- Reaction score
- 493
Didn’t read a single word. Don’t take finasteride. Simple as that.
If Propecia gets pulled off market, I'll pull a Virginia Beach
- Thread starter clarence-forgotpassword
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 132
But according to you studies count for nothing and it is all a corrupt conspiracy? which one is it, can we trust studies and trials because it seems you only want to trust the ones that suit a marginal agenda against Finasteride.
No, studies that are blatantly pro-Finasteride and try to make it seem like the side effects are negligible/ almost never/rarely happens are obviously false, especially when they are several studies actually saying how bad it is. The contrast to far to great for it to be believable, especially with every 2nd or 3rd person who mentions they used used Finasteride mentioning they had sides.
Also, the studies that say Finasteride is bad don't have anything to gain financially unlike those which are pro-Finasteride.
LOL. Exactly the response you'd expect from someone who has tried to make excuses and failed.
What about GSK and dutasteride? almost similar rate of sexual sides to that of finasteride, i suppose GSK are in on the plot as well.
GSK? Not sure if I've heard of that abbreviation before.
Dutasteride and Finasteride, are quite similar though yes.
Difference is, Dutasteride isn't FDA approved for Hairloss so it doesn't get as much scrutiny on forums/the internet about how bad it also is. But most people are well aware that anti-androgens are dangerous.
- Reaction score
- 62
The bottom line here is that yes, there are risks associated with finasteride. It can be argued back and forth for eons on what exactly the incidence and severity of those risks are. With that said, at this point in time it's literally the only thing we have with proven long term efficacy with the exception of dutasteride. The information label should be updated as more data emerges, but I don't think banning it outright makes any sense at this point in time.
It's important to remember that not all statistics are created equally. While drug manufacturer's have a financial incentive to produce favorable side effect profiles for the purpose of marketing, the studies conducted on PFS are heavily flawed. They're also misinterpreted frequently. For example, this study gets thrown around a lot.
They sampled 54 people who already complained about persistent side effects from finasteride and found that 96% of people still have sexual side effects after 14 months. I've seen some people claim that 96% of people will exhibit persistent side effects after discontinuing finasteride. That wasn't even what this study attempted to show, it simply shows that the people who already complain of persistent side effects may continue to have persistent side effects after 14 months. The study is also retrospective and has a biased sample selection, meaning you can't establish a clear association between finasteride and persistent sexual side effects to begin with.
This is a trend with (unless I missed something) all of the studies conducted on PFS. The quality of the evidence is very low, and it doesn't support an action as drastic as banning the medication for all hair loss indications, especially when there are so many people that are benefiting from it.
The PFS foundation itself cites this study (https://peerj.com/articles/3020/) to try and establish an incidence of PFS, and the number they cite is 1.4%. This study is also retrospective though, which makes it difficult to clearly establish a link between finasteride and persistent ED. That, and the number seems to be 0.8%, so it seems that they may have misinterpreted the study itself.
Unless there is a properly conducted clinical trial that provides clear evidence of the incidence and risk factors of PFS, I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever to ban it. If you read about the medication and decide that it's not worth the risk, then don't take it. It's as simple as that.
It's important to remember that not all statistics are created equally. While drug manufacturer's have a financial incentive to produce favorable side effect profiles for the purpose of marketing, the studies conducted on PFS are heavily flawed. They're also misinterpreted frequently. For example, this study gets thrown around a lot.
Error - Cookies Turned Off
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
They sampled 54 people who already complained about persistent side effects from finasteride and found that 96% of people still have sexual side effects after 14 months. I've seen some people claim that 96% of people will exhibit persistent side effects after discontinuing finasteride. That wasn't even what this study attempted to show, it simply shows that the people who already complain of persistent side effects may continue to have persistent side effects after 14 months. The study is also retrospective and has a biased sample selection, meaning you can't establish a clear association between finasteride and persistent sexual side effects to begin with.
This is a trend with (unless I missed something) all of the studies conducted on PFS. The quality of the evidence is very low, and it doesn't support an action as drastic as banning the medication for all hair loss indications, especially when there are so many people that are benefiting from it.
The PFS foundation itself cites this study (https://peerj.com/articles/3020/) to try and establish an incidence of PFS, and the number they cite is 1.4%. This study is also retrospective though, which makes it difficult to clearly establish a link between finasteride and persistent ED. That, and the number seems to be 0.8%, so it seems that they may have misinterpreted the study itself.
Unless there is a properly conducted clinical trial that provides clear evidence of the incidence and risk factors of PFS, I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever to ban it. If you read about the medication and decide that it's not worth the risk, then don't take it. It's as simple as that.
Last edited:
People who want any medication banned are simply authoritarian pricks. Everyone can evaluate their own risks without the need of others using fascist methods of banning things you don't like. Most medicine should be OTC if you ask me.
Also to the people fearmongering about Fina, get a grip. You literally sound like this "Noooo don't take Fina it will make your balls fall off waaaaaa". And please don't try to pretend you knew nothing of the potential sides if you decided to try Fina and got them, it was your choice to try it, nobodies else. Your behavior is doing a real disservice to desperate people, many balding in their early 20s or even late teens by scaring them from taking something that could help. Shame on you.
Also to the people fearmongering about Fina, get a grip. You literally sound like this "Noooo don't take Fina it will make your balls fall off waaaaaa". And please don't try to pretend you knew nothing of the potential sides if you decided to try Fina and got them, it was your choice to try it, nobodies else. Your behavior is doing a real disservice to desperate people, many balding in their early 20s or even late teens by scaring them from taking something that could help. Shame on you.
The bottom line here is that yes, there are risks associated with finasteride. It can be argued back and forth for eons on what exactly the incidence and severity of those risks are. With that said, at this point in time it's literally the only thing we have with proven long term efficacy with the exception of dutasteride. The information label should be updated as more data emerges, but I don't think banning it outright makes any sense at this point in time.
It's important to remember that not all statistics are created equally. While drug manufacturer's have a financial incentive to produce favorable side effect profiles for the purpose of marketing, the studies conducted on PFS are heavily flawed. They're also misinterpreted frequently. For example, this study gets thrown around a lot.
Error - Cookies Turned Off
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
They sampled 54 people who already complained about persistent side effects from finasteride and found that 96% of people still have sexual side effects after 14 months. I've seen some people claim that 96% of people will exhibit persistent side effects after discontinuing finasteride. That wasn't even what this study attempted to show, it simply shows that the people who already complain of persistent side effects may continue to have persistent side effects after 14 months. The study is also retrospective and has a biased sample selection, meaning you can't establish a clear association between finasteride and persistent sexual side effects to begin with.
This is a trend with (unless I missed something) all of the studies conducted on PFS. The quality of the evidence is very low, and it doesn't support an action as drastic as banning the medication for all hair loss indications, especially when there are so many people that are benefiting from it.
The PFS foundation itself cites this study (https://peerj.com/articles/3020/) to try and establish an incidence of PFS, and the number they cite is 1.4%. This study is also retrospective though, which makes it difficult to clearly establish a link between finasteride and persistent ED. That, and the number seems to be 0.8%, so it seems that they may have misinterpreted the study itself.
Unless there is a properly conducted clinical trial that provides clear evidence of the incidence and risk factors of PFS, I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever to ban it. If you read about the medication and decide that it's not worth the risk, then don't take it. It's as simple as that.
Firstly, I didn't agree to banning it because I know it does help some people, my point is that the number of people that are negatively affected by it is far too great for it to be FDA approved. It can exist off-label for those who want to risk it like those who use Avodart (Dutasteride).
Secondly, that figure from PFS of 1.4% is obviously wrong. It's a lot more than that. PFS is just one organization, there's many other studies which have said far higher percentages and I'm not referring to the 96% who will exhibit persistent side effects because that is a bit too high.
PFS also has multiple different studies showing persistent side effects of much much higher than 1.4%.
There's no way they'd open a law suit with only a 1.4% rate of side effects for persistent ED.
A lot of time has passed since the last time a law suit was created and a lot more studies and evidence has been gathered. I doubt they would go this hard again if they did not have an ace up thier sleeves.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 64
I don't give a sh*t about how many studies you cite, fvck off! For me, the benefits outweight the potential side effects. (I don't have ED.) These people are waging an tyrannical and uncompassionate war against us. This is personal. These people think they have the right to force me go bald, we need to take to arms to defend ourselves.
LOL, do you think getting an off-label prescription in Europe is as easy as getting it in USA? It doesn't happen unless your life is threatened. You said this advocacy group isn't trying to ban off-label use, which is exactly what they're trying to do, eat sh*t and die f****r.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 62
Do you seriously think that the same organization trying to sue the FDA in order to elicit a response to their demands would understate the incidence of the disorder their entire organization is based around on their own website?
This is quite a dumb take. There's a lot of medications that aren't good that need to be removed from the market and im not referring to Finasteride. You clearly don't have enough knowledge on the topic if you're making such a statement.
Also, no most people who get sides from Finasteride are the ones who listen to dumb asses like you who like to make it seem like sides are extremely rare and just a Nocebo effect.
Once again, I wouldn't say Finasteride should be banned, but it should not be FDA approved for Hairloss having such potential side effects in so many people.
You do realize in a court case parties can produce new evidence at a later stage within the proceeding?
- Reaction score
- 62
That doesn't change my question.
At this point in time, if there was statistically relevant evidence anywhere that even remotely suggested the incidence of PFS was larger than 0.8-1.4%, don't you think that the organization centered around PFS would cite it?
Please feel free to post studies that you feel indicate this.
Listen here you lil b**ch, watch your mouth. All your keyboard warrior bitching and fake tough guy don't mean sh*t, b**ch. Your lil tantrum just sounds like a lil kid crying.
I highly doubt they will succeed in getting Finasteride banned, and it's not because I don't believe what their saying, I actually do. It's because Big Pharma has too much money not to buy a win in the case or another settlement.
Also, you're literally going to be spoiled for choice if and when Finasteride does hypothetically get banned. If Finasteride gets banned it will take a few years for that to happen.
There are companies outside of the USA that manufacture Finasteride and it isn't easy to get an international ban on all countries manufacturing it.
Coming back to the point about being you being spoiled for choice soon, I meant there will be Kintor Pharmaceuticals Pyrilutamide and Breezula to choose from which will probably do what Finasteride wishes it could without the side effects potentially.
All is not lost, people are just going to be upgraded, it will simply be a transition from the old and bad to the new and good.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 62
I think pyrilutamide has some serious promise, but I'm not holding my breath. Until I see clinical literature showing that it can maintain hair above baseline for significant lengths of time, and that indicates you can switch from finasteride to pyrilutimide while preserving hair maintenance, I'll continue to take my chances with finasteride. The research so far seems promising, but I want to see more of it.
I literally posted quite a few a few pages back in this thread, but there's a lot more. If they go to a court case, they can even argue about how important DHT is and how inhibiting 70% of the second most important make hormone will obviously result in a lot of side effects. It wont be hard to do.
Finasteride obviously doesn't work on the correct mechanism of action. That's easy to tell.
You won't have to wait long. According to Kintor Pharmaceuticals, Phase 2 results were good and will be released in Q4 of 2021 just before they initiate the phase 3 which they plan on also starting in Q4 of 2021.
- Reaction score
- 62
None of the studies you posted here indicate an incidence of PFS higher than 1.4%, or more appropriately 0.8% if you actually read the results section of the study. That study is also limited to ED, not the litany of other problems that are attributed to PFS.
