Please, can anyone post ACCURATE info on Propecia and its REAL side-effects?

[Fanjeera]

Unless there are some new studies I haven't yet seen, finasteride's effect on HUMAN neurosteroids has yet to be proven. I know there are animal studies, but these do not constitute proof when it comes to human medicine. I saw another study on humans that showed lower allo levels, but these were serum blood tests, and levels in the brain could show a very different story. I agree that existing evidence sure points to this being the case, but it's not proven until it's proven.

What do you mean it's been proven that it doesn't raise estradiol? I recall seeing in the original finasteride FDA approval document that it raised estrogen levels by 15%, and several other studies have shown the same.

How does it matter, if they measure serum of spinal fluid levels? Of course they didn't do a lumbar puncture. Allopregnanolone is a hormone that works in the brain, therefore it's a neurosteroid. And fact is that finasteride lowers its levels. What do you need more? You hope that while the serum levels are low, the brain still keeps its homeostasis somehow? There were 2 studies on this, btw: with 1 mg and with 5. To me and probably to all the people in medicine it's proven.
What's very questionable is that the levels don't return to normal after quitting. I'm 99,99% sure they do.

 

[Quantum Cat]

what are the consequences of lower Allopregnanolone?

 

[Fanjeera]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopregnanolone

 

[Allen Parks]

You say I should cite my sources, but make two claims without citing yours? I also said "I recall seeing" which is much different than stating something as a fact. If you believe I am wrong, the alternative to being a complete dick is to correct me on it and explain why you believe I am wrong. Whoever you are, enough with registering all new new accounts to bash finasteride. Clearly you have posted here before and i'm guessing have also been banned. You should try not to make it quite so obvious next time if you want to hold an account for any substantial period of time.

ANYWAY, you say Merck's letters to the FDA and Merck's Propecia patient information says it doesn't increase estrogen. But is that the case? Do they explicitly state that finasteride does not increase estrogen, or do they not mention it at all? Because those are two very different things.

Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you? Merck's SAYS it doesn't. Meaning, it SAYS it doesn't. This is entirely different than "Merck doesn't mention it at all." This really isn't hard to understand. I hope you're still not confused. By reading your other posts, I don't have my hopes up.

 

[Wuffer]

Not the sharpest tool in the shed are you? Merck's SAYS it doesn't. Meaning, it SAYS it doesn't. This is entirely different than "Merck doesn't mention it at all." This really isn't hard to understand. I hope you're still not confused. By reading your other posts, I don't have my hopes up.

I have not seen the documents you are speaking about since you are unable or unwilling to provide any sources, so that's why I was asking you to clarify. If you are expecting me to comment accurately on sources that I have never seen, it's rather difficult, so please provide links. You called me dumb for not providing any sources, but you can't even do that yourself. It appears that you are unable to discuss things like an adult, so you have to revert to petty insults to try to get your point across?

Here is a Merck authored monograph for Propecia that mentions the 15% increase in estrogen:

http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/archives/fdaDrugInfo.cfm?archiveid=52853

"Mean circulating levels of testosterone and estradiol were increased by approximately 15% as compared to baseline, but these remained within the physiologic range."



If you choose not to be civil and not provide sources, you won't be taken very seriously here. Please make better choices

 

[Fanjeera]

Unfortunately, everyone's physiology is different, the ranges don't matter. Raised estradiol leads to prostatitis somehow in rats: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8863627

 

[Allen Parks]

I have not seen the documents you are speaking about since you are unable or unwilling to provide any sources, so that's why I was asking you to clarify. If you are expecting me to comment accurately on sources that I have never seen, it's rather difficult, so please provide links. You called me dumb for not providing any sources, but you can't even do that yourself. It appears that you are unable to discuss things like an adult, so you have to revert to petty insults to try to get your point across?

Here is a Merck authored monograph for Propecia that mentions the 15% increase in estrogen:

http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/archives/fdaDrugInfo.cfm?archiveid=52853

"Mean circulating levels of testosterone and estradiol were increased by approximately 15% as compared to baseline, but these remained within the physiologic range."



If you choose not to be civil and not provide sources, you won't be taken very seriously here. Please make better choices

"The drug as no affinity for the androgen receptor and does not act as an antiandrogen nor does it have androgenic, estrogenic antiestrogenic, progestational or other steroidal properties."

"Finasteride is a highly specific inhibitor of 5 alpha reductase. At clinical doses, the compound has no other demonstrable effects on any other steroid hormone action or metabolism."

 

[Quantum Cat]

hey 'Allen Parks' (Hair to Learn, 26.10, Nigga whatever) - you claimed some major revelation about Finasteride would come to light at the roundtable talks a couple of weeks ago....

so what was it?

 

[Wuffer]

"The drug as no affinity for the androgen receptor and does not act as an antiandrogen nor does it have androgenic, estrogenic antiestrogenic, progestational or other steroidal properties."

"Finasteride is a highly specific inhibitor of 5 alpha reductase. At clinical doses, the compound has no other demonstrable effects on any other steroid hormone action or metabolism."

"Allen parks is a big meanie that thinks copying and pasting text in the body of a post constitutes a valid, externally verifiable citation". My source on that was the president of the FDA.

 

[IrishFella]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/propecia-turned-woman-man-claims-235329178.html

(Old article, but you get my point)

:laugh:

The internet is not a place to ask these kind of questions, there is loads of articles on pubmed and various controlled studies in regards to finasteride and it's safety profile. I believe that some people, rarities, develop adverse reactions from the drug, but it's not the drug in itself, it's the biology of whoever takes it, their body malfunctions, but like I said, it's a rarity.

 

[Fanjeera]

http://www.ismp.org/quarterwatch/pdfs/2012Q2.pdf
A nice summary on page 7 about persistent side effects.

 

[Quantum Cat]

http://www.ismp.org/quarterwatch/pdfs/2012Q2.pdf
A nice summary on page 7 about persistent side effects.

a good summary - I'm glad they point out the inherent bias with the Irwig study, and mention the effect of internet forums, media, and lawyers actively seeking out 'victims' for financial gain

 

[Wuffer]

http://www.ismp.org/quarterwatch/pdfs/2012Q2.pdf
A nice summary on page 7 about persistent side effects.

I agree, this is a fantastic summary. This is probably the first article I've seen written about the issue that wasn't authored by someone with a pre-existing bias against finasteride (besides the awful articles written in news outlets). Therefore, it is closely aligned with reality and discusses other potential causes for these reports. The number of side effect reports have dramatically increased in the last 4-5 years, but whether this is due to increased media hype or not is in question. I believe this is a big piece of the puzzle, since we already know that side effects that are sexual in nature are easily influenced by suggestion (nocebo).

Regardless, the article hits the nail on the head in that we still don't know much about this issue and there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered.

 

[Fanjeera]

"However, persistent sexual effects reported for finasteride are biologically plausible and deserve further study."
I like that line.

 

[Quantum Cat]

why do you like that line?

 

[Fanjeera]

Because people understand what DHT (a metabolite through which testosterone acts) is and getting rid of it from many tissues will cause problems. They don't only mindlessly believe what's coming out of studies.

 

[Quantum Cat]

They don't only mindlessly believe what's coming out of studies.

like the Propeciahelpers do, you mean?

anyway, how far away are they from designing a drug that will only supress DHT at the hair follicles? - that would be the holy grail. Could it be a possibilty?

 

[Fanjeera]

That would be topical finasteride. The propeciahelpers don't believe in studies, because there hasn't been a conclusive human study that proves that this drug causes persistent side effects. They believe in theories and case reports.

 

[Wuffer]

They don't only mindlessly believe what's coming out of studies.

What you basically said is "they don't believe evidence". Basically, you are saying they ignore all evidence, and believe whatever they want? I actually completely agree with you here. People did this back in the 1800's and early 1900's too, before the FDA was introduced. Medicine was a gong show and a lot of people were dying and buying into BS snake oil claims.

The propeciahelpers don't believe in studies, because there hasn't been a conclusive human study that proves that this drug causes persistent side effects. They believe in theories and case reports.

I assume you align your views with propeciahelpers as well? You don't understand how badly you are badmouthing them right now? You are saying that because no studies exist that support their unsubstantiated viewpoint that they deem all studies useless? Why is it that they have so many (cherrypicked) studies posted on their website?

 

[Fanjeera]

Science is moving towards a conclusive human study, I'm sure. There are topics about a lot rat studies which are not considered good enough for clinical practice, as we can see. The place is very open about discussing, so people are creating theories and posting studies that might not be very related all the time. There are also many in vitro studies posted.