10/2011 Study: <1.0% Japanese Men Show Side Effects on Finasteride

[ulanude]

Side-effects are the one thing (and they do happen with finasteride!). Long-term irreversible damage is the other thing. Certainly no existing study has long-term data (e.g. 10 years and more) on this drug! Feel free to show me one...
Most studies have only been carried out for multiple month - and even then available study results are contradictory. I'm just saying that there are long-term risks (which have been started to be addressed by some studies - see above) and one should be realistic about this

[Thinning@30]

Who paid for these studies which purport to show such a low incidence of side effects?

I am highly skeptical of the studies showing a low incidence of side effects for the following reasons:

-Most men experiencing hair loss are at least middle age or approaching middle age. If they have a loss of libido while on propecia, they may mistakenly attribute it to normal ageing rather than to the drug.

-Any kind of sexual dysfunction is going to be embarrassing and awkard to discuss. For this reason, many men will be reluctant to admit to having sexual problems to their doctors and even to themselves.

-Most of the studies that I am aware of use subjective self-assessments of whether or not side effects were experienced. Men are notorious for overestimating their sexual prowess. I would have more confidence in the studies if I knew they used objective measurements (for example, the number, firmness, and duration of erections over the course of the study period), but this would be much harder to do.

-Propecia has not been around long enough for long-term safety studies. No one caN say with certainty that there are no long-term side effects to propecia use.

If propecia would actually restore my hair to its former density and thickness then I might consider it worthwhile. But to risk serious and possibly permanent side effects simply to slow down hair loss (if that) to me is not worth it.

[the_charger]

It looks like the university who did the study funded it.

Your first and second arguments dont really make sense. If this were the case, wouldn't all of the propecia studies then be useless? I think on the contrary, guys will be LOOKING for side effects so that they can report them to their doctors. I believe also when they are reporting sexual function, they take a questionnaire and report anonymously to avoid embarrassment.

Propecia has only been around for like 10 years, but the active drug finasteride has been used for over 20 years. That's not as long as some drugs, but it's a pretty damn long time. I remember reading about this one study of somewhere around 20,000 guys using it for prostate problems, and they were studied for over 5 years….. That's pretty significant!

I don't know, some people seem to just become afraid of something, and decide forever that they won't go near it. It reminds me a lot of this whole aspartame debacle. It's the most widely studied food additive in history, and no one has found it causes any side effects at any level (except for a trigger of migraines in a few, but anything can trigger migraines). There is so much scientific data that says it’s perfectly safe, but there are still millions of people that swear it causes cancer and a ton of horrible problems. It's almost like some people subconsciously want to be afraid. It really reminds me of this whole propecia debate.

[Thinning@30]

Your first and second arguments dont really make sense. If this were the case, wouldn't all of the propecia studies then be useless?

I think most of the propecia studies are pretty useless. I think they overstate benefits and understate risks.

I think on the contrary, guys will be LOOKING for side effects so that they can report them to their doctors. I believe also when they are reporting sexual function, they take a questionnaire and report anonymously to avoid embarrassment

Denial is powerful, and I bet most people experiencing sexual problems can't admit to themselves let alone to others, even anonymously. Furthermore any kind of questionnaire or self-reporting is always going to be subjective. It would be more meaningful if objective physiological measures were used.

I don't know, some people seem to just become afraid of something, and decide forever that they won't go near it.

As I said, if propecia actually restored my hair to an acceptable level of density, then I might consider the risks worthwhile, but for many, if not most men, that is not what it does. It merely slows down the rate of hair loss, if that. To risk gynecomastia, breast cancer, and possibly permanent sexual side effects to maybe slow down the rate of hair loss to me is not worth it.

Look, I'm no fan of conspiracy theories. I don't think that there is some vast conspiracy on the part of big pharma to suppress a hair loss cure, but at the same time, I'm not naive enought to think that the big pharmaceutical companies and their investors will always do what is in the public's best interest and are above pushing subpar and risky treatments when profit is involved.

[CurlyBird]

I would tend to place quite a lot of weight on who funded the research. Medical studies today are notoriously suspect in general because the money so often comes from business institutions with a financial stake in a product's success. Or the doctors doing the study are in big pharma's pockets. If this study was done independent of corrupting sources of money, I would say it is probably quite valid. Especially with a 3000+ sample size. That is more than enough to make the study relevant, in addition to the fact that the men took the drug for several years.

[Thinning@30]

Medical studies today are notoriously suspect in general because the money so often comes from business institutions with a financial stake in a product's success. Or the doctors doing the study are in big pharma's pockets.

I tend to feel the same way. I would give more credit to the propecia studies if I were confident they were done without the influence of people with a financial stake in the drug's success, but I also feel side effects will be underreported as long as subjective measures are used.

[born]

I tend to feel the same way. I would give more credit to the propecia studies if I were confident they were done without the influence of people with a financial stake in the drug's success, but I also feel side effects will be underreported as long as subjective measures are used.

but what about the swedish study then?

[2020]

I tend to feel the same way. I would give more credit to the propecia studies if I were confident they were done without the influence of people with a financial stake in the drug's success, but I also feel side effects will be underreported as long as subjective measures are used.

i think you like being a victim because it is easier for you to rebel