So Im starting Propecia...One worry

[cal]

Bubka, Cassin, you guys really crack me up.

The quickest way to get verbally attacked on this site is to say anything that questions the official story on Finasteride when you're watching. It's so predictable.


Shoot the messenger all you want but the message remains true. Likewise, you can squash the truth about a drug's sexual sides all you want, but the problem will go on demolishing the sales of the drug just the same.

 

[Cassin]

Your right. Who needs proof.

 

[cal]

Tobacco's causative link to lung cancer wasn't "proven" for decades either.


That 1-2% figure for Propecia is just an insult to the intelligence.

Although it was probably a much safer risk to publish something like that back in the pre-internet days when the drug was first being launched. Companies could get away with a lot more flagrantly outrageous lies back when consumers didn't communicate with each other on the scale that they do today.

 

[bubka]

Tobacco's causative link to lung cancer wasn't "proven" for decades either.


That 1-2% figure for Propecia is just an insult to the intelligence.

Although it was probably a much safer risk to publish something like that back in the pre-internet days when the drug was first being launched. Companies could get away with a lot more flagrantly outrageous lies back when consumers didn't communicate with each other on the scale that they do today.

unless you have ANY OTHER evidence, quit floating conspiracy theories, hell, what you are projecting isn't even a conspiracy because its just made up

 

[cal]

Look, I didn't start this conversation to debate finasteride's side effects. I was just posting to try to help out a fellow user.

I just went back and reread my original post, and I neglected to state that my assertion was unproven. I'll concede that mistake.



None of this really matters. The big numbers of side-effected users are there whether there is currently technical justification to state it as "fact" right now or not. They don't seem to be permanent in most users so in most cases Merck is just stealing money. This isn't the first heated debate over the issue and it won't be the last.

 

[Pondle]

The big numbers of side-effected users are there whether there is currently technical justification to state it as "fact" right now or not.

Cal, none of us know exactly how many users experience adverse reactions on Propecia or what proportion of the total user base this represents.

in most cases Merck is just stealing money

Merck never claimed it works for all men. One of the six guys in their video testimonials is a poor responder. It worked well for me so I'm happy with the drug; obviously if it didn't work for you you're going to have a negative opinion.

 

[cal]

A company that knowingly misrepresents their drug's side effects is falsely manipulating scientific evidence for the sake of increased sales. That is stealing.

If it didn't work for you you're going to have a negative opinion.

Propecia works great for me. I'm taking it daily. But it also gives me mild sexual side effects, just like most of the other finasteride users that I have ever run across online or in person. Personally I feel that it's a mild sacrifice that I'm perfectly willing to make. But my relative satisfaction with the drug does not go one inch towards justifying misrepresented information.




Like I said, I don't claim to have scientific backing for my opinion. And I understand perfectly well that an online community like this one is bound to skew the feedback. It skews toward people who have less success with male pattern baldness meds just by nature of who remains interested enough in their male pattern baldness to come here & post things.

However I still don't think the finasteride side-effect stats even begin to jibe with reality. Scientifically-backed bullsh*t is still bullsh*t. We could literally bump the numbers upward by an entire decimal point and some people would argue that it's still low.

 

[bubka]

A company that knowingly misrepresents their drug's side effects is falsely manipulating scientific evidence for the sake of increased sales. That is stealing.

WTF are you talking about, do you have any statistical proof of your conspiracy?

there have been multiple studies, all double blind, YOU CANNOT FAKE these type of results, even independent finasteride studies...

seriosly, what type of idiot are we dealing with here who continually makes up crap, without any evidence, gets called out on it, and continues on, you are a genuine troll

the great Merck conspiracy... :stfu:

 

[cal]

Someone attacks the drug, then you attack that someone in response. It's a consistent pattern.


I've said multiple times that I don't claim to have proof of what I'm suggesting. You're not making any more headway by pointing that out again every single post.




I'm quitting this thread now. We're at an impasse.

You've arguably beaten me. But any noobs reading this might start to wonder just a little bit about what's the real truth, and maybe even search a little farther into Finasteride on their own. That's all I was really after in the first place.

 

[Guest]

Don't fall for this "Propecia sides are rare" BS.

They're not present for everyone but they're more common than the official figures. A HELL OF A LOT more common. The issue is pretty well known among the veterans in the male pattern baldness community.

Provide some proof or stfu.

finally. i've seen this claim at least a dozen times in the past week from a few posters on here and from now on i'm going to tell them to provide some proof or stfu.

 

[bubka]

Someone attacks the drug, then you attack that someone in response. It's a consistent pattern.


I've said multiple times that I don't claim to have proof of what I'm suggesting. You're not making any more headway by pointing that out again every single post.




I'm quitting this thread now. We're at an impasse.

You've arguably beaten me. But any noobs reading this might start to wonder just a little bit about what's the real truth, and maybe even search a little farther into Finasteride on their own. That's all I was really after in the first place.

you have been "arguably beaten" but yet only you somehow know the "real truth" ???

 

[cal]

I didn't just say that only I know the real truth.


Reading comprehension.
Look into it.

 

[bubka]

what are you exactly saying then, besides just making stuff up based on some posts on a website

 

[Pondle]

A company that knowingly misrepresents their drug's side effects is falsely manipulating scientific evidence for the sake of increased sales. That is stealing.

In the past, we have had a principle on the board that posters should substantiate their claims with evidence. Then we can have a debate about the quality and quantity of that evidence. But we can't let the board simply become a platform for baseless, potentially defamatory remarks.

 

[cal]

Look, I'm sorry this degenerated into a bit of a mudslinging session. Not my intention.


But I also didn't pick on anyone personally until some rough comments go sent my way first. I challenged the official info on a drug that was the topic being discussed, that's all.

In the future I will be more careful about clearly portraying an unsupported opinion as such.



My debating on this particular thread is done but I still won't back off this issue in general. Vioxx's mortal danger could have only been described as "unsupported anecdotal evidence" for years. Anecdotal evidence bears repeating when it's in the proper context.