back to finasteride ?

[davekhan]

Guys,

I took finasteride for 3 months, Side (low LIbodo, weak erections) Quit been on RU for 8 months 100mg, thought I was doing well. Was a norwood 2.5. but my right temple has always been more aggressive, I am approaching a norwood three on my right. Now I have an awkward hair line.

Here is the thing, I want to keep my hair for just a little bit longer. heres my questio.

I quit finasteride once after 3 months sides went away after a few months, is that a good indicator that I wont get perm Sides?

what are the Chances of sides going away completly after long term use ?

I heard of people combatting sides with zinc is that true ? how likely will it help me under my circumstances ?

please help seriously depressed.

 

[Wuffer]

finasteride is just about the only thing currently available that will effectively treat the root cause of your hair loss. Since it is causing you depression, it may be worth considering trying again.

Studies have shown side effects decline over time. Many show that after a year of continued treatment, side effect rates are the same as the placebo group. If you had side effects before you are certainly at higher risk of experiencing them again, but maybe not. Nothing is known about persistent side effects, but the fact that you recovered fully after quitting the first time is a very good sign.

Unfortunately, you don't have many other treatment options at the moment. In maybe 3-5 years there will be some more effective treatments, but on the other hand, maybe not. With current treatments, it is a hundred times easier to save what you have versus regrowing what you have lost. Even future treatments may work on the same principal, so if you are serious about keeping your hair for the long term, finasteride is your best bet and it's best to start as soon as you can.

Many people report success taking Zinc with finasteride, which makes absolutely no sense if it was a 5AR inhibitor. It has also been suggested that it is an aromatase inhibitor, which means it lowers estrogen levels. I personally think the success people have with it is more a result of the placebo effect, but I haven't personally looked into it much myself.


Just FYI, take a look at Habeas' posting history and you will see that every single one of his posts is anti-finasteride. He will say whatever he can to convince people not to take the stuff for whatever his reasons are. The fact that he is clearly unable to be impartial illustrates the fact that his advice is biased, and not exactly worth considering. Take as objective an approach as you can when making your decision. Best of luck!

 

[Wuffer]

Read the study by Dr. Irwig that came out today. Those who took finasteride were more than 7x more likely to suffer from depression: http://article.psychiatrist.com/dao_1-login.asp?ID=10007988&RSID=18625982052307

Actually, this study simply determined that men who are experiencing persistent sexual dysfunction lasting more than 3 months are 7x more likely to suffer from depression. This in no way implicates finasteride in causing depressive symptoms.

 

[Wuffer]

"Conclusions: Clinicians and potential users of finasteride should be aware of the potential risk of depressive symptoms and suicidal thoughts."

This was Dr. Irwig's conclusion, but I have absolutely no idea how he reached it.

He took 61 guys who have suffered with with sexual dysfunction for over 3 months and also had taken finasteride in the past. He gave them tests to measure the severity of their depression and suicidal tenancies. Then he gave the same test to men who had no sexual issues, and compared the results of the two groups. Somehow from this, he reached the conclusion that finasteride caused the depression, and didn't even mention the fact that their sexual dysfunction may have played a role in the scores?

 

[Wuffer]

Do you recall saying this?

If you think hairloss is depressing, I'd hate to know how feel after suffering from erectile dysfunction.

You said it yourself. Of course you would feel depressed and even suicidal if you had persistent erectile dysfunction for over 3 months. Do you honestly believe that in no way skewed the results? How can it be statistically significant when the data is flawed from the start? Garbage data yields garbage results, no matter how statistically significant the resulting garbage appears. Any researcher should know that the absolute most important thing to ensure when setting up a study is to structure the test method so that you obtain useful, relevant and unbiased data.

It's quite surprising that Dr. Irwig went to seemingly great lengths to identify any possible biases (alcoholism, medical history, prescription medications) that might have induced depression, yet he didn't even comment on the fact that existing sexual dysfunction could cause depression and suicidal thoughts; a condition that all 61 men are suffering from.

 

[Wuffer]

You know full well that I am completely right, and I know you do. It's painfully obvious when you try to play it off like you are currently attempting...

But for the sake of the argument, try to explain to my confused mind how exactly I am wrong. Explain to me how sexual dysfunction doesn't cause depression? Even though you just said it yourself in this very thread, i'll let you back track and re-posture yourself to suit whatever your new argument might be.

You say this isn't a valid criticism, and I am utterly convinced it is completely valid. You can't give me a good reason to think it's not valid, and are playing it off like i'm confused, or maybe you will say it's not worth your time to explain it to me and so on.

 

[Wuffer]

Okay, so you are unable to argue against my very specific reasoning for criticizing this study then?

In no way does this study indicate that finasteride induces depression. It indicates that men suffering from erectile dysfunction are much more (7x) as depressed as men who do not suffer from the condition.

It's not a valid criticism if you don't understand the study. Dr. Irwig explained it well. You are either confused or being willfully ignorant.

I agree that he explained it very well in the abstract, and I believe I understand all of the parameters (again, unless I am missing something huge in the full study that wasn't mentioned in the abstract). What i'm actually saying is that i've noticed something significant that it appears Dr. Irwig didn't even notice, or just completely failed to mention.

 

[Wuffer]

Wow. Okay, well this is clearly going absolutely nowhere.

I am 100% convinced I am right, and have absolutely no doubt about it. I outlined the specific reasons why I believe I am correct, and you are unable to challenge them directly. If you would like to try to challenge my reasoning, go right on ahead. Since you keep changing the focus away from having to answer my questions, I can only assume you are unable to come up with a satisfactory answer. Oh well...

 

[Wuffer]

I said "men suffering from erectile dysfunction" was not even a variable in the study."

You are completely right, and yet again you stumbled on the problem itself. Sexual dysfunction, which all 61 men exhibited, was not considered as a variable or bias in the study. This fact is significant flaw in the way the study was structured, and it clearly yielded biased (useless) results.

You still don't seem to understand my reason for criticizing this study, so here it is yet again for a fourth or fifth time. Please comment specifically on this following point. You need to refute this specific point because it is the single linchpin holding my entire argument together:


The 61 men studied all have sexual dysfunction. Men with sexual dysfunction will, on average, exhibit a higher rate of depression than otherwise healthy men selected from the general population.


Do you disagree with those statements? Again, don't dance around it and change the subject again. Give me a yes or a no, and if it's a no, then provide reasoning.

Dr. Irwig postulates that finasteride induces depression due to a direct effect on neurosteroids. However, the data obtained in no way supports this theory, because the depression scores were biased by a significant factor that was not considered when results were analyzed.

 

[Wuffer]

Wrong. Read the paper...... if you read the study you'd know "a signifcant factor that was not considered when results were analyzed" was considered

Care to explain how? I honestly wouldn't spend a single dollar to read this paper.

On second thought, don't even bother explaining how because I know you are lying through your teeth. The results simply consist of comparing the raw data (test scores) from each group. There is no possible way he could have taken this into consideration because all he did was looked at two numbers, saw which group had the bigger number, then reached an completely unfounded conclusion.

Are you trying to trick me into buying this study or something? Does Dr. Irwig give you a cut of the sales?

I know exactly what you're trying to do. You are parroting Ron Rogers' "no causal relationship" line when he's asked about men reporting permanent sexual problems from Propecia use.

Which is exactly what the FDA believes as well, the following taken from their website: "clear causal links between finasteride (Propecia and Proscar) and sexual adverse events have NOT been established..."

Why on earth would Ron lie and say that a drug Merck produced is dangerous when even the FDA stated that it is safe?

Notice when Ron Rogers and others at Merck are asked about the study, they don't use the "no causal relationship" argument. They just say "the study is flawed" and leave out the reason why. Because they know if they used the same line of reasoning as you, they'd be wrong.

Because they are intelligent, rational and objective individuals, which gives me even more confidence in taking the medication. And if you are referring to the three Dr. Irwig studies, they are all *extremely* flawed.

Hell, even Dr. Irwig states in the abstract how flawed his own study is! "Study limitations include a post hoc approach, selection bias, recall bias for before finasteride data, and no serum hormone levels."

you are so confused.

Dance, dance, dance!! Aren't your feet getting tired?

I've gotta give you some credit... You are really good at avoiding answering the important questions. Not surprisingly, you can't even give me a simple "Yes" or "No", and all you can do is play it off. I am certain you know exactly how right I am, and it's pretty hilarious that you keep up this charade.

 

[Wuffer]

IT'S IN THE LINK

The link to the abstract? I've read it several times and still have absolutely no idea what you could possibly be referring to. You do know the difference between a study and an abstract, right?

Another sig worthy Wufferism. Can you keep the idiocy down, I'm running out of room.

Thanks for spreading the righteous words of Wuffer! Amen brotha!

Rates of depressive symptoms (BDI-II score ≥ 14) were significantly higher in the former finasteride users (75%; 46/61) as compared to the controls (10%; 3/29) (P < .0001).

Keep dancing, avoid having to face those tough questions!

 

[Wuffer]

I'm not surprised. You still don't know the differnce between the words reviewed and reported. I don't expect for you to understand Dr. Irwig's study.

What in gods name are you going on about now?

Anyway, I did in fact have fun refuting this study as you suggested! It certainly wasn't much of a challenge especially when you weren't able to offer up any opposition whatsoever, but i'm certainly looking forward to see what Dr. Irwig has to offer next!

The ironic thing is these studies just reinforce the fact that finasteride is safe. The fact that no causal relationship can be established is painfully obvious and highlighted by the fact that the ONLY way to make the drug look dangerous is introduce biases that skew the results.

It's quite unfortunate that Dr. Irwig holds such a bias and is conducting his studies to support his beliefs. It certainly makes headlines, but when things get fleshed out in the end (ie. in the court room against Merck) the facts have to speak for themselves, and all can really do now is whimper.

 

[Wuffer]

You made stuff up, like this:

He took 61 guys who have suffered with with sexual dysfunction for over 3 months and also had taken finasteride in the past.

I made that up? I took the following directly from the abstract:

former users of finasteride (n = 61) with persistent sexual side effects for ≥ 3 months

Yawn... Anyway, let me know when some real studies come out then we'll talk.

 

[Wuffer]

The reason that you have to nitpick my grammar, call me names and refuse to answer any questions is because you are trying to hide the fact that you have no data to support your completely blind beliefs. Just like any other fear mongerer (and there are a lot of you out there) your posts contain absolutely no substance. Your posts are completely contradictory, and usually when you quote sources you often shoot yourself in the foot because it goes against something you said earlier. If you really had any hard facts, you would be able to politely present them and then easily refute any criticism, but this clearly isn't the case.


It's pretty convenient that all your hard facts comprise of studies that will be released sometime in the future, and you can't talk about them because they are super secret! When this happens then you might have a leg to stand on, but until then you've got absolutely nothing. If they are anything like this Irwig study, then you might want to ask the researchers to step it up a couple notches before publishing.


It's okay though, because you are really fun to chat with! Thankfully members here are smarter than the average bear, and for the most part completely refuse to even acknowledge your presence. The ones that do bother to respond are able to call you on your BS immediately. You certainly aren't convincing anyone, but you are doing a great job setting more people against your campaign. Are you really going to let Merck win?

 

[Sparky4444]

The bottom line is that finasteride side-effects ARE NOT INFREQUENT....they happen quite often and to more men than what Merck says it does....If you want to find a rough measure, do a search on this forum for those experiencing success without sides and how many have experienced sides....My guess it is at LEAST 20-25%.....That is statistically significant..

..like everything else, the individual needs to be aware of the effects the drug is having on their body...But to say finasteride is a safe drug?? BS...It CAN BE dangerous...and that's enough to warrant warnings about it

 

[Wuffer]

The bottom line is that finasteride side-effects ARE NOT INFREQUENT....they happen quite often and to more men than what Merck says it does....If you want to find a rough measure, do a search on this forum for those experiencing success without sides and how many have experienced sides....My guess it is at LEAST 20-25%.....That is statistically significant..

This is false. First of all, there have been many independent studies done on finasteride that show the same side effect rates that Merck did during the FDA trials. On that point, Merck passed two trials with the same drug, and both with flying colors. Here is just a recent example of a study that Merck had nothing to do with:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21980923

Side effects were reported in 0.7% of users.


Your rough measure is completely inaccurate. People who post on these forums represent a fraction of worldwide users, and I would peg it at less than 1%. People tend to visit forums only when they are experiencing issues, to ask for help and so on. People that have success with the drug have, for the most part, no reason to post here, so you won't hear from them. Yes, go through this forum and maybe you will count a couple thousand people who have had symptoms, but you fail to realize there are millions more out there who are doing just fine on the drug. The ONLY way to to figure out side effect rates is with placebo controlled studies. We have plenty of those.

..like everything else, the individual needs to be aware of the effects the drug is having on their body...But to say finasteride is a safe drug?? BS...It CAN BE dangerous...and that's enough to warrant warnings about it

You can believe what you want. After a thorough review of data released since FDA approval for Propecia, the FDA recently released a statement that the drug is safe. If you don't trust the FDA or would rather take advice form people on hair loss forums, that is entirely your prerogative.

Keep in mind that the fact that a drug can cause an extremely rare reaction doesn't make it unsafe. Peanuts can produce potentially deadly reacting in a small number of people, but do you consider them unsafe and should they be banned?

 

[Wuffer]

Thanks for admitting defeat, I win!

/thread

 

[Wuffer]

You are correct, I could have phrased that better. Now, do you want to continue to discuss the actual study or is your attempt at trolling all you have to offer?

 

[Beingbaldsucksass]

Habeas corpse, I bet your advertising some stupid snake oil product made by hippies, your fear Mongoring bull**** about finasteride is dangerous, cuz people see it and scared to get on treatment and they lose hair for nothing

 

[Northman]

Seems I find myself chiming in once again agreeing with Wuffer. His point is scientifically valid. The resultant depression does not necessarily equal causation. Clearly people suffering from long term sexual dysfunction are going to be more likely to suffer from depression and suicidal thoughts. Arguing otherwise IS willfull ignorance.

A way to study the resultant level of depression from finasteride would be to compare balding users of finasteride and balding users of a placebo and comparing their respective levels of depression. Of course, that would have some variability as well, since many of the finasteride users would show some improvement in their hair, and unless you had drug related depression, you would expect to see their levels of depression decrease since hair loss is very likely adding to the depression and reversal of that process would certainly improve an individuals outlook.

- - - Updated - - -

You think taking an internet forum such as this and using its group to draw results for scientific conclusions is valid? Really?