Why Propecia Doesn't Cause Side Effects for Some?

[Quantum Cat]

The enzymes are there for a reason. Everything is.

The appendix? Nipples on men?

what about the miles of junk DNA humans have which have no known purpose?

 

[Wuffer]

As it seems, dutasteride's dose wasn't high enough in that study to block the whole effect of such great dose testosterone. That's why no reduce in prostate and sexual side effects. You take more dutasteride and block more receptors -- there's no place for testosterone, so you don't see that effect anymore.

Not all groups received a high dose of testosterone. The doses don't matter either, because this was placebo controlled. The fact that there was no difference between any of the groups is what's important. Again, you are saying dutasteride blocks receptors. Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever? dutasteride works by blocking 5AR, not receptors.

The enzymes are there for a reason. Everything is.

I agree, but the reason isn't always because it's needed for a useful purpose. The body contains many artifacts of evolution that serve absolutely no purpose. For instance, males have an underdeveloped uterus attached to their prostates. An appendix is useless for humans, and is actually dangerous to have because of potential for a rupture. Wisdom teeth. Male nipples. Tonsils. Tailbones. Over 90% of our DNA is considered non-coding junk. The body has, and does a surprising number of things, that really serve no purpose, and are left over from millions of years of evolution. Many of these oddities overwhelmingly cause more problems than benefits. Great examples of these are wisdom teeth, the appendix, and tonsils. They are just there to wreck your teeth, rupture, or get infected, with no benefits. It appears the same goes for DHT. Absolutely crucial during puberty, but I have yet to seen a conclusive scientific opinion (please correct me if i'm wrong) that it's useful for anything in adulthood. We know for certain it is attributed to BPH, Baldness and prostate cancer.

People like to think the human body is a perfect, well oiled machine, but this is certainly not the case. This is why medicine exists, because so many things can (and do) go wrong.

 

[thiswomps]

Fanjeera I would take you more seriously if you responded to all the points people make instead of cherry picking. It shows your bias.

 

[Fanjeera]

Do I have to say anything against everything ? I don't always disagree nor do I have the language capability and time.

Not all groups received a high dose of testosterone. The doses don't matter either, because this was placebo controlled. The fact that there was no difference between any of the groups is what's important. Again, you are saying dutasteride blocks receptors. Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever? dutasteride works by blocking 5AR, not receptors.

What I meant by receptors were 5ar enzymes, not the androgen receptor, of course.

Anyway, I don't think you can compare an enzyme with an anatomical structure or DNA. We already know that DHT really has an effect on the body. It's an androgen that's many times more potent than testosterone on the androgen receptor and the body is full of 5ar. What else do you need? I'll try to find you the studies in the evening. But the fact that's so important in rats is enough for me. You can't do such studies on humans, so you have to rely on them. I doubt a hormone that does so much in other animals is useless in humans. It's hard to find an animal studies saying that T not DHT does anything -- it's mostly the other way around. And the scientists and books also say that testosterone works through DHT, not doctors of course (they are stupid). We only have patient own reporting data, no studies of histology and the real objective stuff. It takes a lot of time for symptoms to start revealing themselves from subclinical changes in the molecules and cells to the human consciousness. And that's the reason we have animal studies. You have to agree with me that there's a big risk using the drug, considering animal studies, atleast for hairloss. Hopefully science will advance to human studies too soon somehow.

 

[Quantum Cat]

Do I have to say anything against everything ? I don't always disagree nor do I have the language capability and time.
What I meant by receptors were 5ar enzymes, not the androgen receptor, of course.

Anyway, I don't think you can compare an enzyme with an anatomical structure or DNA. We already know that DHT really has an effect on the body. It's an androgen that's many times more potent than testosterone on the androgen receptor and the body is full of 5ar. What else do you need? I'll try to find you the studies in the evening. But the fact that's so important in rats is enough for me. You can't do such studies on humans, so you have to rely on them. I doubt a hormone that does so much in other animals is useless in humans. It's hard to find an animal studies saying that T not DHT does anything -- it's mostly the other way around. And the scientists and books also say that testosterone works through DHT, not doctors of course (they are stupid). We only have patient own reporting data, no studies of histology and the real objective stuff. It takes a lot of time for symptoms to start revealing themselves from subclinical changes in the molecules and cells to the human consciousness. And that's the reason we have animal studies. You have to agree with me that there's a big risk using the drug, considering animal studies, atleast for hairloss. Hopefully science will advance to human studies too soon somehow.

not a big risk, a slight risk

 

[Fanjeera]

Alright, I'll type "dihydrotestosterone" into pubmed.com and add the filter "Humans". Let's see what I find in the first 5 mins!

Why we have a tendency for prostatitis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22562653
Many men in propeciahelp.com report prostatitis as well. My doctor also thought for a very long time I had it, because the leukocyte count really is high in my semen.
Why not only high estradiol, but also lack of DHT like I assumed causes gyno:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22535971

 

[Wuffer]

What I meant by receptors were 5ar enzymes, not the androgen receptor, of course.

This wasn't obvious to me, especially since you are 2 years into a med degree

Anyway, I don't think you can compare an enzyme with an anatomical structure or DNA.

We weren't making that comparison, we simply pointed it out to argue against your statement that everything in the body is there for a reason, which it isn't.

We already know that DHT really has an effect on the body. It's an androgen that's many times more potent than testosterone on the androgen receptor and the body is full of 5ar. What else do you need?

Personally, I need evidence in the form of peer reviewed medical studies that specifically state something like: "Based on our study, we conclude DHT is essential to the adult male because X"

You can't do such studies on humans, so you have to rely on them.

NO, absolutely false! This is a very common fallacy that people believe, and I've heard this argument so many times. You're saying that because there is no evidence that undoubtably proves something is false, you automatically have to rely on the extremely weak evidence that says something is true, then state definitively that it's true. It doesn't work like that. In reality, it's "we don't have sufficient evidence to prove that it's false, and weak evidence to prove it's true. So we don't really know yet". (Even though, concerning DHT specifically, we already do know)

Again, this is one of the first things you learn as a med student, and i'm amazed you don't understand the concept.

not doctors of course (they are stupid).

Are you not studying medicine to become a GP? Do they teach you in med school that doctors are stupid? Why would you even say this?

You have to agree with me that there's a big risk using the drug, considering animal studies, atleast for hairloss. Hopefully science will advance to human studies too soon somehow.

Actually, from what I've seen, there is a big risk NOT using the drug. It's shown to reduce overall prostate cancer incidence rates by 30%. However, I do agree that balding rats should avoid finasteride.

 

[Quantum Cat]

that's one bonus, although I read that finasteride might actually increase the chance of prostate cancer:

http://injurylawyer-news.com/2013/02/ny-man-joins-propecia-lawsuits-federal-court/

[h=3]Finasteride also linked to cancer[/h]Finasteride, the active ingredient in Propecia, was initially developed to treat patients with symptoms of enlarged prostate (BPH). The medication, known as Proscar, is distributed in 5mg dosages. The FDA later approved finasteride for the treatment of androgenic alopecia, also known as male pattern hair loss. This second medication, marketed under the brand name Propecia, is available in 1mg doses. However, as detailed in the recent claim against Merck, a lower dosage does not reduce risk: finasteride may induce high-grade tumors by reducing levels of intracellular DHT within the prostate. Furthermore, many Propecia lawsuits also allege that prostate tumors developing in men with low testosterone levels have higher-grade prostate cancer and worse outcomes than the prostate cancers that develop in men with normal testosterone levels.

you read so many conflicting things about this issue - it's like global warming :dunno:

 

[Wuffer]

Why we have a tendency for prostatitis: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22562653

What? This study doesn't even mention "prostatitis" once! I'm trying to wrap my head around how you read this and concluded that finasteride causes prostatitis. It's a study about BPH, which is completely different than prostatitis. It concludes: "our data demonstrates that DHT exerts an immune regulatory role on human prostatic stromal cells, inhibiting their potential to actively induce and/or sustain autoimmune and inflammatory responses." That means (if i'm translating correctly, I'm admittedly bad at medical terminology) that DHT inhibits the cells ability to produce an inflammatory response. This mean that DHT causes cells to become inflamed, and we all know that reducing DHT levels reduces BPH symptoms.

Yet another fallacy about finasteride is that it causes prostatitis. Not surprisingly, this seems perpetuated by propeciahelp. The largest placebo controlled study ever done on the drug showed not only does it NOT cause prostatitis, but actually prevents it:

http://university.asco.org/sites/un...eferences_Prostate_EpidemiologyBiology_2..pdf

4.4% of users in the finasteride group got prostatitis, versus 6.1% in the placebo group.

- - - Updated - - -

that's one bonus, although I read that finasteride might actually increase the chance of prostate cancer:

That was the consensus of a study done in 2003; a 25% decrease in low to medium grade prostate cancer rates, and a moderate (I think 1-2%) increase in high grade rates. However, there was a more recent review of this data done in 2008. They noticed there were some issues with the original study, namely that since finasteride shrinks the prostate, tumors were more easily being diagnosed during routine checkups. On the surface this made it look like the drug actually caused higher high grade cancer rates, but a review of the data and analysis of the ~500 prostates that were removed during the original study concluded that there was actually a 30% overall cancer risk reduction, including a reduction in high-grade rates as well. Here is the newer study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2844801/


It's no surprise that websites set out to make the medication look as bad as possible completely ignore the more recent, relevant and accurate data about this, and it's a shame. I've lost two family members to prostate cancer, and it's a brutal killer. A potential 30% risk reduction is HUGE, and it warrants a lot more research. Shame people are fighting so hard to get this drug removed from the market when it has the potential to save so many lives.

 

[Fanjeera]

DHT inhibits the cells inflammatory response, but finasteride inhibits DHT, therefore you get an inflammation. I agree that it probably can't cause cancer directly. But inflammation in the same time is a risk factor for it and chronic prostatitis sufferers get prostate cancer more likely.
I guess I know where you went wrong, so I'll try to explain. Inflammatory response means becoming inflamed -- it's not a secondary response to inflammation or something. Inflammation is a fully biological and a very complex process that involves synthesis and interactions of many cells and molecules, one's that are pro-inflammatory and other's that are anti-inflammatory. If there's too much of the first ones you get autoimmune diseases, allergies and too powerful immune responses (inflammations). DHT was found to be anti-inflammatory, so it's an ideal explanation to why lack of it causes an inflammation.
That 7 year study you posted encourages me to think otherwise still, though, and gives hope.

 

[Quantum Cat]

Again, this is one of the first things you learn as a med student, and i'm amazed you don't understand the concept.
....

Are you not studying medicine to become a GP? Do they teach you in med school that doctors are stupid? Why would you even say this?

looks like Fanjeera is heading for a Big Fat Fail on his med exams.... :woot: