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

[SoothSayer]

LOL - let me help you a bit since you didn't carefully read the source.

"An erection occurs, when under the influence of sexually arousing stimuli the penis becomes engorged with blood. An erection is a very complex biological phenomenon but it involves 2 chemicals that we can focus on that play a major role in both male and female sexual arousal. These are nitric oxide (NO) and cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP). Both of these result in relaxation of smooth muscle that controls blood vessels within the penis. This results in increased blood flow within the penis and both of these chemicals are positively influenced by testosterone. That is, without sufficient testosterone, there will not be enough NO and cGMP to create an erection. It turns out that DHT (dihydrotestosterone) is the principle regulator of these chemicals and DHT is manufactured in the body from testosterone."

You can go further and check out tons of other articles to discuss the link between DHT, nitric oxide, and cGMP:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12601527

Remarkably, basal NO level was enhanced threefold by stimulating dermal papilla cells with 5alpha-dihydrotestosterone (DHT) but not with testosterone.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mEgckDNkonUC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=nitric+oxide+dht&source=bl&ots=1D3zbXumQb&sig=dBwu1eulNfGdBExWORvJ6lFvDdE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_PHwT53hLIfa0QGPm9X6Ag&ved=0CHUQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=nitric%20oxide%20dht&f=false

I won't go on further.. but please don't expect me to do your homework for you again.

[the_charger]

so you are posting two primary studies that show a link, then drawing your OWN conclusion that DHT is crucial to cause erections to happen? You should go apply for a job at the Masters Mens clinic, i'm sure you will be a shoe-in!

The fact that you posted these shows me that I don't even have to waste a minute searching for any studies. You cant even post a single study that says: DHT is essential for erectile function because of X. We have demonstrated this because of Y. All you can do is post one study that says X, another study that says Y, then based on your OWN non-medical opinion conclude, that X + Y = Z. I want to see a non-quack doctor or group of researchers reach this conclusion based on strong evidence, not some anonymous poster with a staggering bias on a hair loss forum.

Just one more time, i'm not surprised you continue to skirt this question like you always do, but your personal opinion is that DHT is extremely important for erectile function, right? Do you then believe that every man who takes dutasteride is unable to obtain an erection? I think it's hilarious that you won't even take a swing at answering this! Hell, maybe i'm completely wrong and missing something huge. You could absolutely be right. But until this question is answered, there is no way what you are saying could be true by any stretch.

Stop being so blinded by your bias and trying to desperately to convince everyone of something that is so blatantly false. You've looked hard enough and found small, weak, primary studies that seem to show some sort of relationship, then try to shove it down peoples throats as common knowledge?

you are doing the exact same thing as those nut-jobs who believe vaccines are dangerous and don't work. You keep looking hard enough, you will always find something to support your beliefs, no matter how misguided they may be.

[SoothSayer]

You don't seem to be able to engage in intelligent discussion so I will not proceed with this conversation about DHT and erectile function. For the readers with a little frontal lobe available for use - the evidence has been presented.

[SoothSayer]

Just one more time, i'm not surprised you continue to skirt this question like you always do, but your personal opinion is that DHT is extremely important for erectile function, right? Do you then believe that every man who takes dutasteride is unable to obtain an erection? I think it's hilarious that you won't even take a swing at answering this! Hell, maybe i'm completely wrong and missing something huge.

DHT influencing erectile function is as much opinion as the notion that lifting weights builds muscle fiber. No, not everybody experiences erectile dysfunction after using 5-AR inhibitors. People have these things called genes that cause variation in biological functioning across humans - some men require higher levels of androgens to feel good and function normally and others will thrive on lower levels. The endocrine system is a very delicate system that can be thrown into chaos if faced with unnatural interventions. Some men with more resilient endocrine systems do fine with these drugs and others do not. The 'huge' thing you are missing seems to be a healthy brain.

[the_charger]

DHT influencing erectile function is as much opinion as the notion that lifting weights builds muscle fiber.

if this is really so cut and dry then why can you not find one single study that reaches this conclusion? Like i said in my previous post, you found two studies: one that says X, and one that says Y. You then conclude X + Y = Z. Thats not how it works, and I know you know that's not how it works.


Here is my contribution. This study has over a dozen references and was conducted by a hospital in north america

The Effect of 5 a-Reductase Review Inhibitors on Erectile Function

J Androl 2008;29:514–523

"In this review, we surveyed studies on erectile dysfunction in patients treated with 5 reductase inhibitors and critically examined the evidence that associates 5 a-reductase inhibitors and erectile dysfunction. We conclude that 5 a-reductase inhibitors do not lead to erectile dysfunction to a significant degree, and we support the position that dihydrotestosterone is less relevant than testosterone in erectile function.."

and

"the critical androgenic substance for these effects is most likely T rather than DHT."

Four of the references in this study referenced "Nitric Oxide" in the titles. These guys obviously did their research, and had access to way more resources than you or I ever could. They reached the conclusion that DHT is NOT crucial for erection. To go even further, they couldnt even statistically establish that finasteride causes any ED whatsoever!

and just to be crystal clear, I did not reach these conclusions, the researchers did and it was based on mounds of information. why are your two studies and your interpretation more accurate than this?

No, not everybody experiences erectile dysfunction after using 5-AR inhibitors. People have these things called genes that cause variation in biological functioning across humans - some men require higher levels of androgens to feel good and function normally and others will thrive on lower levels. The endocrine system is a very delicate system that can be thrown into chaos if faced with unnatural interventions. Some men with more resilient endocrine systems do fine with these drugs and others do not.

We aren't arguing about 'some men'! You are trying to steer the conversation away from the topic again. Yeah some men rarely will have major problems if they are predisposed to hormonal problems, and maybe propecia could even cause this to happen.

What you are trying to tell me that it is common knowledge is that DHT is necessary for men to get an erection. There is nothing out there that shows this is true.... In fact there is sufficient evidence that shows DHT is not important, like what i posted above.

The 'huge' thing you are missing seems to be a healthy brain.

I love how you keep up with these childish insults and talk down to me, but then in the previous post you say I am the one that can't engage in intelligent discussion? Im pretty sure i've kept up and challenged you more than anyone else on this forum so grow up already. I would be happy to have a respectable and intelligent debate with you, but YOU are the one that repeatedly insults me and bringing it to a personal level......

[SoothSayer]

In fact there is sufficient evidence that shows DHT is not important, like what i posted above.

You completely misinterpreted the study above, which was not unexpected. They do not say that DHT is 'unimportant' but rather that testosterone is more important. People already know that testosterone is a very important factor as well in determining erectile function and is not inconsistent with the notion that DHT is also related.

Im pretty sure i've kept up and challenged you more than anyone else on this forum so grow up already. I would be happy to have a respectable and intelligent debate with you

You have not challenged me, but you have merely disagreed and misunderstood my statements. I would be happy if you could have an intelligent debate as well, but you can't always get what you want.

[the_charger]

They do not say that DHT is 'unimportant' but rather that testosterone is more important. People already know that testosterone is a very important factor as well in determining erectile function and is not inconsistent with the notion that DHT is also related.

The study itself concluded "the critical androgenic substance for these effects is most likely T rather than DHT." I read the study and it did not state anywhere with certainty that DHT was important. the data shown in the study strongly supports this fact also

This doesnt state with absolute 100% certainty that this is the case, but it suggests it is most likely the case. You still cant give me a single study that reaches a conclusion supporting your theory.

One more interesting thing to check I assume you have seen a copy of this study so take a look at page 6 (also labeled as page 519 as it exists in the book). Take a look at the 4 referenced dutasteride studies. ill post them here too

Study 1
McConnell et al 2003
Number of subjects: 1493
Dosage: 0.5 mg/d
Years of treatment: 4.5
ED % Rate Dut/Placebo: 3.5/3.3
Actual ED Rate: 0.2%

Study 2
Andriole and Kirby 2003
Number of subjects: 5655
Dosage: 0.5 mg/d
Years of treatment: 2
ED % Rate Dut/Placebo: 0.8/0.9
Actual ED Rate: 0.1%

Study 3
Roehrborn et al 2004
Number of subjects: 569
Dosage: 0.5 mg/d
Years of treatment: 2
ED % Rate Dut/Placebo: 1.3/1.3
Actual ED Rate: 0%

Study 4
Marberger et al 2006
Number of subjects: 4254
Dosage: 0.5 mg/d
Years of treatment: 2
ED % Rate Dut/Placebo: 6.7/4.0
Actual ED Rate: 2.7%

Total Patients: 11,971
Average Years: 2.6
Average ED rate: 0.75%

Let me summarize.. Out of 11,971 patients taking 0.5mg dutasteride over the (average) course of 2.6 years, with their DHT levels lowered by 95%, only 0.75% reported ED. Yes, over ten thousand men walked around with 95% DHT, the hormone you think is so crucial for achieving erections, and less than 1 out of 130 reported ED. I dont think I could prove my point any more eloquently!

Whats even crazier and proves my point undoubtably is the finasteride studies referenced had an overall ED rate of 3.3% over the course of 2.5 years.

finasteride which lowers DHT by 60 or 70% caused more than four times as much ED as dutasteride which lowers DHT by 95%. Of course there is some margin of error here, but this is a massive amount of hard evidence that 100% supports the idea that DHT is not important for erections.

Ive laid this all out for you.. these are long term studies with thousands of patients over the course of years, showing that DHT appears to have absolutely nothing to do with ED rates.


Now the extent of your data so far consists of a poorly written article from a mens health clinic, and a conclusion you reached on your own from two small primary studies.

How can you still argue this?

You have not challenged me, but you have merely disagreed and misunderstood my statements. I would be happy if you could have an intelligent debate as well, but you can't always get what you want.

Of course I disagree with your statements, isnt that why we are debating!? Perhaps I am no longer challenging you because you have outright given up because you have no more ways to try to make your case?

[Maradona]

The study itself concluded "the critical androgenic substance for these effects is most likely T rather than DHT." I read the study and it did not state anywhere with certainty that DHT was important. the data shown in the study strongly supports this fact also

This doesnt state with absolute 100% certainty that this is the case, but it suggests it is most likely the case. You still cant give me a single study that reaches a conclusion supporting your theory.

One more interesting thing to check I assume you have seen a copy of this study so take a look at page 6 (also labeled as page 519 as it exists in the book). Take a look at the 4 referenced dutasteride studies. ill post them here too

Study 1
McConnell et al 2003
Number of subjects: 1493
Dosage: 0.5 mg/d
Years of treatment: 4.5
ED % Rate Dut/Placebo: 3.5/3.3
Actual ED Rate: 0.2%

Study 2
Andriole and Kirby 2003
Number of subjects: 5655
Dosage: 0.5 mg/d
Years of treatment: 2
ED % Rate Dut/Placebo: 0.8/0.9
Actual ED Rate: 0.1%

Study 3
Roehrborn et al 2004
Number of subjects: 569
Dosage: 0.5 mg/d
Years of treatment: 2
ED % Rate Dut/Placebo: 1.3/1.3
Actual ED Rate: 0%

Study 4
Marberger et al 2006
Number of subjects: 4254
Dosage: 0.5 mg/d
Years of treatment: 2
ED % Rate Dut/Placebo: 6.7/4.0
Actual ED Rate: 2.7%

Total Patients: 11,971
Average Years: 2.6
Average ED rate: 0.75%

Let me summarize.. Out of 11,971 patients taking 0.5mg dutasteride over the (average) course of 2.6 years, with their DHT levels lowered by 95%, only 0.75% reported ED. Yes, over ten thousand men walked around with 95% DHT, the hormone you think is so crucial for achieving erections, and less than 1 out of 130 reported ED. I dont think I could prove my point any more eloquently!

Whats even crazier and proves my point undoubtably is the finasteride studies referenced had an overall ED rate of 3.3% over the course of 2.5 years.

finasteride which lowers DHT by 60 or 70% caused more than four times as much ED as dutasteride which lowers DHT by 95%. Of course there is some margin of error here, but this is a massive amount of hard evidence that 100% supports the idea that DHT is not important for erections.

Ive laid this all out for you.. these are long term studies with thousands of patients over the course of years, showing that DHT appears to have absolutely nothing to do with ED rates.


Now the extent of your data so far consists of a poorly written article from a mens health clinic, and a conclusion you reached on your own from two small primary studies.

How can you still argue this?




Of course I disagree with your statements, isnt that why we are debating!? Perhaps I am no longer challenging you because you have outright given up because you have no more ways to try to make your case?

A friend of mine just quit DUT, he was mumbling words, he couldn't do simple math, his mind was ****ed.

He recovered though, lucky him.

Erections is the least thing i'm worried with fin or dut.

Most people don't have sides or do not notice it or report.

If you have no sides with DUT or FIN, why even come to the forums to prove yourself?

You're one of the lucky guys, move on.

[BaldinLikeBaldwin]

A friend of mine just quit DUT, he was mumbling words, he couldn't do simple math, his mind was ****ed.

He recovered though, lucky him.

Erections is the least thing i'm worried with fin or dut.

Most people don't have sides or do not notice it or report.

If you have no sides with DUT or FIN, why even come to the forums to prove yourself?

You're one of the lucky guys, move on.

I think some people just get tired of the internet scaremongering...although I appreciate the charger's effort and passion for the subject I don't think he'll get soothsayer to change his opinion no matter what.

It can be argued that debating for and against finasteride on forums is pretty pointless...those who have suffered persistent side effects are probably better off focusing on lawsuits et cet. Those who have success with finasteride are most often not on the forums at all but out enjoying life.

[SoothSayer]

Charger - You fail to properly understand the conclusion of the paper you have submitted. Once again saying that T is the critical factor in maintaining erectile function does not mean that DHT is completely absent in the equation. If you bothered to read anything about how how erectile mechanics work with amino acid signals and the relaxation of smooth muscle tissue you would know better. By presenting the studies you have, you are trying to say that finasteride doesn't cause any sexual side effects at all which is patently wrong. Sexual side effects caused by finasteride have been admitted by Merck and now both Merck and FDA admit its link to irreversible side effects.

I hope you don't get any adverse reactions from the drug because people are going to think you are insane after being in such vehement denial for so long. Good luck.

[1Aristotle]

No sides, no loss significant/ obvious loss in sex drive. Been using it for 9 months.

Now i'd like to see a poll to asses results. Improvement, Maintained, or Lost @ 1 year mark, 2, 3, 5, 10 etc.

[67mph]

My experience as diffuse thinner:

1year, maintained...
2year, maintained...
Into my 3rd year, slightloss perhaps...

[prxz89]

I'm 23 years old. I also have a unique red hair color and brown eyebrows. I've had sexual problems on occasion. Also if i squeeze my nipple a little clear fluid comes out.

Been on it since 2008 along side rogaine. If anything i guess it has slowed down my hair loss assuming that I would be much worse without it. Every year I have less hair, I go through a period of little hair loss and then once or twice each year there is a shed. That hair never comes back. It also seems like I'm losing hair diffusely wherever I put the rogaine. My hair loss is literally where I put that stuff.. I dont get it. I started using it before I even had any noticeable hairloss. I had a scalp analysis done and was told I suffered from MPB.

I do not trust these products at all but I'm much to fearful of what would happen without them.

I use an all natural shampoo, a laser comb every other day as well.. nothing seems to be reversing mine.. only gradually getting worse each year.