Habeas admitted that he wasn't experiencing any form of hair loss and had never taken finasteride. It's pretty unusual that he would spend so much of his time persistently attacking it (not to mention legitimate members of this forum) with no apparent motivation to do so. He never tried to sell anything, but all he did was push misinformation and tried to convince everyone they would end up with all these horrible symptoms. It is certainly reasonable to consider that he was financially motivated. At the very least, he was disruptive, rude, and not helpful to members seeking objective advice. He made an attempt to make amends, but I think it was too little too late, especially when you take a look through his posting history.
- - - Updated - - -
Ahem...extremely rare reaction??? Give your head a shake pal....This forum is full of posts of guys who have had blatant sides from finasteride...How many people on this forum have a reaction to peanuts compared to how many have had limp dick because of this drug??
That example is entirely inconsequential to the analogy I made. That's the same as posting "how many people on this forum have had side effects from finasteride compared to a peanut reaction?" on an allergy forum!
The intent of that analogy was to illustrate that anything we ingest - even seemingly innocuous substances such as peanuts - have the potential to be extremely dangerous to a small minority.
And I am not saying ban finasteride -- I am saying every person should pay attention to what is happening to their bodies when on a drug...And that 0.7% is a c***-n-balls propaganda BS number....The systematic action of finasteride on 5-alpha is the same in all men -- it's cut-n-dry science so to say that only 0.7% experience sides??? Complete crap...you can believe whatever you want from something has corrupt as Merck...free country
Yes, science is actually fairly cut-and-dry, or at least that is the goal. Clinical trials are conducted so that they eliminate as many of the biases and randomness that exist in the real world as possible so that useful data can be obtained. Of course it's not always perfect, and studies aren't ever 100% accurate. That's why repeatability is important. Studies conducted on finasteride consistently and repeatably show roughly the same incidence rates for side effects.
The study I posted was not conducted by Merck, but by a university. You should maybe take a look at it. Merck doesn't have any interest in conducting further trials on finasteride since FDA approval has already been obtained twice. If they choose to pursue a third indication, then we might see more studies from them, but otherwise it's a waste of money for them.
However, science and studies don't mean much if you are of the mind that there is some sort of massive worldwide pharmaceutical conspiracy going on where they somehow manipulate the findings in every study done on their drugs worldwide. Correct me if i'm wrong, but this seems to be where you are headed.
