respitrol - dream or reality?

I have suffered of asthma attacks in the past, when I was so young that any attack would seriously scare my parents. My tonsils were operated, as doctors thought that they were giving me breathing problems. My family doctor prescribed me pneumonia antibiotics for years, until the final diagnosis finally came in one of the crowded hospitals in the Eternally Crowded City: asthma.

I have gone through several checks, therapies, inhalations, for about ten years of my life. With aging, things started getting better, and now I have to 'puff it up' only once in a while. For others, however, asthma remains a scary travel buddy for the rest of their life, robbing them of breath at the most unexpected circumstances.

So it is easy to see how a product like Respitrol, if really powerful as it is suggested, would become mainstream in a few years. Asthma medication with no side effects? Proven to work on 99% of people who tried it? Heck, why can't I buy it in a drugstore?

Ah, I see: the conspiracy. But then again: if it were really so powerful, big pharma would have simply acquired the whole company, paying handsomely for their patent and expertise. That is the way big pharma works: many of the promising compounds are acquired through acquisition of spin-off small biotech companies, who are eager to both see their product making it through the pipeline, and not having to face the prohibitive costs of proper clinical trials.

But anyway, let's look at Respitrol with an open mind: in the end, it really isn't a drug, but a dietary supplement scarcely regulated by the FDA (remember the story on the DSHEA?). So let's not even start talking about "clinical trials", "drugs", and please don't even try to mention the word "cure".

I think I am getting tired of going through all the cliches that one can read on websites such as the ones selling and advertising Respitrol. I will go through them again, though, because I know that people want to know why they should believe otherwise of what these businesses tell them - and they must be legal, right, otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to sell their stuff, right? Well, they might be legal, but they also might not be honest. Let me go through a few points that should make your bells ring:

• the claim that Respitrol cannot be harmful, as it is made with "all-naturally safe nutrients and no harmful steroids, fillers, or chemicals" - there are plenty of natural compounds that are harmful, and that are plenty of actual drugs that have been made using extracts (or modified compounds) derived from plants, fungi, etc.: the fact that the ingredients are natural is no guarantee of safety
• the advice that "You should continue to take any medications that have been prescribed by your physician": Respitrol is not a drug, and has not been proven in clinical trials to actually improve your asthma
• all the evidence they really have is from testimonials. They show a few graphs, but their studies have obviously not been published in any journal, as they do not cite any
  
• the claim that "We have found that people, like you, who use Respitrol ™, will experience a noticeable reduction in their asthma events within the very first week or two of starting on the product." A very rapid effect is usually either due to an extremely powerful compound (which Respitrol does not contain) or by the placebo effect. Given that they mention that "Clinical trials have shown increasing benefits with prolonged use and a healthy lifestyle" without actually showing any evidence of the fact that such clinical trials were conducted, or that they were published in a peer-reviewed journal, we are probably talking about a placebo effect
• they call upon patented "nanotechnology" to convince you of their technological and scientific sophistication- the real deal is definitely not about simply splitting "the ingredients in respitrol™ into micro-sized particles, 1-5 nanometers in diameter". Remember, any activity should be credited to chemical compounds in Respitrol, molecules, which obviously do not need to be 'micro-sized'
• the talk about proof - there is no such thing as a proof, unless you are in mathematics - there is only evidence, working hypotheses, and theories. Anybody who tells you they are selling something "scientifically proven" to work, especially when they cite no journals, or journals published and funded by themselves or a related business/foundation, is probably trying to trick you.
  

If you are still not convinced that Respitrol is not going to make a big difference with your asthma, then check this out with your own eyes: scroll down the page to see the images showing "the normal epithelial cells resistant to allergens after taking Respitrol™ supplementation for 3 weeks": at least one of those pictures, if not both, are a fake.

How can I tell? Very simple: how can you take a picture of exactly the same cells, still in the same position, after 3 weeks? You can't! If the experiment had been conducted in vivo, it would be impossible for you to pick a sample of cells that looked exactly the same. You cannot do that, and that is why in microscopy you take a picture of your control sample - another cell sample - at the same time as your tested sample, to show the difference after 3 weeks of treatment. If the experiment had been conducted in a Petri dish, well - you would be using most probably a cell line, whose cells would be actively cycling, reproducing, and dying. Same principle applies.

How can you believe anything said by a website that shows you fake pictures as proof? The safe answer is, you can't. And probably, even if you wanted to, you'd better not to.

Update: here is a newer post about Respitrol - check it out. Also, make sure you read my disclaimer.

Disclaimer: I am not a medical professional, nor do I work for the pharmaceutical industry. Make sure you talk to your doctor if you decide to consider using any supplements, to make sure side effects and medicinal interactions can be taken into account.