From a chemistry standpoint, I view all claims of therapeutic use of ozone with extreme incredulity.  Ozone is one of the most powerful oxidizing agents known.  It will cleave any unsaturated hydrocarbon and is capable of degrading aromatic molecules that have strong electron donor moieties as well.  Ozone is, in short, a chemical chainsaw.  For many years it was used for analysis of complicated molecules by breaking them apart into more easily analyzed fragments.  Ozone will, for example, completely degrade urea into carbon dioxide, water and nitrogen.  Needless to say, it will cleave any biological polymer such as protein, DNA or RNA into bits.  Introducing such a destructive molecule into the body is about as sensible as drinking bleach.  In fact, it is essentially the same thing.

Anyone interested in the chemical properties of ozone may be interested in this: http://ozone-information.com/Ozone_in_Detail.pdf

Okay, I watched the video.  There appears to be a huge body of anecdotal evidence that people subjected to ozone therapy have experienced health improvements.  Conspicuously lacking, however, are any, ANY, double-blind studies establishing the efficacy of ozone for any medical condition.  I say conspicuously lacking, because the video takes great pains to relate that many hundreds of "peer-reviewed" articles have appeared, primarily in foreign journals, that support ozone therapy.  Isn't it odd, therefore, that out of all of these hundreds of studies, not one of them would adhere to traditional scientific protocol?  The video dismisses this phenomenon by saying "what physician would want to deny half of his patients a therapy he knows will work"?  The answer to that rhetorical question is "any physician who is interested in establishing the truth and whose results may potentially save many more lives than the few he places at risk in a double-blind study would want to risk half of his patients".  

Some of the assertions made in the video are pure and obvious BS.  Ozone is so reactive that it will attack the first double-bond it comes across.  So any claim that ozone is somehow delivering "more oxygen" to afflicted parts is obviously ignorant.  Nevertheless, it is possible that ozone, by chopping up biomolecules into fragments, will stimulate a strong immune and/or metabolic response from the body to what it perceives as an obvious attack.  It is therefore conceivable that ozone might have a net positive effect, despite the apparent chemical stupidity of administering it.  Still, the conspicuous lack of ANY double-blind studies in the face of wide-spread international use is a big red flag, in my opinion.

You are confusing scientific methodology with economic motivation of US pharmaceutical companies.  I agree that pharmaceutical companies would have little incentive to perform rigorous testing necessary to scientifically prove ozone therapy benefits, and are thus unlikely to do so.  However, there are many organizations that are not motivated by profit.  Many of them are also outside the US economy.  I find it impossible to imagine that not one of these practitioners would take the time to establish unassailable evidence of ozone's efficacy.  By failing to do so, they are preventing ozone therapy from being adopted as a mainstream practice, and, if it is as valuable as they claim, they are preventing hundreds of millions of people from desperately needed treatment.

You mention your own anecdotal evidence of seeing people cured of disease by ozone therapy.  Yet, if you are objective, you must admit that there is a possibility that each of these people may have healed spontaneously.  Unless and until rigorous double-blind studies eliminate any possible bias on the part of practitioner or patient, and establishes a statistically significant benefit for ozone therapy, such doubts will persist and ozone therapy will remain unavailable to most people.  

As I said before, if ozone therapy has such a huge positive effect, and is being practiced by so many doctors, it is extremely suspicious that not one of them has bothered to perform a rigorous double-blind study to establish these benefits as part of the medical mainstream.  It seems much more likely to me that all of these practitioners are motivated by the same compelling greed that you accuse US pharmaceutical companies of.  Perhaps double-blind studies have been attempted and were not publicized because their negative result would ruin a lucrative practice?

Science is science.  Anecdotal 'evidence' isn't science, no matter how many people believe it.  Failing to do the science is irresponsible - either by denying those in need of a beneficial treatment, or by foisting an ineffective and perhaps dangerous treatment on desperate people on the basis of hearsay.  Do the science.  Prove whether it works or not.  Then rest with a clear conscience.  Short of that, you're killing people, one way or another.