hypotheses are nice, but they need to be tested

If your hypothesis is that ozone can cure HIV/AIDS in humans, the only way to prove (or disprove) it will be to test it.
There may be no visible flaws with your "head work" but the hypothesis still may turn out to be wrong - that's the way Science goes. It's not always possible to predict what will happen in the amazingly complex human body. On the other hand, sometimes things do work as predicted, but not for the reasons predicted (i.e. the head theory is wrong, but the results are right) - many drugs known to work remain poorly understood for very long times.

I'm afraid nobody is going to be able to prove or disprove your hypothesis for you - you actually do have to test it (e.g. in a double-blind randomized controlled trial). Your understanding of ozone and why it should work could be completely correct, and yet, it may not actually work. Or your understanding of ozone and why it should work may be completely wrong, and yet, it may work.

In biology, proof is in the pudding: real-world results. For those who prefer "head theories", theoretical mathematics or physics may be more appropriate.