The Merck/FDA problem.

[Axon]

Merck has absolutely no reason to hide Finasteride data as they did with Vioxx. The drug simply isn't profitable enough. Every company does a simple cost/benefits analysis with virtually every issue they deal with - having worked for 2 years in products liability, I can assure you that they consider the cash from profit as opposed to the costs of lawsuits in these scenarios.

If they knew anything of the sort, they'd have released it by now, and if long-time users were getting cancer with alarming frequency, we'd know that as well. That doesn't mean I trust them - I just trust them to be greedy. I don't think the drug will cause cancer or have any adverse effects. I may eat my words. I may not. Only time will tell. But the simple fact remains, no one who does not want to take the drug has any reason to because I do.

The drug has actually been around for more than a decade now, and Alpha 5 reductase inhibitiors have been in existence since the 1970s. I cannot disagree that I'm putting myself at some greater risk by taking finasteride, however minimal that risk may be.

But I tire of these posts from people without PhDs in Biochemistry telling me that the drug isn't safe. Get your degree and prove that it isn't safe; no one has been able to up to this point. But you can percieve the way you stated it all you like, and frankly, it is not a flawed method of doing so. It's just not for me.

I'll continue using Finasteride for it's total effectiveness, and I'll continue advising anyone who has concerns about the drug to not use it. But as I've said, I refuse to live my life under a cloak of fear and what ifs. Since the drug works for me, causes me no side effects that I am aware of, and by all accounts will one day stop working, I will buy myself as much time as possible.

 

[Brasileirao]

However, since it doesn't sell that well, they have minimal incentive to hide that data, as they did with Vioxx. They wanted to keep Vioxx on the market.

Seeing as the underlying logic of this argument is that Merck will hide data at the risk of losing profit--be it substantial or no--I don't find any reassurance here. Not to mention, the FDA has for 12 years suffered decreased funding that has all but eliminated post-market trials for drugs. If Propecia does increase the chance of cancer, we probably won't find out until someone who's taken it for 15-20 years gets cancer; we become the guinea pigs for these drugs as soon as they leave the complacent FDA. Sure, journalists are eager for a story; but to have more than a modicum of trust in the FDA or a major pharmeceutical company smacks of naivete and ignorance. If you're not taking Propecia for prostate cancer, or to prevent it, you are arbitrarily jeopardizing your health--no two ways about it. I tire or reading posts from people without medical degrees trying to assuage these fears. Get your PhD in biochemistry and medicine, and then tell me the drug is safe.

By the by, I, too, use Propecia, though I'll likely discontinue using it because of its total ineffectiveness.

The thing people seem to forget is that Proscar has been around for a while. It is, as we all know, Propecia but in a higher dose, 5 mg. If your theory is right, then right now Merk would be getting sued up the ying-yang! Not only that but there would also be MUCH higher reported cases of side effects. Think about it, why has Proscar been around for so long, could it be because its safe and we are not some kind of guinea pigs. We can sit here and arque this point forever, but in the end we make the decision on what we put into our bodies. Smoking kills and so does drinking too much..not to mention a million other things. In the end, we are danmed if we do and damned if we dont.

Tony

 

[Guest]

you also have the problem of people who work in these government agencys and polticiains whos job it is to make sure these drugs are safe for public use..taking jobs later after there tenure with the government taking jobs at these same exact multi-national giants who they were at one time paid to enforce laws on..some could see this as conflict of interest?

A conflict of interest from WHOSE point of view?? The people, the government, or the corporation??

The people.

 

[Guest]

If they knew anything of the sort, they'd have released it by now

Why? Not if it wasn't happening on a large-scale.

and if long-time users were getting cancer with alarming frequency, we'd know that as well

I agree--except there's no such thing as a long-time record with this drug. Yes, proscar's been out, but we're talking about people taking a drug that was not manufactured for the purposes it's now being taken by people on this site.

Get your degree and prove that it isn't safe; no one has been able to up to this point.

Read the posts on this site, and other hairloss sites. I've read about everything from people getting permanently impaired sexual capabilities, to b**ch-tits, to permanently dried-out eyes, to migraines, etc., etc., etc. You don't need a degree to suffer from side-effects. Yes, these are rarities--and for that reason, you're probably right to suggest Propecia to people looking to fight hairloss--with a few provisos, of course.

Smoking kills and so does drinking too much..not to mention a million other things. In the end, we are danmed if we do and damned if we dont.

If you're smoking you're not damned if you do, you're stupid, and you're doing something that has no beneficial effects other than feeding an addiction. Smoking and drinking are highly avoidable. Guess you could say the same about Propecia, though it's being passed off by many as totally innocuous, which really worries me.

 

[hair mchair]

Seeing as the underlying logic of this argument is that Merck will hide data at the risk of losing profit--be it substantial or no--I don't find any reassurance here. Not to mention, the FDA has for 12 years suffered decreased funding that has all but eliminated post-market trials for drugs. If Propecia does increase the chance of cancer, we probably won't find out until someone who's taken it for 15-20 years gets cancer; we become the guinea pigs for these drugs as soon as they leave the complacent FDA. Sure, journalists are eager for a story; but to have more than a modicum of trust in the FDA or a major pharmeceutical company smacks of naivete and ignorance. If you're not taking Propecia for prostate cancer, or to prevent it, you are arbitrarily jeopardizing your health--no two ways about it. I tire or reading posts from people without medical degrees trying to assuage these fears. Get your PhD in biochemistry and medicine, and then tell me the drug is safe.

By the by, I, too, use Propecia, though I'll likely discontinue using it because of its total ineffectiveness.

I share your distrust of Merck and the FDA. You should keep in mind though that ANY drug has the potential for long-term side effects in some people and that it's not always possible to know what those side effects are until a significant number of people begin experiencing and reporting them.

No one should ever assume that ANY drug is 100% safe for everyone who uses it. With any drug, there is ALWAYS some risk, however minimal that risk might be. No one will ever be able to prove to you that Propecia is "safe," because no drug is truly "safe." It's more accurate to discuss drugs in term of being low-risk, high-risk, or somewhere in between.

My advice is to weigh the pros and cons for yourself when deciding whether or not you want to use a particular drug. Some people on these hairloss sites like to ridicule and belittle people who have doubts and concerns about using Propecia, and that's just wrong. Any medication must be given serious consideration. In the case of Propecia, you have to decide just how important your hair is to you, and whether or not other solutions (topicals, hair systems, shaving your head, etc.) might be a better option.

With that being said, I don't see any evidence that Propecia has more carcinogenic properties than other drugs on the market, so I wouldn't spend too much time worrying about cancer. I find it a bit odd that people on these sites will worry about some phantom connection between Propecia and cancer when no one on these forums has ever reported such a connection, but people who complain about long-term sexual dysfunction and severe shedding (the two most commonly reported long-term problems from Propecia) are routinely ignored for the most part. I myself have severe sexual problems two years after quitting Propecia and have reported this numerous times, and yet very few people have expressed alarm - including the alarmists who post about their fears of taking Propecia and getting cancer 20 years from now. Very strange.

 

[Brasileirao]

Smoking kills and so does drinking too much..not to mention a million other things. In the end, we are danmed if we do and damned if we dont.

If you're smoking you're not damned if you do, you're stupid, and you're doing something that has no beneficial effects other than feeding an addiction. Smoking and drinking are highly avoidable. Guess you could say the same about Propecia, though it's being passed off by many as totally innocuous, which really worries me.

When it comes to smoking, although very harmfulllll, you can argue that it has positive benefits. Most people smoke to relieve stress, it gives them an escape goat. In theory you could say you are reaping the benefits of living a less stressfull life. But that is neither here nor there because like you said, the same could be said about Propecia. We can sit here and try to educate everyone about the horrible effects of Propecia, but where is that going to get us.

Did I mention that Proscar has been around for YEARS in treating BPH.

Tony

 

[hair mchair]

When it comes to smoking, although very harmfulllll, you can argue that it has positive benefits. Most people smoke to relieve stress, it gives them an escape goat. In theory you could say you are reaping the benefits of living a less stressfull life.

Holy crap. Did you just step out of a time machine from the 1950's? :freaked:

Did I mention that Proscar has been around for YEARS in treating BHP.

You mean BPH. I've always been a tad bit skeptical of this argument for the following reasons:
1) This drug might affect older men differently than younger men. I'm not sure how much of a comparison can be made between a 60 year old on Proscar and a 20 year old on Propecia.
2) Older men are less internet savvy, on average, than us younger guys, so I get the impression that if Proscar WERE causing serious problems among some users, this information would be less accessible.

Just something to think about, as I come across this argument quite a bit, and it's rare that I see anyone question it.

We can sit here and try to educate everyone about the horrible effects of Propecia, but where is that going to get us.

Probably more educated. If you don't want to talk about the potential risks of Propecia, that's ok. Just don't read these threads or post in them. It's just like the celebrity threads. People complain about those all the time too, but if people don't like them, why are they reading them? No one forces you to go through every thread.

 

[iverdala21]

yes thats tru but hey, guess what!
YES! Vin Diesel is in fact gay. He kept his homosexuality (which makes him lucky) but he is gay in the back and on the top, middle of his head. This is why he keeps it shaved really close. There are pics where you can tell that he doesn't have a shadow in these ares. For the movies though, Hollywood puts a fake shadow on his head in these areas. (Just goes to show you how anti-homosexual Holllywood is). Take a look. . . (See when chicks say they don't find queer buys attractive, Vin Diesel is great to break up to counter this)

 

[Brasileirao]

Holy crap. Did you just step out of a time machine from the 1950's? :freaked:

I did and when I came back sh*t was still the same :freaked:

You mean BPH. I've always been a tad bit skeptical of this argument for the following reasons:
1) This drug might affect older men differently than younger men. I'm not sure how much of a comparison can be made between a 60 year old on Proscar and a 20 year old on Propecia.
2) Older men are less internet savvy, on average, than us younger guys, so I get the impression that if Proscar WERE causing serious problems among some users, this information would be less accessible.

Just something to think about, as I come across this argument quite a bit, and it's rare that I see anyone question it.

1)Urology Jun;57(6):1073-1077 Abstract quote

Objectives. To compare the efficacy and safety of finasteride 5 mg in older (65 years old or older) versus younger (30 to younger than 65 years old) men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

Methods. The Proscar Long-Term Efficacy and Safety Study (PLESS) was a 4-year, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the efficacy and safety of finasteride 5 mg in 3040 men 30 to 78 years old with symptomatic BPH, enlarged prostates, and no evidence of prostate cancer. The endpoints included urinary symptoms, prostate volume, occurrence of acute urinary retention and/or BPH-related surgery, and safety.

Results. In both age cohorts, finasteride treatment led to a 51% reduction (P <0.001) in the relative risk for acute urinary retention and/or BPH-related surgery, a significant (P <0.001) and durable improvement in symptom score, and a significant (P <0.001) and sustained reduction in prostate volume. Within each age cohort, no significant differences were found between the placebo and finasteride-treated patients in the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events. Significant differences were evident between the placebo and finasteride groups in the incidence of the typical, known, drug-related adverse events, but no specific differences were associated with age. No drug interactions of clinical importance were observed in the finasteride-treated patients.

Conclusions. The present analysis from PLESS demonstrates that in both older (65 years old or older) and younger men with symptomatic BPH and enlarged prostates, finasteride is highly effective in improving symptoms and reducing prostate volume in many men and in reducing the risk of acute urinary retention and BPH-related surgery. In addition, the safety profile of finasteride in both older and younger men is similar and no drug interactions of clinical importance were observed.

2) My mom is 63 and zooms through the net just fine. When she needs to find info, she finds the info.

Probably more educated. If you don't want to talk about the potential risks of Propecia, that's ok. Just don't read these threads or post in them. It's just like the celebrity threads. People complain about those all the time too, but if people don't like them, why are they reading them? No one forces you to go through every thread.

The reason I read this thread is because I want to, no one is holding a gun to my head.

Also, its not that I dont want to talk about the "risks", I simply want to point out that this drug is safer then some make it out. Until I am proven otherwise I will continue taking the drug and letting people know that it has helped me.

All in all you make valid points and I wont take that away from you. I am also sorry that your experience with the drug has been negative and wish you the best of luck.

I really do hope all works out for you!

Over and OUT

Tony

 

[hair mchair]

1) Thanks for posting that study. Very interesting. I still think guys in their late teens/early twenties who are not completely through puberty or who have only recently finished puberty MIGHT react differently to finasteride than older guys, but it's interesting to know that there are no major differences in the 30-78 age range.

2) I'm sure your mom is quite skilled at surfing the net. Of course, I wasn't saying ALL older folks are ignorant of the internet, just that ON AVERAGE younger people probably know their way around online better than older people.

My objection to people citing the safety profile of Proscar in defense of Propecia isn't a huge objection, but I do see some potential flaws with that argument that are never pointed out, so I thought that I would do so.

And I agree that there are people who are guilty of scare-mongering when it comes to Propecia, and I hope that despite my experiences, I am not one of them. Like FOX, I try to give a "fair and balanced view." I want neither total complacency when it comes to this drug nor unjustified paranoia.

 

[Roberto]

I still think guys in their late teens/early twenties who are not completely through puberty or who have only recently finished puberty MIGHT react differently to finasteride than older guys...

Apologies if this is off topic - I'll keep it short.
DHT (which finasteride reduces) is critical for development of male sexual organs during puberty. There is actually a medical syndrome in which the body produces insufficient DHT, and you get fully developed adults with miniaturized private parts. (If you're anywhere near puberty you shouldn't touch this kind of drug.)

 

[Bryan]

I tire or reading posts from people without medical degrees trying to assuage these fears. Get your PhD in biochemistry and medicine, and then tell me the drug is safe.

LOL!! Umm...is it at least ok if I quote PhD's in biochemistry and medicine who say that the drug is safe?? :wink:

But I tire of these posts from people without PhDs in Biochemistry telling me that the drug isn't safe. Get your degree and prove that it isn't safe...

Touché!

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

you also have the problem of people who work in these government agencys and polticiains whos job it is to make sure these drugs are safe for public use..taking jobs later after there tenure with the government taking jobs at these same exact multi-national giants who they were at one time paid to enforce laws on..some could see this as conflict of interest?

A conflict of interest from WHOSE point of view?? The people, the government, or the corporation??

The people.

That doesn't make much sense to me. I can possibly see someone in the corporation claiming a conflict of interest, but not the people.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

Oh, for God's sake. As I've done numerous times before, I'll point out once again that unlike Vioxx and most (all?) other drugs that have been withdrawn from the market, finasteride usage has an obvious analogue that appears in Nature: the so-called "pseudohermaphrodites" in the Dominican Republic. Finasteride causes the same alteration in hormones that those guys experience their entire lives, and they appear to be healthy individuals (with the obvious exception of their early genital development). Their apparent life-long health should be a significant comfort for Propecia and Proscar users. Don't lose too much sleep over using finasteride.

Bryan

"Their apparent life-long health"??? Bryan, I've asked you in the past if you knew whether or not these Dominican pseudohermaphrodites have any sexual disorders, and you replied that you did not know. I consider sexual health to be a facet (and an important one at that) of one's overall health. It may not involve life-threatening factors, but it's still a health issue and a quality of life issue.

So if you are still unable to answer the question I've posed to you in the past, I don't think you can assert that these men are the perfect pictures of health since you don't have the full story.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of CATASTROPHIC medical problems that some people worry about happening with long-term use, like cancer or heart disease. I maintain that the experience of the "pseudohermaphrodites" seems to rule that out! I can't understand why anyone would take such claims seriously (finasteride and major health problems), with the 30 years of study of the pseudo's that we have.

However, I'll concede the point you made about the sexual issue. But doesn't it seem a bit odd that there's no clear information about that, one way or the other, in the medical studies? If they had major sexual problems, wouldn't that have been reported long ago? In any event, I'll try to find out more about that particular issue...

Bryan

 

[Axon]

Read the posts on this site, and other hairloss sites. I've read about everything from people getting permanently impaired sexual capabilities, to b**ch-tits, to permanently dried-out eyes, to migraines, etc., etc., etc. You don't need a degree to suffer from side-effects. Yes, these are rarities--and for that reason, you're probably right to suggest Propecia to people looking to fight hairloss--with a few provisos, of course.

I have man. I've been around these forums for over 2 years now. I've heard it all. I reserve judgment on some of the "wackier" side effects, frankly, I think they're BS in general. The people who come to these forums are angry and need something to blame for their hair loss, and Finasteride is a convienient victim. Of the claims I've heard, I'd say 10% of them are true.

Having been scared that Fina caused me to have "gyno" myself, I can say that many guys here are just overreacting to putting on a little weight, or noticing something that was always there. I had puffy nipples as well, but it turns out I've had them since before I started Fina. In fact, being all obsessed with it for a while, it seems a lot of men have that little pudge right around the nipple. But I didn't want to accept that.

Anyway, getting in the gym certainly cleared up that problem.

 

[Brasileirao]

1) Thanks for posting that study. Very interesting. I still think guys in their late teens/early twenties who are not completely through puberty or who have only recently finished puberty MIGHT react differently to finasteride than older guys, but it's interesting to know that there are no major differences in the 30-78 age range.

2) I'm sure your mom is quite skilled at surfing the net. Of course, I wasn't saying ALL older folks are ignorant of the internet, just that ON AVERAGE younger people probably know their way around online better than older people.

My objection to people citing the safety profile of Proscar in defense of Propecia isn't a huge objection, but I do see some potential flaws with that argument that are never pointed out, so I thought that I would do so.

And I agree that there are people who are guilty of scare-mongering when it comes to Propecia, and I hope that despite my experiences, I am not one of them. Like FOX, I try to give a "fair and balanced view." I want neither total complacency when it comes to this drug nor unjustified paranoia.

I hope all is well my friend, keep on trucking and things will fall into place!

Take care,
Tony

 

[HairlossTalk]

They wanted to keep Vioxx on the market. The profit margin outweighed the risk of discovery.

That's uncomfortable to read, either way. Just saw a commercial: "Merck continued to market vioxx even after they knew it increased risk of heart failure, xxxx, xxxx, and death. They made millions off of Vioxx at the expense of consumers. If you experienced any health problems from Vioxx, please call us."

HairLossTalk.com

 

[Brasileirao]

They wanted to keep Vioxx on the market. The profit margin outweighed the risk of discovery.

That's uncomfortable to read, either way. Just saw a commercial: "Merck continued to market vioxx even after they knew it increased risk of heart failure, xxxx, xxxx, and death. They made millions off of Vioxx at the expense of consumers. If you experienced any health problems from Vioxx, please call us."

HairLossTalk.com

Just some damn law firm looking to make a few dollars. Talk about working the whole profit margin thing, people are going to run with this!

 

[Axon]

They wanted to keep Vioxx on the market. The profit margin outweighed the risk of discovery.

That's uncomfortable to read, either way. Just saw a commercial: "Merck continued to market vioxx even after they knew it increased risk of heart failure, xxxx, xxxx, and death. They made millions off of Vioxx at the expense of consumers. If you experienced any health problems from Vioxx, please call us."

HairLossTalk.com

Maybe it's just my method of thinking as a soon to be attorney. I don't know. I break everything down with a negligence anaylsis these days....

 

[Resultsnottypical]

while it might be true that a 60-year old on 5mgs is not the same as a 20-year old on 1mgs, it would seem that overall, finasteride has a proven history as a safe drug, even as a remedy for hairloss (since 1997?)

Perhaps some of these problems have to do with individual dosing. Like all studies, they pull in the aggregate: The majority of men got the best results, with the smallest amount required, and the least side-effects at the 1mg dosage. Perhaps for some, a 0.5 dose would be effective but not damaging sexually, maybe less, or maybe 1.25. Certainly we can assume there are tolerance levels that vary between men as much as their is variation in alcohol intake/effect, sexual functioning (prior to propecia), eyesight, hearing, and the effects of smoking long-term.

Why would we not accept the studies of propecia, complete with their own bell-curve, to represent "averages"? Did anyone claim that there is NOT a man who has TERRIBLE side-effects at 1mg, with NO results? There probably is (I guess Hair McNair was one of them), but the majority sustain or regrow hair, and have little side-effects.

This is no different than when the birth control pill came out for women. They later found that a lower dose was as effective and there was no long-term consequence for the majority of women, health wise.

I would always suggest, that one take propecia at a lower dosage, perhaps .25 or .50 and use minoxidil (which is dirt cheap) at least once a day. Because they work differently, I think the cost/benefit, is very good, as opposed to risking side-effects at the 1mg or 1.25mg dose (which you still might not have ANY side-effects from, admittedly).

Some of this probably depends on your loss patter, history, your age, etc. For me, I am a N2 or 1.5 perhaps, and at 34, minoxidil and small doses of finasteride seem to be working. Everyone has to find what works for them.

Remember, ANYTHING taken at the wrong dose (as in too much) can increase side-effects and become potentially toxic, however there is no evidence that finasteride is ANYWHERE near this at the 5mg range, let alone the 1mg range.