Propecia Dosage, conflicting reports

[TylerDurden1]

I've been browsing online for a few days now trying to find as much information as I can about .5mg dose of propecia (cut a propecia pill in half) and it's effectiveness relative to the 1mg dosage. As far as I've found the only actual study was done with .2mg of propecia, which showed it to be nearly as effective for male pattern baldness as the 1mg dose. I've also come across people saying it isn't effective at all, thats its half as effective, etc... Now my question is, does anyone have any information about studies done with .5mg of propecia, had a personal experience using .5mg?

in summary..

Any information about .5mg vs. 1mg of propecia.

 

[Thickandthin]

I've been browsing online for a few days now trying to find as much information as I can about .5mg dose of propecia (cut a propecia pill in half) and it's effectiveness relative to the 1mg dosage. As far as I've found the only actual study was done with .2mg of propecia, which showed it to be nearly as effective for male pattern baldness as the 1mg dose. I've also come across people saying it isn't effective at all, thats its half as effective, etc... Now my question is, does anyone have any information about studies done with .5mg of propecia, had a personal experience using .5mg?

in summary..

Any information about .5mg vs. 1mg of propecia.

Actually, .05 mg is just as effective as 1 mg.

http://www.physics.upenn.edu/facultyinfo/frankel/papers/propeciafda2/

 

[TylerDurden1]

.05mg?! come on man, be serious here.

I am talking specifically about .5mg, none of that nonsense that has contributed to the confusion.

 

[Thickandthin]

Did you even click on the study I linked?

 

[TylerDurden1]

Yes, and the first graph, the scalp DHT graph, is wrong. You think .05mg is more effective than .2mg? The second graph might be right but the first isn't.

 

[Thickandthin]

Yes, and the first graph, the scalp DHT graph, is wrong. You think .05mg is more effective than .2mg? The second graph might be right but the first isn't.

It's not "more" effective - it's just as effective. Finasteride has a flat-dose response. Merck (the people who make Propecia and Proscar) are the ones who supplied the graphs to the FDA. Why would they show that .05 mg is just as effective as 1 mg if it were wrong? They stand to lose a lot of money if this info were to become public - its in their best interest that anything below 1 mg have no effect, but obviously that is not the case and the data shows the real truth.

You can ask people on here for anecdotal evidence as to whether low doses are effective, but the truth is that none of us know because none of have ever conducted any sort of double blind long term experiments with finasteride. That study is the best we've got - and it clearly shows .05 mg as having the same effect as 1 mg.

 

[TylerDurden1]

bump



someone has got to have something to share about this

 

[stampede]

bump



someone has got to have something to share about this

People might be a bit reluctant to share info with someone who responds to other posters in the way you've just done.

Just a thought

 

[fightDHT]

i think tylerDurden just meant that he wanted actual testimonies from ppl and not links to studies...but i agree it could have been more polite instead of shooting out at T&T :firing: :freak:

 

[Bryan]

Yes, and the first graph, the scalp DHT graph, is wrong. You think .05mg is more effective than .2mg? The second graph might be right but the first isn't.

It's not "more" effective - it's just as effective. Finasteride has a flat-dose response.

It's not "just as effective", it's ALMOST as effective. And it doesn't have a flat dose-response, it has a NEARLY flat dose-response. The Devil is in the details! :nono: Here's a scan of Merck's dose-ranging study, showing somewhat better haircounts with increasing dosage of finasteride:

http://www.geocities.com/bryan50001/finasteride ... anging.htm