New Study: Finasteride Reduces The Response To Both Stressful And Rewarding Stimuli.

[JeToker]

Nobody wants to be bald but it's about risk and rewards. It it worth the risk? And yes I know you seem to have no problem with it so go ahead, I'm not holding you back to take duta.

No you're not, you're just constantly suggesting that the risks do not outweigh the benefits generally, instead of in the cases of people who suffer sides. You have referred in almost every thread I've seen you in to the idea that people 'will learn' just like you did, as if it's some guarantee they will regret taking the drug, this is just nonsense, based on your own experience.
I took minoxidil for 2 years, wasted a lot of money on it and got no results. I don't go around telling people all the time that it definitely won't work for them, because the studies show it works for some and not for others. Plucking out the occasional negative study and then using it to reaffirm your negative, doomsaying anecdote is not productive.

But you also need to comprehend that a lot of people are not positive about these things and people like you who can't deal with that need to stay out of these threads.

'A lot of people' are weasel words. How many people is 'a lot of people', Pigeon? The term is meaningless without context. How many out of the millions of people taking this that don't sh*t up the forums like you actually have a problem? People with negative side effects are already grossly overrepresented on forums like this, purely because people who are happy and fine usually have no reason to be posting about it. So if you could restrict your 'warnings' to factual information, and not anecdote, and fear-mongering then nobody would have an issue.

If the vast majority of people taking these drugs are not suffering serious side effects, which is factually the case, then perhaps you should also be concerned that you're overly discouraging people for whom this is the only viable option for dealing with a condition that seriously affects the quality of their lives.

 

[INT]

Wow at your level of cope, it's clear you're desperately trying to convince yourself of your choices, if you would be confident in duta you would not be crying in a scientific fina side effect thread. (btw your doubts are legit, duta/fina is a slow poison)

I'm suggesting people should use other, safer treatments first to combat their hairloss, oral AA's are pure crap if you'd understand how they work. They do work for hairloss though but at what cost. (btw it's retarded to use oral AA's instead of trying topical AA's first)

And I can bring as many arguments or studies to the table, it wouldn't change a thing. I know how desperate balding people like you think. You cling to fina/duta and see this as your ultimate salvation, trying to rationalize the risks in you head, downplaying potential side effects. I was like you so I know how you think.

I know you like to dismiss polls and cope with the idea that somehow only people with side effects would answer these, the fact remains 50%+ of people had side effects. But polls don't matter anymore since there's enough data to show the damage AA's can inflict.

So I can only suggest one thing to you, please take your daily pills and yes you will learn it is only a matter of time.

Come on man. With this attitude you are not really helping the credibility of people that actually got bad side effects...

 

[Michael1986]

Finasteride and dutasteride do cause side-effects but only in a minority of users. However, what's the alternative?

 

[INT]

I don't care. I speak the truth even though it may hurt their feelings. These desperate, balding, fools can only learn one way.

No you speak opinions. And you are decreasing credibility of a group of people who have/had the same disease as you. You don't care about that?

 

[JeToker]

Wow at your level of cope, it's clear you're desperately trying to convince yourself of your choices, if you would be confident in duta you would not be crying in a scientific fina side effect thread. (btw your doubts are legit, duta/fina is a slow poison)

I'm suggesting people should use other, safer treatments first to combat their hairloss, oral AA's are pure crap if you'd understand how they work. They do work for hairloss though but at what cost. (btw it's retarded to use oral AA's instead of trying topical AA's first)

And I can bring as many arguments or studies to the table, it wouldn't change a thing. I know how desperate balding people like you think. You cling to fina/duta and see this as your ultimate salvation, trying to rationalize the risks in you head, downplaying potential side effects. I was like you so I know how you think.

I know you like to dismiss polls and cope with the idea that somehow only people with side effects would answer these, the fact remains 50%+ of people had side effects. But polls don't matter anymore since there's enough data to show the damage AA's can inflict.

So I can only suggest one thing to you, please take your daily pills and yes you will learn it is only a matter of time.

Just a load more rhetoric with nothing of substance, and more appeals to anecdote. You've gotten good at repeating your diatribe but it's based on air. Your accusations of coping are just projections, we can all see you're very salty about your experience on AAs, you are in a tiny minority and you're very upset about it.

You cannot seem to understand, or refuse to, that as stated many times, most people have been on these drugs for long, long periods of time with no issues whatsoever, that is the reality of the situation. All of this projection about how people are balding fools, you're talking to your past self. You should stop beating yourself up about it, and trying to scare others, and seek some therapy. This level of obsession on these forums is a further indication of this.

 

[INT]

Not really an opinion, if you still believe in the Merck studies you're a fool. Why would I decrease the credibility of PFS? Because I don't sugar coat the reality like you?

And like I said, I hope they continue their hormone treatment.


Cope. There are alternatives like a bunch of topicals combined with micrononeedling for example.

Where did I say anything about the Merck studies? I am only talking about the polarizing way you tend to express yourself. It seems like you can only think in black and white and you use popular buzzwords to make your point. COMMUNIST, LIBERAL, COPE!

A good example is you telling me I am sugar-coating reality. I have my own thread about what finasteride did to me, expressed in many posts the dangers of the drug, argue a lot with people that do not believe in PFS... Just because I also acknowledge that many men can get away with using this drug without any side effects does not mean I am sugar-coating. That is called nuance, you should try it some time.

 

[INT]

Oh, okay I see where this is coming from. You're still butthurt I called you out as a liberal.

And I'll give you nuance, most people will get side effects, the only difference is some can deal with them and others can not.

Not at all butthurt. Add that one to your list of wrong assumptions. You do it again, an attempt at a personal attack instead of forming an actual argument.

And I'll give you nuance, most people will get side effects, the only difference is some can deal with them and others can not.

You are entitled to that opinion.

 

[JeToker]

If you feel so confident in your treatment why the need to cope in side effect threads? Lol if you still believe in "tiny minority", the delusions of you desperate balding fools. This further supports what I said, fools like you need to learn the hard way.

So please take your duta pills, every pill you swallow makes me happy.

Nothing to say about your obvious projection, yeah I'd avoid that one too. This is yet more projection. I do not post nearly as much as you, I've been posting recently because I avoided Fina/Duta for 2 years because of the dumb fear-mongering from people like you, instead opted for minoxidil which did nothing for me. I'm asymptomatic, as are the majority of people. The way you talk here, like it's an inevitability that everyone will get serious side effects, you're pulling that out of your ***.

Again, this is projection, I still have a level of hair where people don't even notice I've started balding. You are the one here trying to scare everyone, trolling these threads with your nonsense because you're salty you're balding and the drugs don't work for you.

 

[INT]

Damn, I must have really hit a sensitive spot with that remark.

And what arguments should I bring? I already made them, they get dismissed or ignored by desperate fools who see fina/duta as their ultimate salvation for their hairloss.

Like I said, I don't care what they take, they have been warned. If they want to slowly poison themselves, that's their choice and everyone has their own style, if you want to be more "nuanced" then please do so mister psychologist, I will continue without a filter.

Haha just when I thought "wow did he just write a post without name-calling", you manage to confirm your own stereotype in the end after all.
Anyway, if you want to continue doing what you are doing that is fine. I am just telling that for most rational people who are on the fence about starting finasteride, posts like yours are more likely to actually make them take finasteride. If that is something you are ok with, that is fine but then you are not being very consistent.

 

[Inigo1202]

Why do you keep repeating the Merck thing. It doesn't make sense. Merck is just a company that developed Finas. Studies are done by a thousand different sources (universities, ministries of healthcare, etc). Stop with the "big bad pharma" thing. You look like a f*****g hippie.

You seem like one of those guys who won't vaccine his children because you think they'll become autists. Lol.

 

[Inigo1202]

Another coping idiot enters the thread.

Do you know doctors trust and base their judgement on the official Merck studies when they prescribe (generic) fina,... And not some study from a random source?

So yes, these Merck studies are the most important ones. And based on their history and recent new findings about them hiding info about the results of fina studies, it does not bode well for copers who like to think side effects only happen to a minority.


https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-courts-secrecy-propecia/

A REUTERS SERIES

Court let Merck hide secrets about a popular drug’s risks

Lawsuits claim baldness drug Propecia causes sexual problems and depression. The judge sealed evidence – uncovered by Reuters – suggesting the maker downplayed the side effects. A widow wants the truth out.

See that's where you are wrong. No, doctors don't base their beliefs in that. Not even remotely. Maybe American doctors do (and they don't, they trust what the FDA says, not some pharma company), but the rest of the world? Not even close.

Finas has been studied for 22 years now. Every single country does their own independent studies on the safety of medicines. That's why Japanese or Koreans prescribe 0.25 instead of 1 mg; because it's what their healthcare system tells them to do.

I'm telling you these because you basically spend your entire day on a hairloss forum trying to convince people not to take Finas, and yet you haven't convinced a single user around here not to do it after 2000 posts. You are wasting your time buddy. You can do whatever you want, but surely you have a job or a family to attend to. Give them some attention please. Your crusade againts AA is pointless. No one is ever taking your recomendations for anything.

 

[alscarmuzza]

Full text here if you're interested
https://www.mdpi.com/2218-273X/9/11/749/htm

 

[Derelict]

The official Merck studies are important and have been used as the basis for judgement for most doctors around the world. You are clueless, this next statement again shows you know nothing; "Every single country does their own independent studies on the safety of medicines" No, this does not happen (atleast not for the majority of drugs), you really have no clue at all how the medical world works do you?

Unless new multiple studies come out from reputable sources showing totally different results then sure doctors will change their judgement. Btw, more and more doctors and dermatolgists are not prescribing fina/duta anymore for hairloss, so indeed doctors are getting smarter and understand the extreme risks of playing with your endocrine system.

Meanwhile desperate balding men like you hope that fina is safe and try to downplay the risks. And I'm not trying to convince anyone. I was like you too once so I know it's a waste of time. Do as you wish and take whatever poison you want.

Another piece of advice for you copers, ignore side effect threads are new studies that indicate fina is dangerous. Good luck with your delusions and your long term hormonal treatment that is completely "safe" LOL.

Nobody is saying fina/duta is completely safe, of course there are potential sides like any drug. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the negatives and for me they do. I really wish you would stop calling people copers and delusional just because a drug that gave you bad sides is tolerated better by other people.

 

[Michael1986]

Nobody is saying fina/duta is completely safe, of course there are potential sides like any drug. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the negatives and for me they do. I really wish you would stop calling people copers and delusional just because a drug that gave you bad sides is tolerated better by other people.

Exactly. Its all about whether the positives outweigh the negatives, and this question will have a different answer depending upon the person. For me personally, dutasteride has been a lifesaver.

 

[Inigo1202]

The official Merck studies are important and have been used as the basis for judgement for most doctors around the world. You are clueless, this next statement again shows you know nothing; "Every single country does their own independent studies on the safety of medicines" No, this does not happen (atleast not for the majority of drugs), you really have no clue at all how the medical world works do you?

Unless new multiple studies come out from reputable sources showing totally different results then sure doctors will change their judgement. Btw, more and more doctors and dermatolgists are not prescribing fina/duta anymore for hairloss, so indeed doctors are getting smarter and understand the extreme risks of playing with your endocrine system.

Meanwhile desperate balding men like you hope that fina is safe and try to downplay the risks. And I'm not trying to convince anyone. I was like you too once so I know it's a waste of time. Do as you wish and take whatever poison you want.

Another piece of advice for you copers, ignore side effect threads are new studies that indicate fina is dangerous. Good luck with your delusions and your long term hormonal treatment that is completely "safe" LOL.

Buddy as I told you before, you are wasting your time.

EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY DOES THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT STUDIES ON THE SAFETY OF MEDICINES. That's a fact. Like 2+2 = 4. Why? Because it's the f*****g law. Every single European country does it. Same for Japan, Korea, China, almost all American countries, etc. It's not debatable.

You are fighting a war you've already lost. Don't be a f*****g hippy. It's pathetic.

Now you can keep spreading your word about how Finasteride will kill you and bla bla bla. You probably think the 5 mg version for prostate is literally a poison. I don't even know by now. But stop speaking like you have ANY knowledge of medicine. You are on the same page as anti-vaccine hippies and flat earth bullshit.

It's a simple as this: show me ANY country that recognizes PFS as a legitimate syndrome. ANY. If you show me one out of the 209 countries that exist on this world, you'll have some sort of argument right there.

 

[Inigo1202]

Ok buddy, here you are. Learn how the European Union (for example) does their own studies on the safety of Medicines: https://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use_en / https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-medicines-regulatory-information / https://ec.europa.eu/health/human-use/safe_pharma/index_en.htm / https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/docume...-journey-centrally-authorised-medicine_en.pdf

The FDA in America or the Japanese and Korean Healthcare agencies do it almost the same way. The special thing about the EU is that ANY medicine is tested both by central goverment of the EU and every single one out of the 27 countries that form it.

If a drug is prohibited in Belgium for example, that prohibition will have to be studied on the other 26 by law.

 

[Inigo1202]

"Medicine developers who wish to conduct clinical trials in the EU need to submit applications to healthcare competent authorities of the countries where they want to conduct the trials. EMA does not have a role in the authorisation of clinical trials in the EU; this is the responsibility of the national competent authorities"

"Examples of questions addressed during scientific advice Are the patients to be included in a study sufficiently representative of the population for whom the medicine is intended? Are the planned measures to assess the benefits of a medicine valid and relevant? Is the proposed plan to analyse results appropriate? Does the study last long enough and include enough patients to provide the necessary data for the benefit-risk assessment? Is the medicine being compared with an appropriate alternative? Are the plans to follow the long-term safety of the product appropriately designed?"

"For each scientific advice procedure (or ‘protocol assistance’ procedure for orphan medicines) validated, two members of the SAWP who have sound expertise to address the scientific questions are appointed as coordinators. Each coordinator forms an assessment team calling on assessors from their national agency. Each team prepares a report addressing the scientific questions; they draft a list of issues for discussion with all the other members of the SAWP and may ask the applicant for any additional documents or clarifications"

"The data submitted by medicine developers in their application for marketing authorisation must comply with EU legislation. They must include a range of information, including on the way the medicine is manufactured, its effects in laboratory studies, benefits and side effects observed in patients, and how risks will be managed, as well as the proposed information to be provided to patients and doctors"

"Information about any possible (known or potential) safety concerns with the medicine, the way risks will be managed and monitored once the medicine is authorised and what information is intended to be gathered from follow-up studies after authorisation is described in detail in a document called the ‘risk management plan’ (RMP). The RMP is evaluated by EMA’s safety committee, PRAC, to ensure its suitability."

"Studies that support the marketing authorisation of a medicine have to comply with strict rules and are conducted in a regulated setting. International standards, called good clinical practice, apply to the study design, recording and reporting to ensure that studies are scientifically sound and conducted in an ethical manner. The type of evidence needed to determine the benefits and risks of a medicine are defined by EU law and must be adhered to by medicine developers. Inspections can be requested by EMA to verify compliance with these standards. EMA supports the conduct of high-quality studies through initiatives such as Enpr-EMA and ENCePP, which bring together expertise from independent academic centres across Europe. Thanks to these initiatives additional sources of evidence can complement the evidence provided by medicine developers, in particular in the context of the continuous safety monitoring of a medicine after its authorisation."

"All medicines have benefits as well as risks. When assessing the evidence gathered on a medicine, EMA determines whether the benefits of the medicine outweigh its risks in the group of patients for whom the medicine is intended. In addition, since not everything is known about a medicine’s safety at the time of its initial authorisation, the way risks will be minimised, managed and monitored once the medicine is more widely used is also an integral part of the assessment and is agreed at the time of authorisation. While the authorisation of a medicine is based on an overall positive balance between the benefits and risks at population level, each patient is different and before a medicine is used, doctors and their patient should judge whether this is the right treatment option for them based on the information available on the medicine and on the patient’s specific situation."

"EMA’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) assesses applications submitted by medicine developers and recommends whether or not a medicine should be granted marketing authorisation. The committee is composed of one member and an alternate from each EU Member State, as well as from Iceland and Norway. It also has up to five EU experts in relevant fields such as statistics and quality of medicines, who are nominated by the European Commission"

"While the majority of new, innovative medicines are evaluated by EMA and authorised by the European Commission in order to be marketed in the EU, most generic medicines and medicines available without a prescription are assessed and authorised at national level in the EU. In addition, many older medicines available today were authorised at national level because they were marketed before EMA was created. Most Member States have registers of nationally authorised medicines."

"Once a medicine has been authorised for use in the EU, EMA and the EU Member States constantly monitor its safety and take action if new information indicates that the medicine is no longer as safe and effective as previously thought. The safety monitoring of medicines involves a number of routine activities ranging from: assessing the way risks associated with a medicine will be managed and monitored once it is authorised; continuously monitoring suspected side effects reported by patients and healthcare professionals identified in new clinical studies or reported in scientific publications; regularly assessing reports submitted by the company holding the marketing authorisation on the benefit-risk balance of a medicine in real life; and assessing the design and results of post-authorisation safety studies which were required at the time of authorisation."

I could quoute a hundred more.

Yes, companies do their studies on medicines. They are its developers. But in the EU, those studies are CHECKED a hundred different times by an enourmous amount of different organizations, both national and supranational,

That's why there are medicines in the USA that are completely forbidden in the EU.

And that's the last message I'm sending.