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.