated comparison, the report cannot separate any effect of EBOO from the tendency of unusually high results to be lower when retested, or from changes in diet, which CDC gives as the reason mycotoxins appear in the urine of healthy people [3]. The FTC, describing what it expects of health claims, lists “spontaneous changes in subjects’ health” among the explanations for improvement in a treated group alone [11].

What CDC and medical societies say about mycotoxin tests

CDC addressed urine mycotoxin testing directly in a 2015 report from its National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, after a worker’s direct-to-consumer urine test led to a mold-toxicity diagnosis and an inspection that found no water damage [3]. Its statements are short:

• “There is no FDA-approved test for mycotoxins in human urine.” [3]
• “Low levels of mycotoxins are found in many foods; therefore, mycotoxins are found in the urine of healthy persons.” [3]
• “Mycotoxin levels that predict disease have not been established.” [3]
• “CDC does not recommend biologic testing of persons who work or live in water-damaged buildings nor routine environmental sampling for mold.” [3]

The same report notes that a laboratory’s CLIA certification covers its quality standards but does “not address the clinical validity of testing” [3]. CDC’s current mold pages add that it “does not recommend mold testing” in homes, because health effects differ from person to person and “there are no set standards” for an acceptable amount of mold [1], and that for Stachybotrys chartarum, a greenish-black mold, “no test exists that proves an association” with particular symptoms [2].

Specialist reviews reach similar conclusions. A 2006 position paper in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology describes mold causing disease “through several well-defined mechanisms”, among them asthma, allergic rhinitis, sinusitis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis, while “many new mold-related illnesses have been hypothesized in recent years that remain largely or completely unproved” [4]. A 2003 review in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine concludes that the link between indoor molds and building-related symptoms “remains weak and unproven, particularly with respect to causation by mycotoxins”, and notes that Stachybotrys “is blamed for a diverse array of maladies when it is found indoors” [5]. A 2024 review built on Germany’s 2023 medical guideline on indoor mold says indoor measurements of mold fungi, microbial volatile organic compounds, or mycotoxins are “generally not indicated” as part of a medical evaluation, “nor are blood or urine tests for particular mold components or metabolites” [6].

What the CIRS literature says, and does not say

CIRS is described by its proponents as an immune disorder that follows exposure to water-damaged buildings [7]. The 2024 review that makes the case for it searched for treatments and found 13 articles, concluding that “the only treatment with documented clinical efficacy was the Shoemaker Protocol” [7]. That protocol’s first step, the review says, is avoiding exposure through inspection, remediation, cleaning or replacing contaminated items, or moving, followed by drugs such as cholestyramine [7]. The review’s own table lists two randomized trials, with 8 and 13 participants, both with Shoemaker as lead author; the rest are case series, open-label trials, case-control studies, and descriptive reports [7]. Its statement that CIRS “can affect up to 25% of the population” rests on a cited estimate that about a quarter of people are genetically susceptible [7]. The authors list no university or hospital affiliation, and the review does not mention ozone, EBO2, or EBOO anywhere [7]. A clinic that offers EBO2 under a CIRS banner is not offering the protocol that review endorses.

What regulators have said

No regulatory record in our tracker addresses EBO2 for mold illness by name. The records that apply are general.

• FDA. Its device rule states that “Ozone is a toxic gas with no known useful medical application in specific, adjunctive, or preventive therapy” [12]. Ozone therapy is not FDA-approved for mold toxicity, CIRS, or any other condition. CDC notes separately that no urine mycotoxin test is FDA-approved [3].
• UK advertising regulator. In 2022 the Advertising Standards Authority ruled against a UK clinic’s claims that IV ozone therapy was “Anti-Bacterial, Anti-Viral and Anti-Fungal”, and told it not to repeat them without “a substantive body of evidence to support those claims, including clinical trials conducted on people” [10].
• FTC standard for health claims. The FTC’s 2022 guidance says health benefits generally need “randomized, controlled human clinical testing” and that anecdotal evidence about consumers’ experiences is “never sufficient to substantiate claims about the effects of a health product” [11].

What CDC describes as the response to mold

This section describes what CDC and the guideline-based review say; it is information, not a treatment plan. CDC’s first step is the building: “If mold is growing in your home, you need to clean up the mold and fix the moisture problem”, and “You do not need to know the type of mold” [1]. It recommends keeping indoor humidity no higher than 50%, fixing leaks, and drying out within 24 to 48 hours after a flood [1].

On health effects, CDC says exposure “may cause a variety of health effects, or none at all”, lists stuffy nose, sore throat, coughing or wheezing, burning eyes, and skin rash, notes more severe reactions in people with asthma or mold allergy, and lung infections in people with weakened immune systems or chronic lung disease [1]. It cites a 2004 Institute of Medicine finding of sufficient evidence linking indoor mold with upper respiratory symptoms, cough, and wheeze in otherwise healthy people, asthma symptoms in people with asthma, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis in susceptible people [1]. For persistent symptoms, CDC says to see a physician [2].

The 2024 guideline-based review sets out what that evaluation involves: a history and physical examination with attention to allergy and immune compromise; allergy testing by skin prick or specific IgE antibodies when there are signs of allergy; immediate removal from exposure as the priority for anyone whose immune system is compromised; and full testing for a suspected invasive fungal infection [6]. Ozone’s documented use against mycotoxins is in a different setting altogether, the treatment of stored grain and food with ozone gas [9]; that work involves no patients and no blood.

Questions to ask a clinic that offers EBO2 for mold

These are questions, not a verdict on any clinic. Our questions for your doctor tool builds a printable list.

• Which study shows that EBO2 lowers mycotoxins in a person’s blood, and did it compare treated people with untreated ones? (The one EBOO report measured urine in one patient.)
• If a urine mycotoxin test is offered, is it FDA-approved, and what level would show disease? CDC says no such test is approved and no such level has been established [3].
• Has the building been inspected and the moisture source fixed? Without that, a person keeps being exposed, as the patient in the case report did [8].
• Has an allergist or a physician evaluated the symptoms for asthma, allergy, or infection, the conditions mold is known to cause [1][4]?
• What will be measured before and after the sessions, how many sessions are planned, and what is the total cost in writing? The session cost planner helps with the arithmetic.
• Which anticoagulant is used in the circuit, and has it been checked against current medicines? Our guide to EBOO, blood thinners, and medications covers what to ask.

How to check for evidence yourself

We ran these searches on October 2, 2026, and anyone can repeat them for free.

1. Europe PMC, the free index that includes PubMed, searching titles and abstracts: TITLE_ABS:(EBOO OR "extracorporeal blood oxygenation") AND TITLE_ABS:(mycotoxin* OR mold OR mould OR CIRS OR "water-damaged" OR toxin*) returned one record, the Bennett case report.
2. Europe PMC, ozone therapy and mold illness: TITLE_ABS:(ozone OR ozonated OR "oxygen-ozone" OR autohemotherapy) AND TITLE_ABS:("chronic inflammatory response syndrome" OR CIRS OR "mold illness" OR "water-damaged building*" OR mycotoxicosis) returned none.
3. Europe PMC, ozone and mycotoxins in people: TITLE_ABS:(ozone OR ozonated OR ozonation) AND TITLE_ABS:(mycotoxin*) AND TITLE_ABS:(patient* OR human OR urine OR serum OR plasma OR "whole blood") returned 32 records. All but the Bennett report concern removing mycotoxins from food or animal feed.
4. ClinicalTrials.gov, with mold, mycotoxin, chronic inflammatory response syndrome, or damp buildings as the condition and ozone as the intervention, returned no registered studies.

What we could not verify

• Whether the laboratory’s urine mycotoxin panel has been validated. The case report describes how the reference ranges were set but cites no validation, and CDC says no urine mycotoxin test is FDA-approved [3][8].
• Whether anything besides EBOO changed between the case report’s tests. It says she was advised to start oral iron, vitamin B12, and folate and to ask her hematologist about higher-dose iron infusions, but it describes no other treatment aimed at toxins and no change in her housing [8].
• How many people have had EBO2 for mold-related illness, and with what results. Our dataset records clinics’ claims, not outcomes.
• The evidence behind the statement, on at least one clinic page, that EBO2 removes mold toxins more effectively than other treatments. We found no comparative study.

How this guide was made

This guide rests on 12 sources: two CDC pages and a CDC report, five papers and reviews read through PubMed, two entries from our study library, and FDA, FTC, and UK regulatory documents. The clinic figures come from our own dataset of clinic pages, as of October 4, 2026 (174 readable pages), the searches were run on October 2, 2026, and the case-report details come from its full text, which we read alongside our study card. Drafting used AI tools. A human editor has not yet checked this guide claim by claim against its sources, and no clinical reviewer has signed off yet.