can I offset the side effects

[partybraah]

If I begin taking propecia or proscar and begin to develop sexual side effects, besides trying to cut the dose, can i take anything to offset the limp d*ick, such as yohimbe or arginine. I'm not interested in any other drug such as v**** or cialis that can create more side effects. Any suggestions??

 

[Radio]

You are very unlikely to experience side effects, if you do they usually diminish with continued use and you can always simply stop using the medication.

 

[partybraah]

I'm not so sure, there seems to be way too much talk of all the negative effects of these drugs and such.

 

[Radio]

I'm not so sure, there seems to be way too much talk of all the negative effects of these drugs and such.

I am sure.

This is a hair loss forum, people come here to discuss and hopefully resolve their problems.

Don't expect too many posts along the lines of "Hey, how are you doing! I have been using Propecia for 18 months and am not getting any side effects, thank you for taking the time to read my post"

But do expect post after post after post about how a massive, unbelievably massive, shed has purged someones head of all their hair and even some hair they did not originally have.

After all would you hang around in a doctors waiting room to gauge how healthy the local populace is ?

The sexual side effects run at about 2%.

 

[mogadon]

not true, if people were getting great results and no sides why wouldnt they post there good results, i certainly would.it would be like bragging,people luv to brag.

iv been on propecia three weeks and have a very little feeling in my tadger ,its a very weird feeling,but i am hoping it will go back to normal,but i am worried,as i really want to stay on it.im gonna try cutting down my dose. in a few weeks if it doesnt return,then go from there.

apart from this i have no sides,

anyone who believes this 2% side effects stastistic, is very gulliable.

 

[ShedMaster]

Ive been on propecia for 2 years and no sides to speak of. what purpose would it serve to constantly post this every day, as if it were some sort of achievement I have been longing to aquire.

 

[mogadon]

so if something good happens, your not gonna report it,its just human nature to do so


who said about everyday,the fact is alot of people are not getting sexual sides good for them, but also and alot of people ARE!

 

[Radio]

so if something good happens, your not gonna report it,its just human nature to do so

You are confusing not getting side effects with something good.

not true, if people were getting great results and no sides why wouldnt they post there good results

They probably would, but what about the people with no side effects and no great results, will they post here too ?

To not get side effects is not anything to celebrate it is normal, 98% of finasteride users do not get sexual sides effects, why would anyone seek out a hair loss forum, just to say they had not got sexual side effects ?

Sure if they grow all their hair back or achieve results they are pleased with they may feel like posting their results for all to see.

Have you ever drunk alcohol ? Have you become addicted, have you become an alcoholic ? Hopefully you have not, but did you seek out any alcoholism forums to tell everyone that you have not become addicted to alchohol or did not suffer any side effects ?

the fact is alot of people are not getting sexual sides good for them, but also and alot of people ARE!

The figures are unambiguous, derived from a governement agency monitored trial and bound in law to relect actual trial day, 98% of people do not experience sexual side effects and around 2% do.

 

[mogadon]

the figures are bullshs#t, thats what they are, i prefer to go by real world studies, 2% thats laughable,and *real* user feedback and my own experience most of all. bit like antidepressents when they first came out , the real world feedback was a world away from what was reported in the studies with regarding sexual side effects.

dont be so gulliable.

 

[joseph49853]

the figures are bullshs#t, thats what they are, i prefer to go by real world studies, 2% thats laughable,and *real* user feedback and my own experience most of all. bit like antidepressents when they first came out , the real world feedback was a world away from what was reported in the studies with regarding sexual side effects.

dont be so gulliable.

I believe a good majority experiences side effects, while to what degree of seriousness is different for everyone. Perhaps that 2% figure is reserved for the worst cases. And as Radio has stated, these side effects do diminish over time. Dosage amount also really helps considerably in lowering any potential side effects. Good luck, and hang in there.

 

[Radio]

the figures are bullshs#t, thats what they are, i prefer to go by real world studies,

What 'real world studies' would these be professor mogadon ?

2% thats laughable,and *real* user feedback and my own experience most of all.

Your own experience is irrelevant in establishing side effect incidence rates in the general population

bit like antidepressents when they first came out , the real world feedback was a world away from what was reported in the studies with regarding sexual side effects.

Where did you obtain this 'real world' feedback on antidepressents, was it entirely based your own experience or did you talk to thousands of people to get a broad overview?

Or maybe you looked through a few depression forums for a solid unbiased view

 

[mogadon]

i cant be bothered answering your questions,because you know what i mean.(yes i have been on antidepressants so i know a bit about them)

im saying this i truly do not believe that sexual side effects effects only 2% of men.i believe the figure is higher,and to be honest it wasnt until i went on it myself, and felt a strange ditatchment from my tadge,(that how i would describe it) that i took others comments so seriously,about side effects of the weena.

are you saying that you truly believe that it is 2%,maybe if you were suffering you wouldnt,and then you might stop dismissing it,and stop quoting this 2% rubbish,

i believe if merk had put sexual side effects at say 30% of men eg, that it would have seriously affected their sales,its not like a headache side effect that men would have thought "who cares".

why dont you start being honest,and admit from what you have heard back from this and other forums that it seems,from users that it is affecting more than 2%.

thats all im saying.
i would never discourage men from trying it,like some hysterics do.
but i also dont like to play it down,also like some on here do.just because they have not suffered,or have a vested interest.

now either merk and the fda or whoever,are either unscrupulous liars,or maybe the men in the studies didnt come forward and report this side effect,as it might have been embarrissing for then to admit,because its quite a personal thing,(thats what seem to have happened in early prozac and other srri trials ect)

either way its defiantly more than 2%

 

[Radio]

..are you saying that you truly believe that it is 2%,maybe if you were suffering you wouldnt,and then you might stop dismissing it,and stop quoting this 2% rubbish,

If I was suffering sexual side effects, I would presume I was amongst the 2%.

why dont you start being honest,and admit from what you have heard back from this and other forums that it seems,from users that it is affecting more than 2%.

Yes it does seem that the incidence of side effects are higher than 2% if you listen to people on a hair loss forum, but I would hesitate to read anything solid from this.

Why don't you do a poll on the 'shedding' section of the forum and ask "how many here have experienced a shed whilst on propecia" and see what the results are, you can then use this almost guaranteed figure of 100% to base your next theroy on.

 

[mogadon]

lol at your trust in drug companies,

keep up the blind faith

 

[Radio]

lol at your trust in drug companies,

In regard to this question I know two things for sure.

1) I realise drug companies sole drive is to suck the shareholders c****, everyone knows this, profit first, even if it means ripping off the customer (unless that impacts on profit)

2) I also realise that hair loss forums are extremely biased towards the negative.

The actual side effects may be 1% or they may be 15%, there is no way of knowing, the only thing I can base my judgement on is the FDAs approval system, which is monitored, bound in law, subject to peer review and highly established, it may be flawed, it may carry inaccuracies, it may try and push the limits of truth for monetary gain, but any grey area of doubt its profit driven agenda may generate will always pale into insignificance when compared to extracting all your data from a bunch of panicking 25 year old males running around like headless chickens screaming "dude! my f*****g nuts are prolly broken and i only took, like one f*****g proproscar pill"

You are like a man stood in a military hospital shouting "who here is in the army" noting the results, then shouting "who here has ever been injured or admitted to hospital", then gathering your 'real world' proof and concluding that all military personal are currently in hospital.

 

[joseph49853]

I think what you're neglecting, Radio, is the degree to which side effects do occur, and the amount of sensitivity some people have to even the minutest of changes.

Just because not everyone has major side effects, doesn't mean a slight occurrence can't be just as dramatic. Some people are hyper-sensitive, and even a slight drop from previous levels can send them into a panic. While other people are able to tolerate far higher side effects than the average person.

And even if the feeling does eventually subside, having a slightly numb penis can be a scary feeling to almost any male.

 

[Radio]

I think what you're neglecting, Radio, is the degree to which side effects do occur, and the amount of sensitivity some people have to even the minutest of changes.

Just because not everyone has major side effects, doesn't mean a slight occurrence can't be just as dramatic. Some people are hyper-sensitive, and even a slight drop from previous levels can send them into a panic.

joseph49853, I think what you are neglecting is an understanding as to how clinical trials are conducted, the side effects are not measured by a lab technician going from participant to participant looking for anyone clutching their balls and screaming, then putting a tick next to the side effects box.

These people are asked if 'they' feel they have developed side effects so the guy with major side effects will say 'yes' and the guy in a 'panic' will say yes, even the guy with a slightly numb penis will say yes.

While other people are able to tolerate far higher side effects than the average person.

What does this actually mean ? They do not find the side effects a problem ? They do find them a problem, but being hard men do not report the problem as a side effect ? Or they simply do not get side effects ?

And even if the feeling does eventually subside, having a slightly numb penis can be a scary feeling to almost any male

In a highly structured trial lasting months or even years with many layers of checks and balances, why would someone who has a numb penis and is in the middle of a trial for the drug that is causing this numbness and is asked "have you experienced any side effects", why would this person say "...er....no...except for the....no don't worry it's nothing" and not rport this problem ?

I have tried in this thread to separate the information gained from a highly structured trial that is bound by peer review, by science, by law, is run by a world wide respected authourity on medical product testing that freely publishes its results, against the idea that it is better to cull your information, almost entirely, from the people for who the drug is not working.

I give up. idiots.

 

[joseph49853]

While other people are able to tolerate far higher side effects than the average person.

What does this actually mean ? They do not find the side effects a problem ? They do find them a problem, but being hard men do not report the problem as a side effect ? Or they simply do not get side effects ?

Well, I've certainly tolerated your mocking tone far more than most people... or at least it appears so. If we were to pretend you were DHT, I might even be able to draw a good analogy.

I give up. idiots.

Excuse me? Where are the credentials that give you the right to talk to me, or anyone, this way? Although, a more civil (less unyielding) tone might attract far more more intelligent and dignified responses. Unless you're here for another reason entirely?

 

[powersam]

joseph and modagon , the FDA gets its money no matter what. if it approves a drug it gets 500mill, if it denies it , still 500mill. There is no reason for the FDA to ever falsify results, nor for anyone involved in them to falsify results. the whole system was designed so that there can be absolutely no prejudice involved. If the FDA states that side effects came in at 2% then that is the exact result that the study showed.

that said, the actual amount in the general public could be higher or lower but not by much, especially if people actually keep to the recommended dosages.

i will state it for the record , the only input a drug company has on FDA trials is to supply the drug and then hand them a huge check, regardless of whether the results are positive or negative. the fda gets paid either way.

PS. its no fun when people get Radio serious, so in future try to avoid being so boorishly stubborn

 

[Womble]

Don't have too much faith in the FDA - there is an awful lot of dodgy research practiced even before millions of dollars/pounds are involved. That said, I put more store by their results than any attempt to calculate side effect incidence from this forum - Radio is spot-on with his assessment of the inherent problems in doing that.

Of course it doesn't actually matter what the incidence of side effects is, all that matters is whether you get them. Don't underestimate the power of the mind in conjuring symptoms - remember how your head suddenly itches if someone mentions head lice? Think about somatisation disorders where patients will suddenly lose all power in their legs, or present blind, yet there is no underlying physical cause. There is one relatively famous case of a school girl whose sister was an academic high-flyer, and she was struggling to compare. She developed sudden-onset blindness, and guess what, she couldn't now study, and the pressure was off. Subsequent therapy led to her sight recovering fully.