Started Finasteride, turned gay.

[Tracy C]

surprised gmonasco isn't in here already trying to school people on genetics/sexuality like he's some yale professor

That topic is better for another thread anyways. I do try to understand it because I have a few friends who are gay. I know I probably do not understand as much as I should but I do try to understand their position as much as I can.

[gutted]

The facts do not back up the fear mongering.

If you recall i said SOME men.
AND, yes there are facts to back this up, that are being highlighted by many doctors, news organisation etc...not that the fda puppets would know of and disclose

for others it perfectly changes the hormonal profile of men very well and prevents any further loss for a specific period of time.

Ive never taken this drug (and wont take this drug) and therefore cant recomend it nor can i not recomend it...nor can you.

regardless, men who are considering taking this drug need to speak to thier GP's and not ask for advice on forums, which spread misinformation.

[Tracy C]

regardless, men who are considering taking this drug need to speak to thier GP's and not ask for advice on forums, which spread misinformation.

That is the only thing you said that has any true merit.

You called people like me... In fact you specifically targeted me - and called me an FDA puppet. That is not true and it was out of line. You do not know anything about me or my background. I know a whole lot more than you are willing to believe I do. I understand how to interpret data better than you are willing to accept. I can also tell the difference between good data and garbage data better than you are willing to accept.

You implied that I recommend guys take this drug. That is a lie. I recommend that guys talk to their doctors about this drug. That is the truth.

The true information about the percent of males affected by side effects can never be accurately determined while all this fear mongering and ambulance chasing is going on. Both these activities are corrupting data that is already pretty difficult to gather and sort through. Neither fear mongering or ambulance chasing is helping anyone in any meaningful way, accept the lawyers and law firms inviolved.

[ThinningB420]

That topic is better for another thread anyways. I do try to understand it because I have a few friends who are gay. I know I probably do not understand as much as I should but I do try to understand their position as much as I can.

As a person with bias, I'd like to agree with Scorpion. However, as a person who studied this in school under an independent teacher I cannot. However, based on actual evidence, those who are on your side are also misrepresenting the facts. Reality is, the genetic influence on homosexuality is full of gray areas. We hear about the gay gene. Fact is, there has not been any credible evidence of a specific gene causing homosexuality. Not to mention, research shows differences between male homosexuality and female homosexuality that isn't fully understood. Each side of this argument likes to make sweeping remarks to support themselves and make the other side look ridiculous. With the research we have, and using the scientific method, it appears at this moment the answer to this debate is somewhere in the middle of both sides.

[Davey Jones]

As for this gay-debate, I may as well chime in. My theory, there is a very small segment of the population that are actually born gay. You could compare this to a genetic defect. However, the majority of the gay population are in fact bisexuals. Sexuality does have an element of social construct / preference involved. Procreation is the driving force of nature, so in essence, it's not so much that there is something 'wrong' with you if you are attracted to the same sex, but something is 'off' if you are not attracted to the opposite.

Actually, the propagation of DNA by any means is the driving force of nature. This is the explanation of seemingly altruistic behavior in nature that leads to one animal being sacrificed (even before procreation) to save another. These individuals are almost always found to share much of their genetic code with the individual they saved at the risk of their own life. The genes don't care how or in what organism they spread. Just that they spread in the most efficient and expansive way possible. (Look up gazelles who exhibit behavior that makes them obvious to predators so that they could alert the herd. These individuals are regularly killed, but the traits remain.)

Homosexuality could easily be evidence for evolution accounting for limited resources. Did you know that each successive offspring is more likely than the last to be a homo- or bi-sexual? This mechanism prevents too many offspring from, essentially, having their respective offspring eat up all the resources. In this case, the DNA involved would not continue in any host, as they all would die of starvation. Instead, there are fewer healthy members of the third generation with more protectors. In the end, the DNA continues at greater levels than it would have without the addition of homosexuals.

This is all theoretical, and obviously there is an environmental component, but it is a fact that procreation alone is not the driving force of nature. Glad to be able to clear that up.

[gutted]

I understand how to interpret data better than you are willing to accept. I can also tell the difference between good data and garbage data better than you are willing to accept.

over statement of the century!!
of course "good data" to you is "fda data" right???

garbage data in -> garbage data out.

you may know how to "interptret data" as you say..but the fact is men who have ACTUALLY tried the drug are in a better position to voice their opinion on it than you.

if you had some sort of medical credentials...it would be a slightley different story...perhaps its best to put a little disclaimer in your posts saying they are your opinions.

[lilpauly]

over statement of the century!!
of course "good data" to you is "fda data" right???

garbage data in -> garbage data out.

you may know how to "interptret data" as you say..but the fact is men who have ACTUALLY tried the drug are in a better position to voice their opinion on it than you.

if you had some sort of medical credentials...it would be a slightley different story...perhaps its best to put a little disclaimer in your posts saying they are your opinions.

Exactly stacy assumes she knows what's best for everyone. Assuming is mother of all blunders

[Dan26]

Cool story, bro...

Just playin, very interesting actually, thanks for the input.

[Tracy C]

of course "good data" to you is "fda data" right???

No. If you would actually bother to read what I write, you would know I am going with more than just what the FDA says. The FDA data on Finasteride isn't the only data available on the medication. The data from the fear mongers and ambulance chasers isn't the only data on Finasteride available either. Also, if you would bother to read what I write, you would know that I am also taking in experiences from males who are using this medication, both the 1mg and 5mg daily dose. But you are obviously incapable of reading anything that isn't what you want to hear. You just want to start a fight. Well, I don't want to fight. You are not worth my time. This conversation is over.

[gutted]

I am also taking in experiences from males who are using this medication, both the 1mg and 5mg daily dose.

im pretty sure experiences are considered "garbage data" too, many variables are involved.

I have nothing against fin, ive never used it and never will but some posters need to highlight some of the problems associated with it to newbies, who know ZERO about the drug and mpb.

i feel this forum is severeley lacking in scientific interlect and really needs to be sorted out ASAP.