Merck's conclusions

[Johnny24601]

Merck saying that only 2% of finasteride users will experience side effects is outrageous and the cause of all the ongoing finasteride side effect hysteria in my opinion.
You see, many more then 2% will experience side effects (I say it is more like 15%), it is just a huge majority of the side effect sufferers experience just a short term (small) change in labido and/or ejaculate characteristics and nothing close to impetus. I know, others have had it worse but based on my experience and my research on the subject, the overwhelming majority of sufferers experience problems with labido and ejaculate quality.
People experience the initial drop in labido or ejaculate and, since Merck lumps all side effects into this 2% number, they start to get overly paranoid that they will not be able to get it up and then others start listening to their paranoi and freak themselves out. The drug is involved with testosterone, a drop in labido or semen volume seems like a pretty normal effect to me? From a cost benefit point of view, a labido drop and semen volume change is totally acceptable if I get to keep my hair for an extra few years.
If Merck was more honest and seperated the severe sides from mild, then things would be fine. It is funny, I think Merck tried to make the product more viable by underestimating the overall side effect percentage in the general popoulation and they ended up hurting themselves because of the bad publicity caused by the side effects incidents "appearing" to actually be higher. If they came out and said, "occasional drops in labido or semen volume can be expected in many users but more severe side effects are rare", then poeple would just write the side effects thing off. By misrepresenting the actualy number, I believe they brought attention to an issue that is very minor and thus hurt sales.
Back to my point, I think this medicine is safe and by far the best product to fight male pattern baldness and avoiding the product out of fear of the side effects is not proper justification, in my opinion of course. Even for those who do suffer sides, they are mild. This is not a miracle drug and results vary, but it does work for many and I hate to see balding men (especially young men) avoid this drug out of fear, only later on these same men (who have grown bald) have to suffer through the anxiety and depression that male pattern baldness seems to cause.
Am I way off?

 

[Britannia]

You have made the fundamental mistake of claiming it is Merck themselves who arrived at the 2% figure. This is incorrect. The 2% figure was the result of the FDA trials conducted on Propecia.
You also fail to realise that there are MILLIONS of men worldwide happily using Propecia, mainly without the slightest suggestion of a side effect. Your "research" is based on what you have read on this forum (and maybe others) but this is the tinest of fraction of the total people using the drug, and remember people on this forum are here because they have problems with Propecia use.
Im not knocking you for that post, your statement on "cost benefit" (i.e. comparing loss of libido to gain in hair count) makes perfect sense. People should accept the fact that they may experience a temporary loss in libido, in exchange for long term maintainence or regrowth of hair.

 

[Axon]

No study regarding side effects of any kind can be done in any condition other than double-blind. Posts like these show why.

Further, Merck has only a minimal fiscal interest in Propecia. It is not that effective, and its sales have been poor. Before you say "oh, well, they're trying to increase sales by lying about sides," consider this: if Propecia was THE cure, but you had to take it daily forever, would any side short of impotence stop you?

It's not the sides. It's the success of the treatment.

 

[Johnny24601]

re:

I cannot disagree anymore about the double blind study and its conclusions. The hair count numbers are relatively indisputable but determining side effect percentages is something that is subjective to not only the patient's comments but the test takers perception of those comments not to mention what questions the test taker asks. The majority of the organizers and leaders of the study were either employees of Merck or dermotologists and both groups have a clear bias in the formation of this drug. Merck makes $$ from sales and the dermatological comunitiy gets all those extra visits from patients who want propecia. This study was funded by the private sector and not the FDA, the FDA only allowed a forum for Merck to present their findings in order to seek approval from the american federal gov't.
Obviously many people who come to discussion forums such as these "may" be hear because they are unhappy with either the sides or the results so making any defensible conclusions based on the gourmetstylewellness.com membership is not correct, but to just accept the Merck conclusion of 2% because they said it is double blind and the U.S. gov't accepted their numbers is equilly short sighted. Maybe they are right, but I think the number is higher. 15% was a guess but is not that huge number and these sides are so minor that many in the this arbitrary percentage may not even notice them. All I am asking for is accountability and I do not think Merck has done that.
Again, because of the subjective nature, side effects such as a small labido change or slight changes in the physical characteristics of semen are not easy to chart when studying a large group. I think you discount how poorly some poeple are at assessing their bodies.
Obviously effectiveness is a huge part of the commercial success of a drug, but there are other factors and a huge amount of people on this (potentially bias) site report that they are holding off from finasteride because of fear of sides. Maybe this is not indicative of the general public but it indicates that side effects are important to patients. I just don't think that too many people avoid finasteride because they fear they it will not work. Sure, many do not take the drug because they think it may not work, but others decide to avoid the drug because they either fear the sides or their hairloss is not important enough that they can justify taking a pill for the rest of their lives. There is a entire range of reason.

"No study regarding side effects of any kind can be done in any condition other than double-blind. Posts like these show why."
Since I do not have a few extra million lying around to run my own study, I have to depend on my own open minded interpretations. Are you that gulable that you just accept every double blind study that has ever been completed by the American medical community? Mmmm I know phizor and I believe Merck are getting sued because a drug that they had conducted double blinds on and recieved FDA approval ended up hurting and killing many people. I am well educated and my job has been to interpret data and make conclusions. I am no doctor but I have spent a large amount of time (actually way too much time) researching hairloss.
If Merck's numbers are 100% correct and 88% of users get a clear benefit from the drug and only 2% of users have any type of side effect (either large or small) then why is Merck taking a loss on this drug when male pattern baldness is clearly very important to men? Is there some sort of conspiracy? I believe there is misinformation somewhere? I also believe that wither the study's conclusions were wrong or the study did not accurately consider all aspects of the drug. The generic market has hurt merck but it cannot justify why they are losing on this drug at least when you consider that their DB study claimed that the drug is highly successful with basically extremely minimal sides.
I think most informed people on this site hear the words "side effects" and "finasteride" in the same sentence and instantly put on their blockers because they know that so many come to this site just to b**ch and moan and this unfairly indicates that this drug is not safe and they want to defend it. Well, I believe the drug is safe and the absolute best male pattern baldness treatment available from a cost/benefit point of view. I think any man who is concerned about hairloss should try finasteride without reservation, but I also beleive that the sides are greater then 2%, that all.
Sorry for the novel, I have been bored lately.

 

[jeffsss]

well we all konw how paranoid I am.. and i must say i've never had a libido problem.

i think 2% is probabaly right.

 

[VWdude]

2% of people genuinely get side effects. The other 98% worry about side effects until they get some.

 

[eBOW]

No study regarding side effects of any kind can be done in any condition other than double-blind. Posts like these show why.

Further, Merck has only a minimal fiscal interest in Propecia. It is not that effective, and its sales have been poor. Before you say "oh, well, they're trying to increase sales by lying about sides," consider this: if Propecia was THE cure, but you had to take it daily forever, would any side short of impotence stop you?

It's not the sides. It's the success of the treatment.

I remember 83% of the test group maintained their hair, sounds effective to me.

 

[chewbaca]

why is this issue cropping out now? Propecia has been around for years..and so far nothing as serious as deaths have resulted....

Like all medications, if u think u have a problem , then stop usage....
As for me initial side effects have worn out and everything is back to normal

 

[barf]

one week now, and i notice no side effects.

i also threw up more weight up at the gym on sunday, so i'm feeling strong.

 

[Guest]

No way it's 2%. :evil: :evil:

 

[Aplunk1]

It's 2% guys. Come on.

 

[Axon]

Re: re:

novel

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.

 

[Axon]

No study regarding side effects of any kind can be done in any condition other than double-blind. Posts like these show why.

Further, Merck has only a minimal fiscal interest in Propecia. It is not that effective, and its sales have been poor. Before you say "oh, well, they're trying to increase sales by lying about sides," consider this: if Propecia was THE cure, but you had to take it daily forever, would any side short of impotence stop you?

It's not the sides. It's the success of the treatment.

I remember 83% of the test group maintained their hair, sounds effective to me.

But is it the cure? You can misconstrue my statement all you want, but the reality is this: Do Norwood 5's get the hair back they had at 13 years old from Finasteride? Nope.

That's the cure. That's what the public wants. Anything less is percieved as just another snake oil bullshit treatment.

 

[hairwegoagain]

2% of people genuinely get side effects. The other 98% worry about side effects until they get some.

Fantastic comment, agree 100%. No one should underestimate the power of the mind.

 

[silkeysmooth]

I haven't read the studies, so I don't know if participants were allowed to take any other medications, but I get the impression that alot of (especially younger) guys that freak out about hair loss are anxious/depressed in general. Wouldn't it be plausible that if they are taking medication for any anxiety or depression, that it is these medications that might be affecting sex drive?

 

[eBOW]

No study regarding side effects of any kind can be done in any condition other than double-blind. Posts like these show why.

Further, Merck has only a minimal fiscal interest in Propecia. It is not that effective, and its sales have been poor. Before you say "oh, well, they're trying to increase sales by lying about sides," consider this: if Propecia was THE cure, but you had to take it daily forever, would any side short of impotence stop you?

It's not the sides. It's the success of the treatment.

I remember 83% of the test group maintained their hair, sounds effective to me.

But is it the cure? You can misconstrue my statement all you want, but the reality is this: Do Norwood 5's get the hair back they had at 13 years old from Finasteride? Nope.

That's the cure. That's what the public wants. Anything less is percieved as just another snake oil bullshit treatment.

I thought that the moderators of gourmetstylewellness.com would be a little more positive, and I did not know that you spoke for the whole public. If the cure to male pattern baldness is your definition of effectiveness, then so be it. For me though, if I can maintain my hair for a few years; then I feel that finasteride is doing its job, or being effective.

 

[barf]

I'd say it's still one of your best shots using the non surgical route.

But to get my 13 yr old, much less my 25 yr old hairline back would rule.

 

[Axon]

I thought that the moderators of gourmetstylewellness.com would be a little more positive, and I did not know that you spoke for the whole public. If the cure to male pattern baldness is your definition of effectiveness, then so be it. For me though, if I can maintain my hair for a few years; then I feel that finasteride is doing its job, or being effective.

Okay, let's be nice here. If finasteride was the ultimate fix - it grew back everyone's hair, no matter how long the follicles had been dormant - would it sell like crazy? Be honest. If you want to be argumentative, just cut to the chase and call me stupid.

I'm a finasteride user who has seen some success. Total maintanence for three years, some regrowth. But the fact remains: I will still go bald, eventually.

 

[chewbaca]

well the world fact is that ther eis somethingout there which works not for everyone but to most as well....In short, something workable to a certain extent is better than none, agree?
Nothing in this world is perfect. When u expect smething to work for u but it didnt but worked for others and u are unhappy and being a critic about it, u are just being selfish and immature. get that in your heads u swines!

This is exactly what is causing the world into conflict and wars.One sided selfishness

Man tried to fly like birds but his first few early experiments only managed to achieve the feat to a certain extent. But at least they flew.. But then they began to learn from mistakes improvise, change and eventually the commercial airplane was invented. Let's look at the optimisitc side of things. comments which are negative are coming from individuals who are one sided to the fact that propecia did not work for them.

Failure is the stepping stone to success, But a limited success is the stepping stone to perfection

 

[Axon]

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

You do also realize that we have more powerful anti-androgens that aren't always more effective, and mostly just make you grow titties?