Just curious.

[M8R-y644n4]

Today I just sit and think. One question came up to mind.

Why wouldn't Merck sue all the major sites claiming tons of side effects from Propecia like PFS Foundation, PropeciaHelp and many other websites out there? It would be beneficial for the company if they take some actions.

I mean for years the research failed to find causation relationship between Propecia and many side effects claimed by those websites.
So legally speaking, those websites have a pretty slim chance to win the lawsuit if the giant pharmaceutical company like Merck sue them. There's no established scientific evidence (that I know of) that Propecia really caused those effects, right? Or I've missed something.

Clarification: by side effects, I mean persistent side effects.

The ISHRS, of which Dr. Epstein is a past president (2009-2010), agrees with the FDA “that a clear causal link between finasteride and persistent adverse events has not been established.” Source

 

[Roberto_72]

I think the reason is that it is practically impossible for Merck to show that the people showing PFS are in bad faith.

 

[M8R-y644n4]

Wouldn't it need to be otherwise in term of law?
If those sites failed to show solid or scientific evidence to support their claims that Propecia actually caused those persistent side effects, then Merck could sue them. Merck even have a high chance to win in court. What those sites claim without evidence really caused their financial loss.

 

[Roberto_72]

It depends on the country's law. Maybe those sites are hosted in countries whose judiciary systems require the plaintiff to demonstrate they have been wrongfully defamed to receive any compensation. For instance, slander in Italy is much easier to prove than in Spain. I think those who open such sites covered their asses in that regard.

 

[M8R-y644n4]

If Merck is required to demonstrate. Can they just show the FDA and other established foundations statement that "the causal relationship not established" to the court? Then the burden of proof would fall into defendants to prove otherwise.
Not sure if that would that be enough.

 

[g.i joey]

if you guys think Merck just agreed to put those warnings on their packets you are insane, there has to be some sort of proof to pfs.. Im sure some people do end up with PFS and emphasis on SOME. The fact is persistent sides may still continue after quitting for a small minority.. whether its 1 month or 3months or 5 years, they are still persisiting after the drug is quit. I think the people who start out and get those RIDICULOUS sides shouldnt continue taking finasteride, because they'd be most susceptible to hormone crash, but thats just my opinion.

 

[M8R-y644n4]

Propecia's temporary side effects are real. Persistent side effects... maybe.
While I tend believe some got persistent side effects from the drug. But that's not really the point of the discussion.

The fact is that, over a decade, studies failed to find cause-effect relationship between Propecia use and persistent effects claimed.
I wonder why Merck wouldn't sue those website using this fact.

 

[ssg]

Propecia

Propecia's temporary side effects are real. Persistent side effects... maybe.
While I tend believe some got persistent side effects from the drug. But that's not really the point of the discussion.

The fact is that, over a decade, studies failed to find cause-effect relationship between Propecia use and persistent effects claimed.
I wonder why Merck wouldn't sue those website using this fact.

Propecia is controversial.. tread carefully.

- - - Updated - - -

it can give u side effects..

 

[myhairbegone]

What on earth would they have to gain from that. Even if they won (which they wouldn't)