help! brainfog from avodart screwing up my life!

[ghg]

I don't think I'm imagining the sides either... not over 2 months after quitting anyways. Bubka just likes to stir sh*t up much like Jayman did. He demands proof of side-effects and thinks everyone is either making these sides up or imagining them. But no, that isn't enough, he also likes name-calling and hints that the ones who get sides are not "real men" or something. Bubka's main function on this board seems to be picking on ppl, now it's metalheaddude who's on his hitlist. He should grow up a bit IMO. I know, I know, I'm not the most mature poster on the board either, but at least I'm sophisticated enough not to call a person who gets sides from a hormone altering drug, a woman.

 

[bubka]

you've been doing nothing but going about on these forums saying nay to every poster that complains of side effects and demanding your proof..cut the crap already, the argument about 2% of the people facing sides being on this forum is such a joke! you think everybody who has sides quickly resorts to finding cures on the web? they go to their GP's and complain to their GP's..so screw that stat...

Unless you have any proof, which you do not, please do not refute scientific evidence. Every major double blind placebo controlled study has shown side effects to be less than 2%. So unless you are saying there is a conspiracy going on here, quit insulting the decorum here.

ghg: Weren't you the one who was going to leave these forum how many times? Weren't you the guy who had to change your name because of your attention whoring incidences of telling everyone here to "F off."

 

[Mew]

Every major double blind placebo controlled study has shown side effects to be less than 2%. So unless you are saying there is a conspiracy going on here,

Really... no conspiracy hmm?

I suggest you read the following since it's from MERCK's OWN INTERNAL DATABASE AND THEY ADMIT THEY FUNDED OR AUTHORED CERTAIN STUDIES -- studies which glowingly claim there are hardly any "side effects" from Finasteride or problems otherwise (heavily biased in favor of drug):

http://www.propeciahelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1578

I simply present the facts. If you want to keep denying the truth about Merck's so-called "2%", so you'll feel better at night, and use such false claims as ammo to attack people on forums... well, that's your problem.

Unless you have any proof, which you do not, please do not refute scientific evidence.

And do not refute the fact that Merck involves themselves in such studies in order to influence the conclusions of "scientific evidence" in their favor, and downplay the dangers of their medication.

 

[bubka]

Every major double blind placebo controlled study has shown side effects to be less than 2%. So unless you are saying there is a conspiracy going on here,

Really... no conspiracy hmm?

I suggest you read the following since it's from MERCK's OWN INTERNAL DATABASE AND THEY ADMIT THEY FUNDED OR AUTHORED CERTAIN STUDIES -- studies which glowingly claim there are hardly any "side effects" from Finasteride or problems otherwise (heavily biased in favor of drug):

http://www.propeciahelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1578

I simply present the facts. If you want to keep denying the truth about Merck's "2%" (ie, it's BS) so you'll feel better at night, and use such false claims as ammo to attack people on forums... well, that's your problem.

Are you really that stupid that you cannot interpret the data? Firstly, this is 5mg dosage. Secondly this study is taking finasteride in addition to Rofecobix, Tamsulosin, and Soxazosin, which you conveniently didn't highlight.

Mew: what you are doing IS NOT SCIENCE. Science is taking the look at all the data, and THEN coming up with a theory or conclusion. You already have your conclusion, and your selective highlighting is prove that you are not conducting science. If you does not fit your conclusion, you throw it to the side. You are not doing science, you cannot argue against your actions.

Do you want more examples?

 

[Mew]

1. 5mg, 1mg, 0.25mg makes no real difference in terms of side effects due to near flat dose response of the drug:

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/facultyinf ... peciafda2/

2. It is not one study, it is multiple studies that Merck has their hand in. But in the study you mention, you clearly did not read closely enough since I highlighted specifically ONLY Finasteride's side effects mentioned.

3. You are missing the entire point here: that Merck has played a role in influencing the outcomes of certain studies, and in those studies in which they do, the side effects are consistently downplayed or mentioned as transient, few, or insignificant. THAT is the issue here.


4. Do not argue with me, argue with Merck. I am simply presenting the facts as abstracts provided to us by Merck themselves, written by Merck, for Merck employees. There are a multitude of studies out there on Finasteride, with a range of conclusions both good and bad. My goal here is to draw attention to the fact that yes, Merck is involved in influencing the outcome of some of them. That in of itself should give you fair warning that them spouting off about "2%" should not necessarily be taken at face value, especially considering big pharma's vested and monetary interests in the FDA.

 

[bubka]

1. 5mg, 1mg, 0.25mg makes no real difference in terms of side effects due to near flat dose response of the drug:

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/facultyinf ... peciafda2/

That is assuming that the side effect is caused by the reduction in DHT, and not some other possible interaction of having the presence of finasteride which YOU DO NOT KNOW.

2. It is not one study, it is multiple studies that Merck has their hand in. But in the study you mention, you clearly did not read closely enough since I highlighted specifically ONLY Finasteride's side effects mentioned.

NO you did not, you only highlighted the word finasteride when the study clearly was the results of a combination of drugs.

Finasteride & Rofecobix

Finasteride & Tamsulosin

Finasteride & Soxazosin

You are so unscientific and intellectually dishonest by only saying this is finasteride when there are two drugs administered. It could be the other drug, it could be a combination of the two. You do not take this into consideration, you only highlight finasteride which matches up with your already concluded belief.

3. You are missing the entire point here: that Merck has played a role in influencing the outcomes of certain studies, and in those studies in which they do, the side effects are consistently downplayed or mentioned as transient, few, or insignificant. THAT is the issue here.

This article has finastieride in combination with other drugs. Some of the other drugs have known side effects of which you constantly like to blame on finasteride alone.

4. Do not argue with me, argue with Merck. I am simply presenting the facts as abstracts provided to us by Merck themselves, written by Merck, for Merck employees. There are a multitude of studies out there on Finasteride, with a range of conclusions both good and bad. My goal here is to draw attention to the fact that yes, Merck is involved in influencing the outcome of some of them. That in of itself should give you fair warning that them spouting off about "2%" should not necessarily be taken at face value, especially considering big pharma's vested and monetary interests in the FDA.

You cannot claim to be scientific when you already have a forgone conclusion. You CLEARLY do not take into account the conditions of these studies in which ALL THREE EXAMPLES GIVEN, also included ANOTHER DRUG. You simply did not factor that in. Hell you didn't even highlight it with your highlighter. That is dishonest and wrong and you should be ashamed.

 

[Mew]

That is assuming that the side effect is caused by the reduction in DHT, and not some other possible interaction of having the presence of finasteride which YOU DO NOT KNOW.

Dude, what are you talking about? Sexual side effects are listed as a possible side effect by the manufacturer. Wether that's due to reduced serum DHT or 5AR neurosteroid inhibition or some other process, IT DOESN'T MATTER -- the fact is, the drug itself is known to cause these problems in certain men, no matter the dosage, as mentioned in various studies -- wether it's .25mg, 1mg, or 5mg.

Everyone knows this, so why are you trying to claim it could be due to any million of other "possible interactions" or "confounding variables" (as Pondle would say)? That's like trying to discredit that the drug can even cause side effects at all in the first place.

[quote:2z7iu01m]2. It is not one study, it is multiple studies that Merck has their hand in. But in the study you mention, you clearly did not read closely enough since I highlighted specifically ONLY Finasteride's side effects mentioned.

NO you did not, you only highlighted the word finasteride when the study clearly was the results of a combination of drugs.[/quote:2z7iu01m]

If you read them in detail you'd see that each study included a Finasteride GROUP on it's OWN, and side effects were listed AS SUCH for those independant Finasteride GROUPS, independant of other drugs.

Finasteride & Rofecobix
- Finasteride monotherapy

Finasteride & Tamsulosin
- Finasteride groups, respectively

Finasteride & Soxazosin
- Finasteride is mentioned as it's own study group

You are so unscientific and intellectually dishonest by only saying this is finasteride when there are two drugs administered. It could be the other drug, it could be a combination of the two. You do not take this into consideration, you only highlight finasteride which matches up with your already concluded belief.

See above.

This article has finastieride in combination with other drugs. Some of the other drugs have known side effects of which you constantly like to blame on finasteride alone.

See above. Finasteride was also studied as monotherapy and adverse effects reported for that study arm as such.

You CLEARLY do not take into account the conditions of these studies in which ALL THREE EXAMPLES GIVEN, also included ANOTHER DRUG.

See above, again.

You clearly are trying to divert the argument away from my main point by nitpicking at unrelated topics, which is:

Merck was involved in certain studies. This cannot be argued, as they note this themselves. If you do not think there is a possibility that such involvement might color the adverse effects percentages due to inherent bias and vested interests towards their drug, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

PS: I find it funny that you pick 3 studies where you try to confuse people by claiming other drugs could have been at fault, despite Finasteride being studied on its own within those studies -- yet conveniently ignore 2 OTHER studies where Finasteride is the ONLY drug mentioned, studies which also had Merck's involvement (and are labelled as such with RED TEXT and LINES DRAWN pointing this out).

 

[bubka]

Dude, what are you talking about? Sexual side effects are listed as a possible side effect by the manufacturer. Wether that's due to reduced serum DHT or 5AR neurosteroid inhibition or some other process, IT DOESN'T MATTER -- the fact is, the drug itself is known to cause these problems in certain men, no matter the dosage, as mentioned in various studies -- wether it's .25mg, 1mg, or 5mg.

Everyone knows this, so why are you trying to claim it could be due to any million of other "possible interactions" or "confounding variables" (as Pondle would say)? That's like trying to discredit that the drug can even cause side effects at all in the first place.

You proudly stated that this shows how there is very little difference between .2mg to 5mg in the reduction of DHT? Yet is the reduction of DHT what are really causing the side effects? You don't know this. So if it is DHT, why do you guys suggest a lower dosage then if DHT inhibition is the same?

If you read them in detail you'd see that each study included a Finasteride GROUP on it's OWN, and side effects were listed AS SUCH for those independant Finasteride GROUPS, independant of other drugs.

Finasteride & Rofecobix
- Finasteride monotherapy

Finasteride & Tamsulosin
- Finasteride groups, respectively

Finasteride & Soxazosin
- Finasteride is mentioned as it's own study group

You are so unscientific and intellectually dishonest by only saying this is finasteride when there are two drugs administered. It could be the other drug, it could be a combination of the two. You do not take this into consideration, you only highlight finasteride which matches up with your already concluded belief.

See above.

[quote:3fqpkupb]This article has finastieride in combination with other drugs. Some of the other drugs have known side effects of which you constantly like to blame on finasteride alone.

See above. Finasteride was also studied as monotherapy and adverse effects reported for that study arm as such.

I understand what you are saying. Some of those studies show that the OTHER DRUG ALONE, not finasteride, show higher side effects, yet you ignore it and you talk about it NOWHERE in any of your discussions. That is intellectually dishonest in presenting your data. I will say it again, you are NOT BEING SCIENTIFIC, only conforming your view to whatever you can find.

You clearly are trying to divert the argument away from my main point by nitpicking at unrelated topics, which is:

Merck was involved in certain studies. This cannot be argued, as they note this themselves. If you do not think there is a possibility that such involvement might color the adverse effects percentages due to inherent bias and vested interests towards their drug, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

PS: I find it funny that you pick 3 studies where you try to confuse people by claiming other drugs could have been at fault, despite Finasteride being studied on its own within those studies -- yet conveniently ignore 2 OTHER studies where Finasteride is the ONLY drug mentioned, studies which also had Merck's involvement (and are labelled as such with RED TEXT and LINES DRAWN pointing this out).

[/quote:3fqpkupb]
Mew, there have been plenty other of independent studies on finasteride which have shown similar results. Yet just like what you did above, you purposely ignore them, and only post data that conforms to your personal finsasteride views.

 

[Guest]

Brain fog is very common from these dangerous drugs..These drugs were ment for old men with enlarged prostates..Not as a cosmetic hairloss drug..THEY ARE NOT MENT FOR YOUNG MEN !!!

 

[bubka]

Brain fog is very common from these dangerous drugs..These drugs were ment for old men with enlarged prostates..Not as a cosmetic hairloss drug..THEY ARE NOT MENT FOR YOUNG MEN !!!

Can you find ANY STATISTICS on "brain fog" or are you just going to pull statements from your ***


holy crap look who is back, welcome back RaBmO, KiLLaManti, CrazyArab, Davidoff

 

[Guest]

Brain fog is very common from these dangerous drugs..These drugs were ment for old men with enlarged prostates..Not as a cosmetic hairloss drug..THEY ARE NOT MENT FOR YOUNG MEN !!!

Can you find ANY STATISTICS on "brain fog" or are you just going to pull statements from your ***


holy crap look who is back, welcome back RaBmO, KiLLaManti, CrazyArab, Davidoff

...It shows that you are wasting energy trying to put two and two together..It also shows you have no life besides this forum.YOU ARE A LOSER BUBKA..YOU WILL ALWAYS BE A LOSER..As for brain fog being a side effect of the poison propecia..yes i agree this is true.There is plenty of evidence out there...Your the one in denial..Thats why you lash out when someone critisizes propecia..Because your in denial about what it is doing to you runt...If you were secure it was a poison you wouldnt have to join propecia help and start flaming...If you knew it was safe you would just sit back and not care what people say about it...But you are a scared..you are scared this poison is hurting you..so you lash out like the keyboard warrior you are as soon as anyone says anything true about this poison...

 

[Guest]

you've been doing nothing but going about on these forums saying nay to every poster that complains of side effects and demanding your proof..cut the crap already, the argument about 2% of the people facing sides being on this forum is such a joke! you think everybody who has sides quickly resorts to finding cures on the web? they go to their GP's and complain to their GP's..so screw that stat...

Unless you have any proof, which you do not, please do not refute scientific evidence. Every major double blind placebo controlled study has shown side effects to be less than 2%. So unless you are saying there is a conspiracy going on here, quit insulting the decorum here.

ghg: Weren't you the one who was going to leave these forum how many times? Weren't you the guy who had to change your name because of your attention whoring incidences of telling everyone here to "F off."

Your not imagining anything my friend..Propecia is poison and anyone who takes it risks there manhood..As you can see with bubka his manhood is already gone..Just by his posts you can tell he is a very feminine guy with the language he uses... :gay:

 

[bubka]

Show us the rest of the pic you runt. You are an ugly c*** i can tell by what i see in the pic..Show the rest and prove me right..

christ your vocabulary is so weak and pathetic, this is just too easy.

I love it how you start attacking me, right after you got banned, yet you call me a loser? A loser is a person who constantly get banned from internet forums and has to rejoin. :dunno:

Can you please show some of this evidence? You know, some type of scientific journal or study? Words with text published in a peer reviewed journal. So for all I see is some girly men at a hair loss forum who b**ch because they are not manly enough to take a 1mg pill and claim it caused them to have this elusive "brain fog" and worrying about their "manhood." Your manhood is so easily defeated by a pill that you call it "poison." :whistle:

Again I see you are thinking about my body, sexuality, which I think most people will find kind of disturbing considering you are also thinking about my "manhood" :roll:

 

[Guest]

Bubka you are the biggest LOSER on this forum..You sit there ALL f*****g DAY waiting to make some smart arse comment about something....YOU HAVE NO f*****g LIFE YOU NET TRANNY...I would be blamming propecia for this bubka..You are defeneley not a man...I think propecia mixed with this forum have turned you into a NET TRANNY... :roll:

 

[Guest]

This is classic bubka..A keyboard warrior net tranny.. http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/jerk.htm

 

[bubka]

Again you are thinking about the sexuality of other men on this forum, is that caused by "brainfog" and less of your "manhood" ???

 

[Guest]

Again you are thinking about the sexuality of other men on this forum, is that caused by "brainfog" and less of your "manhood" ???

Whatever JERK...You are a classic scared keyboard warrior...Im done with you...Ive owned you so many times its not funny...Its getting boring..

 

[bubka]

That is pretty good for a guy who admits to have lost his "manhood" and suffers from "brainfog" not to mention can hear my voice at I type on the keyboard.

 

[Guest]

That is pretty good for a guy who admits to have lost his "manhood" and suffers from "brainfog" not to mention can hear my voice at I type on the keyboard.

PATHETIC..No wonder you have so many posts.

 

[Mew]

Just to further this discussion....


http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/27/9/2155#B25

Neurosteroid Synthesis-Mediated Regulation of GABAA Receptors: Relevance to the Ovarian Cycle and Stress

----------

"...We have shown that elevations in neurosteroid levels associated with an acute stressful episode induce alterations in GABAARs, which may function to maintain the balance between excitation and inhibition after stress.

The duration of neurosteroid exposure and the rate of decline of neurosteroid levels may be critical for the regulation of GABAARs. The key to the regulation may be a relatively rapid rise and fall in neurosteroid levels, because long-term exposure to positive allosteric modulators such as benzodiazepines, alcohol, and even neurosteroids result in a downregulation of receptor function (Bateson, 2002; Krystal et al., 2006; Reddy, 2006).

Disruption in the regulation of GABAARs in response to stress may underlie the stress-induced exacerbation of many psychiatric and neurological disorders.

The upregulation of GABAAR subunit expression after an acute stressful episode may be a protective mechanism to prevent an imbalance in neuronal excitability. Our results demonstrate that, in addition to the direct allosteric modulation of GABAARs, neurosteroids also regulate GABAARs on a longer timescale by altering the expression of specific GABAAR subunits.

This may have implications on the clinical use of neurosteroid synthesis inhibitors such as finasteride (Propecia), because certain neurological disorders related to steroid hormone changes may be worsened by finasteride treatment (Herzog and Frye, 2003)."

---------

Yes, you read right -- besides inhibiting 5AR2 dependent androgen metabolism (T-->DHT), Finasteride is also a NEUROSTEROID SYNTHESIS INHIBITOR.