All Propecia users,,, come here please !!!

[khan]

I'm not sure they'd ever accept it. Hair loss seem almost religious in nature at times; seems having faith is a big part of some of the treatments and marginalising certain facts is central too. I'm sure you can see the comparisons.

I must also make the point that we shouldn't need studies to say 30% or more experience side effects. Even 5% or more would implicate a much larger number of men and imply that side effects were a pharmacological consequence of the drug itself. If the initial studies had indicated 5% or more, I'm not sure the medication would have been approved at all and we'd definitely not see it prescribed so loosely on the internet.

Yea, I can see your point. If 1,000 people take the drug then the difference of 2% and 5% can mean 20 and 50 people getting the side. So thats an additional 30 people getting sides. And when you think of people and not just numbers thats ALOT more!!

Now given that there are thousand and thousands of people taking the drug the difference b/w 2% and 5% is alot more crazy. But maybe I am off here, but I think for most people its not the sides, but the persistent sides that are the problem.
I mean, someone tries tries the drug gets the sides, its disspointing, but basically you are back to square one, and atleast the person knows he tried. But "Persistent Sides" now thats a whole different story. No one signs up for these, which is perhaps the big issue, and I think thats what the noise is about.
In these studies (the independent ones) I think if they were any persistent sides, I am sure they would have reported it. I have spent enought time as a grad student to know that the more your research challenges the accepted norm the higher the likelihood of it being published at a top journal.Obviously in a convincing way, hence the term "ground breaking" research .
So the 10year study I linked, if there was someone with persistent sides I am sure they would have made it a point to report it right in the abstract.
For the record, I am not an expert, but I do believe that persistent side effects probably do exist for propecia, as for alot of other drugs. But the chances of that happening are completely blow out of proportion.

A few years back I would spend alot of time on bodybuilding forums, still remember this one dude, all juiced up on anabolic steroids, and growth hormones, blaming Finasteride for his low-libido. The possibility of sides from this other crazy stuff didn't even occur to him or anyone else on that thread, they were so into getting all jacked up, they refused to even consider that possibility.

[skipstah70]

Add one more to the ever-growing list. Are the deniers reading all of these stories???

skipstah, how long did it take for your body to return to normal? I experienced the 'slow creep', but within months rather than years. Throws a big spanner in the works of any argument that it's "mostly in the head".

It took about 2-3 months for my body to return to normal. I decided to stop after hearing of some guys who were reporting permanent ED and libido side effects. I needed to find out if I was in this boat or not. Luckily, thank god I am not.

Imho, anyone who thinks the side effects of this drug are mostly ' psychological', or anywhere near as low as the '2%' that merck reports, is full of shit. Two of the doctors who had given me prescriptions over the years went so far as to say they thought it was much much higher!!

[CurlyBird]

I think this poll is very flawed. Like has been said before, people who have problems/side effects are more likely to frequent these types of message boards.

But aside from that, sexual side effects could mean anything. It could mean:

- Reduced semen volume
- Slight decrease in desire
- Large decrease in desire
- Total impotence
- Effects which were permanent or resolved completely or partially after either discontinuing treatment or waiting it out for a few weeks/months
- etc.

So I think a more refined poll with more options is in order at the very least. That is if you want a more detailed understanding of people's experiences on this board.

[skipstah70]

What's flawed? The title of the thread just says ' propecia users pleas e come here', there is nothing that would attract a bias in the poll either. It simply asks if you have experienced side effects or not. Regardless of what the sides are, the numbers should be close to Mercks 2% shouldn't they? Merck didn't stipulate who had what side effects, they just said they were reported by 2% of the test group.

If you can read between the lines, the purpose of the poll might be to disprove the ridiculous 2% number supported by Merck.

[captainmoon]

What's flawed? The title of the thread just says ' propecia users pleas e come here', there is nothing that would attract a bias in the poll either. It simply asks if you have experienced side effects or not. Regardless of what the sides are, the numbers should be close to Mercks 2% shouldn't they? Merck didn't stipulate who had what side effects, they just said they were reported by 2% of the test group.

If you can read between the lines, the purpose of the poll might be to disprove the ridiculous 2% number supported by Merck.

The type of finasteride users who frequent hair loss message boards are often those experiencing side effects (or fear they are) and are looking for answers. This poll doesn't prove anything.

Check out the recent Japanese study done on finasteride. The largest and most conclusive finasteride study since the initial FDA trials. 2,561 men participated in the three-year study. Only 0.7% experienced sides (even less than Merck's 2%).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21980923

[philippe]

been on fin for a year and have had sides no question about it. less morning wood, weaker erections, and less/watery semen.

[chrisis]

The defence that the poll is skewed because people with sexual health problems flock to these forums is weak and desperate. I was using this board before I even started taking finasteride, so chalk me up as an exception to your theory professor!

Men come to this forum because it's called "bald truth talk", i.e. it's about issues pertaining to baldness. It's not called "my dick is broke talk".

It's awesome that most of you had no issues on finasteride, but you are only one piece of a complex puzzle. Despite suffering side effects myself, I've not been sucked in to the polar opposite argument that the drug is dangerous and should be discontinued. I like to think I'm smarter than that. Shouldn't you therefore then have a little grace before so casually suggesting finasteride is virtually harmless? What makes you the expert? You surely expected everything to be fine before taking the drug, so why does confirmation of this qualify you to add anything to this debate?

In my opinion you have a responsibility to at minimum consider the possibility that the figures in these trials are wrong. You can't verify the methodology or accuracy of them.

And anyway what do you have to lose by acknowledging the experiences described by guys such as myself? Bear in mind that every time you so casually reject us, you are potentially misguiding someone into thinking the drug is entirely safely when it's clearly not. I have outlined my experienced and I'm supposed to believe I'm just unlucky to be the "one in 50" who have side effects. I'm now apparently one of the tiny minority who have side effects weeks after discontinuing it. Am I really so unlucky or are you just wrong?

[chrisis]

been on fin for a year and have had sides no question about it. less morning wood, weaker erections, and less/watery semen.

Are you still taking it philippe? Curious why if so.

[chrisis]

Only 0.7% experienced sides (even less than Merck's 2%).
[/URL]

This has just got to be wrong. There's no way the number of men reporting side effects on these forums amount to 0.7% of men taking finasteride.

And if these figures are so reliable, why are they so inconsistent? This trial's 0.7% is ONE THIRD of Merck's 2% claim. Merck's 2% claim is ONE THIRD of another separate trial (forget the source but it was 7%). You CANNOT sensibly rely on these trials when they contradict each other by such margins! One says 0.7%, another says 2%, and another says 7%!

The sensible conclusion is we don't know!!! Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or stupid.

[bob13]

This has just got to be wrong. There's no way the number of men reporting side effects on these forums amount to 0.7% of men taking finasteride.

And if these figures are so reliable, why are they so inconsistent? This trial's 0.7% is ONE THIRD of Merck's 2% claim. Merck's 2% claim is ONE THIRD of another separate trial (forget the source but it was 7%). You CANNOT sensibly rely on these trials when they contradict each other by such margins! One says 0.7%, another says 2%, and another says 7%!

The sensible conclusion is we don't know!!! Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or stupid.

Very true, Taking a poll with people that are different in everything including DNA you never know.
All I can say is I can live with whatever I get.

[the_charger]

I think a lot of guys who hold a grudge against propecia lack the ability to look at things objectively. Whenever some study comes out that contradicts their views on the topic, they say “Oh man that HAS to be wrong!” but when something supports them (like this stupid poll) they go “see? Merck must be wrong because this internet poll tells a different story!”

This thread is a gong show. Seriously, what if a single guy from propeciahelp told a bunch of other members to sign up here and respond to the poll? What if someone is creating multiple accounts to do this also? Some of the crazier anti propecia members (STTB) I could actually believe would do this.

I think when you have bad side effects yourself and interact with so many others that all have bad side effects, you start to think the whole world is getting them. there is only one way to get to the truth of the matter, and that is with all these studies. The reason for that is they completely eliminate all the other biases that one would see when taking an internet poll, and give you straight, hard facts. I know people try to argue with the results of these studies, but its really difficult when the facts are right there in front of you.

[chrisis]

I know people try to argue with the results of these studies, but its really difficult when the facts are right there in front of you.

Did you even read my last post? The facts aren't right in front of us. One study says 0.7% have side effects, another says triple that at 2% and another still says triple that again at 7%. What "fact" do we derive from these inconsistent findings, other than no firm conclusions can be drawn? Also, who is funding the studies? What was their methodology? Are you actually able to answer these questions? Probably not. They said 2% and you believe them because you were ok. Talk about lack of critical thinking.

Speculating that someone is creating multiple accounts to rig the poll is ludicrous. Read the thread. These are genuine people. And as for those who hold a grudge against finasteride, if they've suffered severe sexual side effects, who can blame them? Of course they're angry. But accusing them of bias is about as valid as suggesting those who've had a positive experience are biased and there's supposed to be 98% more of them!

Personally I have more of a grudge against people like you who persist with delusion and denial. I simply expect people to be honest that they do not and cannot know how many men suffer side effects as a direct consequence of taking finasteride. Point to all of the studies you want, but they don't even corroborate each other, so how bloody good are they anyway?

[the_charger]

Which study did you see had 7% side effects? I don’t remember seeing that one.
Numbers and percentages can be tricky though... Yes, the difference between 0.7%, 2% and 7% when you take into consideration that 30 million people are taking the drug is HUGE. But some of these studies are very small, many with less than a couple hundred people. Depending on the size of the study, these percentages could only mean a difference of a dozen or so people. Of course you are going to see some differences when looking at all these studies, but i did a TON of research before I started on propecia.. The average side effects from all the studies I found averaged 2 – 5%. Bigger studies (more test patients) are always better and give the best results.

I honestly can’t believe you are arguing for the legitimacy of this stupid poll. You are taking this internet poll on a hair loss forum to be more powerful and relevant data than a university study of over 3000 people? Don’t you think maybe there is a bit of a bias existing on this forum?

I don’t think I’m in denial about anything. You keep saying side effect numbers are way higher than what Merck found in their studies… there are a lot of other studies out there that come up with more or less the same figures, but you keep saying they are wrong and they must be way higher in reality!? Why do you think this? As was said by another member, the Japanese study is the largest and most recent study done on the drug. I admit I haven’t read the whole thing but what specific reason do you think it isn’t accurate other than it didn’t agree with the results? I am not asking for a theory that maybe merck funded it or maybe this or maybe that, but what valid reasons do you have to question this study, based on actual facts?

[chrisis]

Here is the study I was referring to although it was actually 6%. Still, nowhere near 0.7% or 2%.

the Japanese study is the largest and most recent study done on the drug.

The study was done on JAPANESE men? Not American or European men, with their rich and diverse genetic heritage, but a largely isolated indigenous population in the far East. Can you spot the flaw in methodology??? If it wasn't so tragic it would be laughable.

As for your questions, yes I trust men who continue to post on these forums that they have been affected in similiar ways to me by a drug that works by changing the chemistry of their hormonal system. Seriously, it's not that hard to believe if you actually think about it what the drug is actually doing.

[captainmoon]

The defence that the poll is skewed because people with sexual health problems flock to these forums is weak and desperate. I was using this board before I even started taking finasteride, so chalk me up as an exception to your theory professor!

Men come to this forum because it's called "bald truth talk", i.e. it's about issues pertaining to baldness. It's not called "my dick is broke talk.

Look, those on finasteride without side effects generally won't be spending their days on hair loss forums. They're going to be out living their lives and enjoying their hair. They've essentially found the "answer" to stopping their hair loss and have no real reason to be on here (unless of course they want to discuss MPB anyway, which is fine, but they're not the majority).

Look at it this way: There are roughly 500,000 men taking finasteride worldwide. There are 2,224 registered users on Propecia Help forums. For the hell of it, let's double that number to an even 5,000. Let's say there are 5,000 men out there experiencing side effects from this drug. That is still only 1% of all men on it. Bottom line: There are a LOT of men taking this drug. Very few seem to experience side effects.

Again, I am NOT denying that side effects exist -- they clearly do. But there is a very loud minority who is great at perpetuating fear surrounding this drug. Also, chrisis, I don't think it was a great idea for you to be on this forum while being on fin. I would personally never do that. You should try it out again at a smaller dose (try 0.5 mg every other day). Just pop the pill, stay away from hair loss sites, and try to forget that you're on it at all.