-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by dex89
I'm not loosing hair on the crown or top, It's more of a receding issue and a minor diffuse right temple. The temple is a no regrowth, the corner of my temples are thinning. Fin does work but it probably would not regrow hair around the hairline area like DUT would.
I have seen your pictures. You have almost no hair loss. You should really not be using dangerous drugs like finasteride for such negligible hair loss.
-
Check this post out: http://www.*****************/interact...read.php/48633
This is what inspired me to get on dut. Really hoping it works as well as it did for him. Just got it today, not sure when I'll start it.
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by dex89
I'm not loosing hair on the crown or top, It's more of a receding issue and a minor diffuse right temple. The temple is a no regrowth, the corner of my temples are thinning. Fin does work but it probably would not regrow hair around the hairline area like DUT would.
Wow. No wonder you have little hair loss. The fin is definitely working for you. Good job.
You say DUT actually regrows burnt out follicles at the temple area? What exactly is DUT ?
-
Originally Posted by drybone
Wow. No wonder you have little hair loss. The fin is definitely working for you. Good job.
You say DUT actually regrows burnt out follicles at the temple area? What exactly is DUT ?
DUT=Dutasteride (Avodart)
-
Senior Member
Originally Posted by Aames
DUT=Dutasteride (Avodart)
thanks. Ive been doing some reading on it and it appears to be some pretty heavy duty stuff.
-
Originally Posted by drybone
thanks. Ive been doing some reading on it and it appears to be some pretty heavy duty stuff.
I guess so. If you look at the studies though, the incidences of side effects aren't all that different from fin.
-
Originally Posted by Aames
I guess so. If you look at the studies though, the incidences of side effects aren't all that different from fin.
Makes you wonder if the data is reliable....
-
Originally Posted by chrisis
Makes you wonder if the data is reliable....
Chrisis, while I really feel for you, I'm far more inclined to believe the results found by actual scientists than a band of anonymous faces on the internet that say fin/dut gave them persistent sides.
-
Originally Posted by Aames
Chrisis, while I really feel for you, I'm far more inclined to believe the results found by actual scientists than a band of anonymous faces on the internet that say fin/dut gave them persistent sides.
I'm more inclined to believe people who don't have any financial incentive to lie and present biased information. I know because of my personal experience that there are very really dangers - you're taking drugs that interfere with hormone interactions which nobody fully understands - not even "actual scientists".
"Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques which are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don't like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug's true effects. Regulators see most of the trial data, but only from early on in a drug's life, and even then they don't give this data to doctors or patients, or even to other parts of government. This distorted evidence is then communicated and applied in a distorted fashion. In their forty years of practice after leaving medical school, doctors hear about what works through ad hoc oral traditions, from sales reps, colleagues or journals. But those colleagues can be in the pay of drug companies – often undisclosed – and the journals are too. And so are the patient groups. And finally, academic papers, which everyone thinks of as objective, are often covertly planned and written by people who work directly for the companies, without disclosure. Sometimes whole academic journals are even owned outright by one drug company. Aside from all this, for several of the most important and enduring problems in medicine, we have no idea what the best treatment is, because it's not in anyone's financial interest to conduct any trials at all. These are ongoing problems, and although people have claimed to fix many of them, for the most part they have failed; so all these problems persist, but worse than ever, because now people can pretend that everything is fine after all."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma
See that bit about "unrepresentative patients"? I've asked time and time again for a study showing how safe Propecia is for men of a young age or with less advanced balding. I have yet to see anything that satisfies that basic question.
-
"Actual scientists" aside, I still think the anecdotal evidence from pro-fin people vastly outweighs that of the anti-fin people. Not taking fin, going bald, and looking back wondering "what if" would be more painful than sides.
Similar Threads
-
By candlestick in forum Hair Loss Treatments
Replies: 21
Last Post: 12-01-2016, 12:28 PM
-
By [mcr] in forum Men's Hair Loss: Start Your Own Topic
Replies: 14
Last Post: 05-29-2016, 12:59 PM
-
By coffee in forum Hair Loss Treatments
Replies: 1
Last Post: 10-27-2011, 02:52 PM
-
By ALM in forum Men's Hair Loss: Start Your Own Topic
Replies: 0
Last Post: 05-09-2011, 04:42 PM
-
By Goldie in forum Women's Hair Loss: Start Your Own Topic
Replies: 0
Last Post: 12-09-2008, 03:55 AM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Forum Rules
|
» IAHRS
» The Bald Truth
» americanhairloss.org
|
Bookmarks