Merck's conclusions

[Johnny24601]

"I already answered all of your questions. The drug doesn't sell because the drug doesn't work very well. If it was the cure, it'd be selling like flowers on Valentine's day. If it was the cure, it'd be #1.

But it's not the cure. As is, it barely maintains haircounts and does so for maybe 5 years.

As for the "accountability" you've asked for, well, it's pretty clear you'll accept no conclusion save your own. You've got a controlled, double-blind study from the FDA saying that the occurence of side effects are 2%. Neither the doctors nor the patients knew what they were giving or taking. But that's not enough for you; anyone who accepts such a thing isn't being open minded. Well man, you're not exactly being scientific. You've got a theory with absolutely nothing to prove it beyond the slightest bit of correlation."

Here I am thinking this is a "discussion" forum, whoops.
You basically say that a drug must be 100% effective to sell and that we should trust a double blind study in which the one's who control the study are the same one's who are funding the study, deciphering the data, deciding what parts of the study has value, asking the questions, recording the answers to the questions and all the participants (Merck and the derms) stand to get rich if the drug is a success and they can convince the FDA that it is kosher. The degree of bias is so high that one is borderline idiot if they just accept their numbers. They could be right, but questioning their results is very appropriate. Seriously come on, this was not an unbiased double blind led by independent researchers. There are countless examples of FDA approved drugs that hurt people.
How many drugs on the market are absolute cures? Dose every financially successful drug used to fight cancer, heart desease, AIDS, herpees or even something trivial like acne actually work with 100% effectiveness, well the answer is no but many of the drugs that mitigate the effects of the above listed conditions are making millions (or billions) for drug makers? Why not finasteride?
We had next to nothing in male pattern baldness treatment techniques for years. Before finasteride all we had was minoxidil (which nobody even really knows why it works) and expensive hair restoration surgery's that scar the head and are unpredictabale. finasteride was a major developement and should not be discredited but applauded. To think (or even complain) that, in order to have a financially successful drug to fight male pattern baldness, the medical community must go from poorer options (minoxidil and surgery) to a drug that can grow hair on a slick bald head is shortsighted. It takes time and there is no reason to not expect that a drug (which claims to be 86% effective with almost no side effects) should not succeed in the marketplace. Especially when you consider that male pattern baldness is a major factor in men's lives. Something is not right.
Facts:
-side effects are an important issue to finasteride consumers;
-Merck determined that the sides are only 2%, which is very very small
-consumer attitude on finasteride is such that Merck is taking a loss on the drug despite the fact that there own study concludes that the drug is very effective with almost no risk.
Something is not right?
As far as my conclusions and whether I am just too stubborn to accept anything else. Well, until someone puts together a better argument other then to say that the same people who stand to make money off the drug have concluded that it is effective and they did a study to prove it, well I guess I will continue to wonder what the hell is going on here. Apparantly the only way I can satisfy you is by conducting my own double blind study, which I cannot do. All I can do is summarize the 100s of hours I have spent researching the subject, as a consumer only, and hope that I form an unbiased opinion.
Side effects is absolute #1 issue that comes up with people who are considering whether to use this drug. Most understand that the results are unpredictable. You hear the side effects issue so often on this site that it makes people insane when it is brought up, hence this thread. Some of the people who do complain about sides are certainly having labido or semen issues because they are depressed, on other meds or are just paranoid but one has to accept that some of these people are actually experiencing these effects as a result of finasteride. Is that number at 2%, I simply say no. That 2% number (according to Merck) includes anyone who has experienced even the slightest labido change as a result of the finasteride use.
I contend that a minumum of 10% of finasteride users on this site report some sort of side effect (most report very mild labido and/or semen change), could an amazing 80% of these people be experiencing these effects from depression, other drugs or a placebo effect, I do not think so.
You think that the number is 2% or lower and again I do not. I support finasteride use, have been on the drug for over a year with decent results and would love to accept that the drug is 100% safe. Again, I recommend it to any male who is concerned with their hairloss, I just think the consumer is not getting the entire story.
Another figgin novel, if anyone has hung around long enough to read this post, I apologize for its length as hairloss is an important issue to me.

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

"That's nice. But if Finasteride was more effective to the extent I've mentioned, would its sales go up?"

Um, ya they would go up. The sales of any product in the market place would go up it is was proven to be more effective. What is that Guiness commercial say, oh ya "brilliant"!

 

[Axon]

Re: re:

"That's nice. But if Finasteride was more effective to the extent I've mentioned, would its sales go up?"

Um, ya they would go up. The sales of any product in the market place would go up it is was proven to be more effective. What is that Guiness commercial say, oh ya "brilliant"!

You said that the sales are poor due a conspiracy involving sides. I've countered that statement, and now you've proven my point. Thanks.

 

[Axon]

Here I am thinking this is a "discussion" forum, whoops.

It is. I'm just never wrong. It's hard, but my vast intellect does provide some comfort.

You basically say that a drug must be 100% effective to sell

I've said nothing of the sort. I said if it was the magic pill, the take and your hair grows back solution, it would be Merck's most profitable product. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything you infer is incorrect beyond that.

and that we should trust a double blind study in which the one's who control the study are the same one's who are funding the study, deciphering the data, deciding what parts of the study has value, asking the questions, recording the answers to the questions and all the participants (Merck and the derms) stand to get rich if the drug is a success and they can convince the FDA that it is kosher. The degree of bias is so high that one is borderline idiot if they just accept their numbers. They could be right, but questioning their results is very appropriate. Seriously come on, this was not an unbiased double blind led by independent researchers. There are countless examples of FDA approved drugs that hurt people.

For every 1 drug that has "hurt people," there are 10 that have not. Should we always doubt the FDA? What more do you suggest? I bet if we did an gourmetstylewellness.com double blind study, we'd get around the same results.

How many drugs on the market are absolute cures? Dose every financially successful drug used to fight cancer, heart desease, AIDS, herpees or even something trivial like acne actually work with 100% effectiveness, well the answer is no but many of the drugs that mitigate the effects of the above listed conditions are making millions (or billions) for drug makers? Why not finasteride?

Not many, because that's not where the money is, which is what I assume you're getting at.

We had next to nothing in male pattern baldness treatment techniques for years. Before finasteride all we had was minoxidil (which nobody even really knows why it works) and expensive hair restoration surgery's that scar the head and are unpredictabale. finasteride was a major developement and should not be discredited but applauded. To think (or even complain) that, in order to have a financially successful drug to fight male pattern baldness, the medical community must go from poorer options (minoxidil and surgery) to a drug that can grow hair on a slick bald head is shortsighted. It takes time and there is no reason to not expect that a drug (which claims to be 86% effective with almost no side effects) should not succeed in the marketplace. Especially when you consider that male pattern baldness is a major factor in men's lives. Something is not right.

Merck knew the potential benefits of a Type II Alpha Reductase inhibitor for years, going back to the 70s. Finasteride was available in Proscar form since the early 1990s. You must have missed that in your hundreds of hours of research.

Again, I ask you this: I'm offering you a pill that WILL get you the hairline of a 13 year old back. You've got a 20% chance to grow mantits. Do you take it?

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

This is getting pretty pointless and I am sure no one even want to to read this but I will reply however:

Johnny24601:
Here I am thinking this is a "discussion" forum, whoops.

AXON:
It is. I'm just never wrong. It's hard, but my vast intellect does provide some comfort.

Johnny:
This is true, you ar always right as I have accepted long ago that I will eventually fail in any argument with the great Axon.
____________________
Johnny:
You basically say that a drug must be 100% effective to sell

Axon:
I've said nothing of the sort. I said if it was the magic pill, the take and your hair grows back solution, it would be Merck's most profitable product. Nothing more, nothing less. Anything you infer is incorrect beyond that.

Johnny:
The study that you support concludes that 86% of people maintain or improve. In regard to sales you said "Its not the sides. It's the success of the treatment". Apparantly 86% success is not enough for you to conclude the the treatment is a "success", since 86% is pretty high, you must have a point of view where 100% of users must have success for it to make money. Again, if this was the case, then almost every medicine known to man would lose dough because very few are 100% effective. Whether or not man will ever create drug to grow hair on a bald head, is irrelavant to this discussion and it is a waste of time to discuss it.
_____________________________________________

Johnny:
and that we should trust a double blind study in which the one's who control the study are the same one's who are funding the study, deciphering the data, deciding what parts of the study has value, asking the questions, recording the answers to the questions and all the participants (Merck and the derms) stand to get rich if the drug is a success and they can convince the FDA that it is kosher. The degree of bias is so high that one is borderline idiot if they just accept their numbers. They could be right, but questioning their results is very appropriate. Seriously come on, this was not an unbiased double blind led by independent researchers. There are countless examples of FDA approved drugs that hurt people.

Axon:
For every 1 drug that has "hurt people," there are 10 that have not. Should we always doubt the FDA? What more do you suggest? I bet if we did an gourmetstylewellness.com double blind study, we'd get around the same results.

Johnny:
The general public has a responsibilty to always act as a check for the gov't especially concerning drug approval. If questioning the FDA results in saving one person's life then it is worth it. How can it be considered a negative to question the FDA or anything else in this world? I know the American gov't has a history of never ever lying to people and the gov't has never twisted the truth in anyway, but I guess I am just a fool. BTW the FDA has removed drugs that they had approved (look it up Mr. Educated) because the private sector stood up, this has saved lives. But I guess you believe that those lives were not worth saving and people should have just accepted the FDA's decision. You are wise.
______________________________________
Johnny:
How many drugs on the market are absolute cures? Dose every financially successful drug used to fight cancer, heart desease, AIDS, herpees or even something trivial like acne actually work with 100% effectiveness, well the answer is no but many of the drugs that mitigate the effects of the above listed conditions are making millions (or billions) for drug makers? Why not finasteride?

Axon:
Not many, because that's not where the money is, which is what I assume you're getting at.

Johnny:
You do not even address my point, Merck concludes that finasteride fights male pattern baldness (which we agree is a huge issue for men) and they claim to be 86% effective at maintaining or regrowing with almost no side effects, yet they lose tons of money. Well, there are many other drugs which are less then 86% effective at fighting things from heart disease, AIDS and even acne, and the makers of these drugs are cashing in, why is Merck not cashing in on finasteride? Maybe because their conclusions are wrong, that's all I am saying.
You also show how ignorant you are of the medical community. It is the same tired conspiracy argument, that the drug industry is intentionally not curing disease in order to make money. It is true that the American medical community is now big business and needs to be overhauled but cures for a multitude of negative human conditions have come through (laser eye surgery, seizures, diabetes, small breasted woman) and the only reason why other cures have not been found is because these diseases are friggin tough. The issue is a lot like the computer industry, in that drug makers are spending millions in research in order to produce a pill that costs about a penny in raw materials (like a software product) and then don't get the benefits from their research dollar because generic or overseas drug makers copy them and sell it at half the price because the gerneric makers did not have to spend millions in research. The situaiton is far more complex then I think you realize, but the solution must involve a restucturing of ideas. Put your Al Franken books away and avoid talking about things you know nothing about.

______________________
Johnny
We had next to nothing in male pattern baldness treatment techniques for years. Before finasteride all we had was minoxidil (which nobody even really knows why it works) and expensive hair restoration surgery's that scar the head and are unpredictabale. finasteride was a major developement and should not be discredited but applauded. To think (or even complain) that, in order to have a financially successful drug to fight male pattern baldness, the medical community must go from poorer options (minoxidil and surgery) to a drug that can grow hair on a slick bald head is shortsighted. It takes time and there is no reason to not expect that a drug (which claims to be 86% effective with almost no side effects) should not succeed in the marketplace. Especially when you consider that male pattern baldness is a major factor in men's lives. Something is not right.

Axon:
Merck knew the potential benefits of a Type II Alpha Reductase inhibitor for years, going back to the 70s. Finasteride was available in Proscar form since the early 1990s. You must have missed that in your hundreds of hours of research.

Johnny:
Not only Merck, but the entire medical industry knew about the connection between DHT and male pattern baldness. God you are tough to deal with, propecia became available in the late 90's. Proscar was not directed for male pattern baldness treatment (these are all things you know).
What the hell are you talking about? Everything I said was correct. Answer the real question, if Merck's numbes are correct why has finasteride never made $$? finasteride is what we have, Merck (and Axom agrees) says it is very effective at keeping what hair you have with little or no risk, why does it not sell? How are we to know that the side effect number is correct when it is clear that consumers are weary of the side effect, as an example look around this site and google finasteride and you will see many people talking about sides. Why has Merck not eleborated on side effects as I think the public deserves better. obviously you think I am wrong, that is sad.
____________________________
Axon:
Again, I ask you this: I'm offering you a pill that WILL get you the hairline of a 13 year old back. You've got a 20% chance to grow mantits. Do you take it?

Johnny:
This has nothing to do with my argument and I never really understood how relevant this is to the conversation. But no, I would not take a pill with that sort of reported severe side effect.

 

[Axon]

I'm tough to deal with because I'm right. This is the bottom line, no matter how you try to spin it:

1. I'm citing a double-blind study suggesting that 2% of users experience sides from Finasteride use. Despite who it was funded by, it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration, an entity that does have some fairly strict standards.

2. You're citing absolutely nothing save a conspiracy theory. You keep saying the sky is green; I keep pointing out the window, where the sky is blue. You call me a borderline idiot; I call you a paper-mache mestophiles.

All the other stuff you've inferred. I make no judgments on you, your intellect, or your personality based on a single opinion on a single subject. You've gotta understand man, I've seen this argument 10,000 times before. That 2002 joined date ain't just for prosperity. And not once, in the four years that I've been here, have I seen anything or anyone with actual proof that the sides are more common than the 1 year study suggests.

Finally, I'm not saying it's bad to question the FDA. I'm saying that without data proving your claim, you've got no ammunition. This website is founded on and continues to move on evidence, data, and fact. Bring a real study, by an independent research center proving your claim, and I'll give serious consideration to your position. Calling people who don't share your position idiots only exposes the significant flaws in this argument.

I also think you're lying about not taking fina if it was the cure, but hey, I can't prove it, so I ain't worried about it.

 

[powersam]

johnny some of the stuff your putting out simply isnt sensible. as has been said before, Merck did not determine the side effect incidence to be at 2%, an independant organisation called the FDA did. And to say that because you figure 10% of gourmetstylewellness.com subscribers have side effects proves the first figure wrong, thats nothing short of ridiculous. There will be huge amounts of men taking Propecia who never ever visit a hairloss forum. There will also be people who only visit these forums because they've been prescribed Propecia and have experience problems. What your saying has absolutely no basis in fact nor even commonsense.

As to the FDA removing drugs they once approved, i think if you research these drugs you'll find it was often due to harmful interactions with other drugs, or harmful effects to humans in various altered states, ie/ pregnancy or diabetes.

As to Merck not cashing in on Propecia, i have no idea how well they've gone financially with it, but I and many other people on this site know that often doctors are not to ready to prescribe a drug with potential side effects for a condition which they see as purely cosmetic. Plus we all buy ghetto finasteride anyway

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

Merck presented the side effect data and their recommended percentages, the FDA simply approved their conclusions.
In my opinion, if you have had sides then one thinks Merck's numbers are wrong, if you haven't had sides then one says the number is right.
In the end, my main point is really about Merck's integrity and I suppose the same can be said about many big drug companies. Merck doesn't care to confront the fact that so many of the consumers who take their drug, are worried about side effects (whether they are justified is debatable) and to me Merck just kind of ignores it. There are so many questions and so few hard evidence. How can Merck solve these issues? I don't know, I assume it would take more funding and studies and obviously they and the FDA do not think it is worth it.
We have people droping a significant amount of their spending money on this pill, only to be left to wonder what the results will be, what side effects they will deal with and whether they could be doing harm to their bodies.
I am very rationale and I was trying to spark a discussion. I just think that once agian bald (or balding) guys get screwed. I think many men are concerned and don't confront the FDA and Merck about their trepadation because they are so embarressed by their hairloss.
-No one can definitivlely correlate how DHT and the alpha enzymes function in the body other then to know that they effect hairloss.
-We have an entire spectrum of results for patients and no one knows definitively why one person get great results and another gets none
I don't want to go on as there are many other questions to be asked that have not been answered but I have wasted too much time on this subject. I just feel sort of like a guinea pig who has no idea what this drug will do (as far as results and sides) and this drug (either directly or indirectly) is involved with testosterone and to me, testosterone serves too many purposes and messing with its balance in the human body scares me and I do not feel the distributor has been fair in addressing consumer fear. Am I living in a dream world? How far can expect a drug company to go to defend their product in this capatilistic society? I am not sure what is feasible from a business point of view, but I know many bald and balding guys are concerned and I believe there concern is justified in many situations. This is sort of off subject, but in a completely hypothetical world in which drug companies cared only about the lives of the people who were taking their product and not about the bottom line, then I truly believe that we would have more answers because there is proper justification for consumer's fears about this drug, that's all.

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

BTW, I called no one an "idiot" and think everyone who has argued this point in this discussion has made great points. I also still believe the 2% number is not correct and I have no ability to difinitively prove otherwise, it is simply my opinion. All we really have to sight is a study produced by the same people who stand to make millions and approved by a gov't who has not proven, to this particular consumer, that their agents can be trusted especially when they are in a confrontation with big business. I hope people use the Merck study, what they read from consumers, what other lesser studies conclude and any other comments by doctors (or derms), hair specialists or people in then know, and then form their opinion as that is what I have done. I think it is very short sited to point to the Merck study and simply say that "they conducted a DB, concluded 86% effectiveness with 2% sides, were approved by the FDA so that's the fact and unless you conduct your own double blind then you cannot say anything different". That sort of point of view is dangerous (in myopinion) not only when discussing finasteride but a wide variety of subjects in this world. We should all be capable of more then that.
This issue will be revistied again and again and again, and for me, all I can say is I agree to disagree with those who think this situation is fair to the balding public.

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185064,00.html
Let's not overreact as nothing difinitive indicates problems with the finasteride study or any other of the many drugs Merck has on the market. But the great and epic C&C Music Factory put it best "Things that make you go mmmm"

 

[Britannia]

Re: re:

The drug doesn't sell because the drug doesn't work very well.

I disagree with this comment. Saying Propecia doesnt sell very well is incorrect. Sales have fallen short of Merck's expectations. The reason for this I believe is because it is grossly overpriced. Here in the UK where we expect drug treatments to be free, it seems simply unacceptable to be expected to pay over £40 a month for drug treatment of any kind. Now generic medications are becoming increasingly popular, Merck have effectively priced themselves out of a market they created.
I do agree that Propecia isnt a cure. It clearly isnt. But it is still the most effective treatment for hairloss available. Those who use it reep the benefits, those who dont simply spend time finding reasons not to start taking it and seem resentful towards those who do.
You can argue the facts, figures and studies until you are all blue in the face. I use Propecia. I have regrowth. Dont want to use Propecia? Dont.

 

[cook'n'milkies]

This issue has to be considered from all points of view. One must understand that of the millions of men who are bald/balding many of them simply do not care all that much if at all. Certainly many do not care enough to spend hundreds of dollars a year on hairloss drugs. I know many and I mean MANY bald/balding guys who have no f*****g idea WHAT THE f*** PROPECIA IS. They've never even heard of it. Consider that.

 

[eBOW]

This issue has to be considered from all points of view. One must understand that of the millions of men who are bald/balding many of them simply do not care all that much if at all. Certainly many do not care enough to spend hundreds of dollars a year on hairloss drugs. I know many and I mean MANY bald/balding guys who have no f****ing idea WHAT THE f*** PROPECIA IS. They've never even heard of it. Consider that.

Very good point. I wish I could be one of those people, and just not give a f***, but I am young and vain.

 

[Axon]

Re: re:

The drug doesn't sell because the drug doesn't work very well.

I disagree with this comment. Saying Propecia doesnt sell very well is incorrect. Sales have fallen short of Merck's expectations. The reason for this I believe is because it is grossly overpriced. Here in the UK where we expect drug treatments to be free, it seems simply unacceptable to be expected to pay over £40 a month for drug treatment of any kind. Now generic medications are becoming increasingly popular, Merck have effectively priced themselves out of a market they created.
I do agree that Propecia isnt a cure. It clearly isnt. But it is still the most effective treatment for hairloss available. Those who use it reep the benefits, those who dont simply spend time finding reasons not to start taking it and seem resentful towards those who do.
You can argue the facts, figures and studies until you are all blue in the face. I use Propecia. I have regrowth. Dont want to use Propecia? Dont.

You've euphimized the language, but the reality is the drug has not and will not sell very well, ever. However, what you've said is another element as to why Propecia doesn't sell very well. In that regard, we're all correct: (1) how effective the drug is matters, (2) the percieved rate of side effects matters, and (3) the cost of upkeep on the drug matters.

But answer this honestly: a new drug comes out that recovers your hair 100%. All that thick, lucious hair you had, worn long and proud, back when you were 15, all back. The hair girls were jealous of; the hair they used to braid on school trips, or find excuses to run their fingers through.

Think about it: No more standing in front of a mirror for 40 minutes to make SURE you've got proper coverage. No more freaking out when you can't find your hat. No more irritation at the slightest gust of wind. No more "flyaways" on the thinning hair - oh, it's not bad enough that it's thinning, but it has to f*****g stand up too, eh? No more wondering if every woman you meet is staring at your hairline in disgust. No more topicals that leave greasy residue. No more wincing when someone sits behind you, or gets behind you walking down a staircase. No more snarky remarks from your friends or family. The whole nightmare gone.

You've got to take it for life, and you've got the 15-20% chance of sides that people like to speculate about Finasteride actually having. $130 a month. Do you take it?

My answer? f*** yes! Where can I sign up, and do you accept blowjobs, good sir?

We've seen a similar result in Accutane...

 

[Axon]

Re: re:

BTW, I called no one an "idiot" and think everyone who has argued this point in this discussion has made great points. I also still believe the 2% number is not correct and I have no ability to difinitively prove otherwise, it is simply my opinion. All we really have to sight is a study produced by the same people who stand to make millions and approved by a gov't who has not proven, to this particular consumer, that their agents can be trusted especially when they are in a confrontation with big business. I hope people use the Merck study, what they read from consumers, what other lesser studies conclude and any other comments by doctors (or derms), hair specialists or people in then know, and then form their opinion as that is what I have done. I think it is very short sited to point to the Merck study and simply say that "they conducted a DB, concluded 86% effectiveness with 2% sides, were approved by the FDA so that's the fact and unless you conduct your own double blind then you cannot say anything different". That sort of point of view is dangerous (in myopinion) not only when discussing finasteride but a wide variety of subjects in this world. We should all be capable of more then that.
This issue will be revistied again and again and again, and for me, all I can say is I agree to disagree with those who think this situation is fair to the balding public.

Okay, then let me be the bigger man and apologize. But look at what I've said above, and please answer honestly.

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

Believe me I see your point and believe that many on this board would take that chance. The situation is pure speculaiton so no one truly knows how they would react. However, I believe I would pass because my hair is just not that important to me.

"Think about it: No more standing in front of a mirror for 40 minutes to make SURE you've got proper coverage. No more freaking out when you can't find your hat. No more irritation at the slightest gust of wind. No more "flyaways" on the thinning hair - oh, it's not bad enough that it's thinning, but it has to f****ing stand up too, eh? No more wondering if every woman you meet is staring at your hairline in disgust. No more topicals that leave greasy residue. No more wincing when someone sits behind you, or gets behind you walking down a staircase. No more snarky remarks from your friends or family. The whole nightmare gone. "

I am trying to learn ways not to feel so insecure and accept my genetics. I do not want to be around woman who judge me by appearance. I want to laugh off comments as either just jokes or by understanding that it is the person telling the joke whose vanity, ignorance and insecurity has led him or her making these comments. I don't want to feel so insecure that I am looking in the mirror every hour as I want to accept that this is just me and I did not do anything "wrong" to make my head go bald and I am not a freak or ugly.
The hardest question to answer to yourself his how much are you willing to do or risk to save your hair and why you would want to go through the trouble and the risk. I am comfortable with applying minoxidil once a day and taking finasteride in morning. Based on the results I am constantly reevaluating the cost/benefits and determining whether I could be comfotable doing more, less or the same.
In some ways, I am happy that male pattern baldness has forced me to confront my insecurities and who I am in many ways. I want to confront my weakness's and not try to hide from them. I wish I could just ignore my balding head, but (and this is my reality and not necessarily anyone else's) ultimately I decided that my regimen will help me more then it will hurt both from a physical and mental health point of view.
I hope I will ultimately come out of this with more perspective and respect for who I am.
Maybe I am being to existential, I don't know?

 

[Axon]

Yeah, that's all true. But why accept an insecurity when there is a cure available, you know? A fat guy who truly doesn't like being fat loses weight.

I think most guys, regardless of age, would jump on the chance to be free of hair loss, especially if side effect occurence was a 1 in 5 chance. And then if they see friends or family who used to be bald rocking fresh new locks? I think it would be real hard to stay away and keep plugging with maintenance treatments. Real hard. Guys are already willing to have strips of skin torn from the back of their heads in order to have a chance at more hair...

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

It is truly up to each individual to find the answers to what is important and how important it is to them.
This is hypothetical, but if I was fat, my main desire to lose weight is because of a desire to be healthy to live longer for my family and friends and feel physically and thus mentally strong, as appearance would be a positive results but not my main objective. Fighting male pattern baldness is strictly an issue of appearance and not health as the amount of hair you have on your head is not a factor in personel health. One can argue that growing your hair back improves your mental health, but what happens when you confront other insecurities and there is no pill that you can take to make them go away?
Step back and keep reminding yourself what we know, that this fascination with hair is a result of societal innfluence. As we age, our bodies change because of hereditary forces established long ago in our gene pool. Why are we told that there is something wrong with us that needs curing?
Hairloss is personel and I wish I could just be myself and not think about my hair, but right now I cannot. I believe that I am really coping with my hairloss better then most, but I feel like finasteride and minoxidil use are not bothersome in the least especially when considering that I am getting results. I feel like I worry less and less about hairloss and do not fear baldness as much, is it because I am getting results or am I just growing comfortable with who I am. Who knows?
What I fear is not facing my insecurities now and having them come back later. What if I do not face my demons and finasteride and minoxidil do not end up saving my hair, then I will be a bald dude who is totally devastated and lost. Even if finasteride and minoxidil does save my hair and I do not confront my insecurites, then later in life I will be faced with similar problems and if there is no fix for that problem, then will I crumble? Now is the time to sack up!

 

[Axon]

True. However, if you are only, say, 15 pounds overweight, you might be motivated for strictly asthetic reasons.

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

True. The reality is that almost every human being wishes they were beautiful and very very few of us are.