EVERYONE Will Get Finasteride Side-Effects Eventually

corkmeister

Established Member
Reaction score
236
A "random forum", that's actually ironic because if it was some low quality website you yourself wouldn't be using it, but here you are having posted 383 messages. If it was some random forum you're saying a lot about yourself for using it for so long.

Also, it's not just any forum, it's a hairloss forum. Its also one of the biggest and most popular hairloss forums on the internet.

Furthermore, a survey is a form of study. Just like there have been many pro-Finasteride people here, there are also anti-Finasteride people, so it's an excellent place to get an idea of how frequently side effects are on Finasteride.
Where else would you like studies to be taken? With people who also haven't taken any hairloss medication? Or only clearly funded studies (because how else are they to fund such expensive studies) that have data manipulated?

I've clearly shown that the FDA nor Merck can be trusted and they did what is considered "proper studies" for all drugs they pass to market, but obviously by the fact that there's so many deaths (4th highest number of deaths in the US are from Prescription drugs), then obviously a lot is wrong with the FDA that even their "proper studies" can't be trusted by what they release to market and obviously they must be clearly understating side effects.

With all due respect, you haven't shown or proven anything. I actually agree with you that the incidence of side effects is probably understated, but the conclusions you're drawing and the reasoning you're employing to get to those conclusions is so incredibly flawed I don't even know where to begin. You're just pulling random data and suppositions together and drawing conclusions from them which fit your narrative. If I were to read this as an outsider without any bias, I would probably be more inclined to believe the exact opposite of what you're saying, just based on the way you come across and the glaring flaws in your reasoning.
 

Pigeon

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
5,129
That's your figure, 50% of the people on finasteride in the US gets sides, so we might as well leave it at that, as none of the studies are able to clarify the quantity that are persistent or not.
I said most will get sides when taking it long term yes and I also said the severity of sides will differ. This is based on everything I've read.

But like I also said many times we need more and deeper studies, I believe both sides can agree with that.
 

20YearsOnFin

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
437
I said most will get sides when taking it long term yes and I also said the severity of sides will differ. This is based on everything I've read.

But like I also said many times we need more and deeper studies, I believe both sides can agree with that.
So what do you think of this statement?

The study of 55 year old's is suggesting 42500 people in the US would be left with persistent sexual dysfunction, do you think the actual figure across all age groups is considerably higher than that?
 

Pigeon

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
5,129
So what do you think of this statement?

The study of 55 year old's is suggesting 42500 people in the US would be left with persistent sexual dysfunction, do you think the actual figure across all age groups is considerably higher than that?
I'll have to read everythig from the study but again from all I've read, younger men are more prone to sexual sides than older men, especially because older men have a lower sex drive, etc already. I believe most older men don't notice much in that regard and even if they do they'll dismiss it and think it's because of age and not finasteride.

Here's an interesting study in that regard (already posted this many pages ago):

DHT restores anabolism / vitality / sexuality even in 90+ y.o. males​

A great study, a true blast from the (better) past, when androgenic steroids and especially DHT were not considered the devil reincarnate, but were commonly used for all types of ailments, including the broad physiological and psychological symptoms of aging such as sarcopenia (muscle loss), osteoporosis, senility, apathy/depression, and even sexual function. The study demonstrates that daily treatment with 25mg DHT (a.k.a Stanolone) was able to reverse most of these aging symptoms in a group of males with average age of 77+ years, and containing two subjects aged 83 and 93 years. Anybody who has met 90+ year-old (or even 80+ year-old) people is quite aware that such people have great difficulty moving, are often of poor mood and rarely have an interest in doing anything challenging/exciting - no doubt a result of their poor metabolic/energetic status and generalized frailty. Above all, such people are almost universally quite apathetic to the opposite sex and specifically to sexual activity. As the study demonstrates, DHT treatment not only greatly improved the muscle/bone/mood health but was able to reverse the "neuter attitude" quite common among such elderly males. If 25mg DHT daily can make 80-90 year-old males chase female nurses all day long, and get into fights out of jealousy - apparently, a medically-recognized sign of rejuvenation :- then the anti-aging industry is probably doomed as the humble DHT may have already solved their problem. Yes, that same DHT, which medicine tells us will make us bald, cancerous, and raging lunatics. Hhhmm, actually that last description fits quite well most male doctors I have met...and, of course, they do everything in their power to lower their endogenous DHT

Metabolism in the aged: the effect of stanolone on the retention of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus, and calcium and on the urinary excretion of 17-keto, 11-oxy, and 17-hydroxy steroids in eight elderly men on high and low protein diets - PubMed
"...The stanolone used was suspended as microcrystals in a concentration of 50 mg./ml. sterile distilled water containing sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (0.1%) as a suspending agent, thimerosal (0.01%) as a preservative, and sodium chloride (0.9%). The steroid was administered intramuscularly in doses of 50 mg. on alternate days....A late result of hormone therapy was the change in mental attitude of the subjects. Joviality increased; testimonials of well-being were volunteered; generalized euphoria seemed to seize some; interest in the female sex was frequently expressed; evidences of jealousy over favors rendered by the female nursing staff developed, and a decided change from the customary neuter attitude of the patients toward the nurses became apparent."
"...The metabolic balance data indicate that stanolone is able to cause retention of the pro- toplasmic constituents of nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus in men past 70 over and above the retention achieved by an adequate diet high in protein. When an isocaloric low protein diet was offered to the same indi- viduals, androgen therapy also resulted in re- tention of nitrogen, potassium, and phos- phorus, but to a quantitatively less extent than on the high protein regimen. Calcium retention was not produced by the hormone on either regimen. Data on urinary steroids revealed a significant increase in 17-keto- steroid excretion but no other changes. Side effects induced by the androgen used were primarily those of pain at the injection site, fluid retention, and increase in euphoria and libido."



DHT restores anabolism / vitality / sexuality even in 90+ y.o. males

 

20YearsOnFin

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
437
I'll have to read everythig from the study but again from all I've read, younger men are more prone to sexual sides than older men, especially because older men have a lower sex drive, etc already. I believe most older men don't notice much in that regard and even if they do they'll dismiss it and think it's because of age and not finasteride.
Im trying to prove the point for you. even the study of 19000 men over 55 if scaled to account 2.5 million current users in the US would suggest that 42500 people a year would be left with persistent sexual dysfunction after cessation of treatment.
 

Pigeon

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
5,129
Im trying to prove the point for you. even the study of 19000 men over 55 if scaled to account 2.5 million current users in the US would suggest that 42500 people a year would be left with persistent sexual dysfunction after cessation of treatment.
But you can't scale a study from older men to account for a population of all kinds of ages. Especially not when it comes to the younger population using finasteride for hairloss.
 

20YearsOnFin

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
437
But you can't scale a study from older men to account for a population of all kinds of ages. Especially not when it comes to the younger population using finasteride for hairloss.
I don't get what you are saying? a mean figure of 42500 people left with persistent sexual dysfunction after cessation of treatment, should be a high enough number for you to prove your point of finasteride's non-safety regardless of how accurate it is when scaled across all age groups.
 
Last edited:

Pigeon

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
5,129
I don't get what you are saying? a mean figure of 42500 people left with persistent sexual dysfunction after cessation of treatment, should be a high enough number for you to prove your point of finasteride's non-safety regardless of how accurate it is.
So that's 2% who get PFS if we scale the 55+ year old study to the complete population. But I believe the figure will be a lot higher for the younger age bracket for reasons I already stated.

Regardless you can't scale/extrapolate a study of one age bracket to all of the population using fina and draw conclusions.
 

20YearsOnFin

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
437
But I believe the figure will be a lot higher for the younger age bracket for reasons I already stated.
Yes but who cares. if you say 40,000+ people a year are becoming impotent from finasteride use what other argument do you need?
 

Micky_007

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
329
With all due respect, you haven't shown or proven anything. I actually agree with you that the incidence of side effects is probably understated, but the conclusions you're drawing and the reasoning you're employing to get to those conclusions is so incredibly flawed I don't even know where to begin. You're just pulling random data and suppositions together and drawing conclusions from them which fit your narrative. If I were to read this as an outsider without any bias, I would probably be more inclined to believe the exact opposite of what you're saying, just based on the way you come across and the glaring flaws in your reasoning.

It seems you haven't read fully what I posted then.

What I posted definitely shows the FDA can't be trusted by several major sources and the Finasteride FDA approval is regarded by Pro-Finasteride users as the single most important sign that the drug must be safe and effective for the majority of people (which isn't the case).




"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is supposed to protect Americans from harmful drugs. But in reality, FDA-approval does not guarantee safety. Critics say Big Pharma funds FDA reviews of new drugs, creating a conflict of interest. The agency is too focused on approving drugs to appease Big Pharma and it lacks the proper authority and funding to protect the public"

Like I always say, Big Pharma secretly funds trials. It's pretty obvious the FDA can't be trusted as well as those pro-Finasteride studies which can easily be secretly funded by Big Pharma, especially when theres so many studies that prove completely opposite results showing how bad Finasteride truly can be.

Even Merck themselves admit not knowing what the long term effects are for younger men in their official FDA approval letter:


Here's a piece from Harvard about FDA:


"The bar for “safe” is equally low, and over the past 30 years, approved drugs have caused an epidemic of harmful side effects, even when properly prescribed. Every week, about 53,000 excess hospitalizations and about 2400 excess deaths occur in the United States among people taking properly prescribed drugs to be healthier.


Prescription drugs are the 4TH LEADING cause of death.


This evidence indicates why we can no longer trust the FDA to carry out its historic mission to protect the public from harmful and ineffective drugs. Strong public demand that government “do something” about periodic drug disasters has played a central role in developing the FDA.2 Yet close, constant contact by companies with FDA staff and officials has contributed to vague, minimal criteria of what “safe” and “effective” mean."




**So with Big Pharma funding studies in the FDA, do you really think they would simply stop at funding studies only at the FDA? Of course the people behind the secret funding at Big Pharma have brains to know if they want to make studies in the FDA look believable they will also need to fund other "independent" studies to make them have similar results. Why would they just stop at the FDA? There's nothing stopping them from stopping there so of course they won't stop there.
And if Big Pharma is able to bribe the most highly regarded regulatory body in the US, it's sure as hell going to be a LOT easier to bribe/secretly fund other "independent studies".



I repeat, if the 4TH LEADING cause of DEATH in the US is due to prescribed medication*, you can't seriously believe that there isn't a lot of manipulation going on with the safety and efficacy numbers being published by studies.

Next, it was said that sides on Finasteride are rare (obviously not true) and that in the cases where people get sides in Finasteride, they almost always go away after some time, but the study that was done on people who had Finasteride negative side effects had shown an EXTREMELY HIGH % of them who had persistent side effects. Which is a mighty big deviation from what is published.

Furthermore, you can go onto almost any hairloss related platform, whether it be hairloss forums like Hairlosscure2020, Hairlosstalk.com, Reddit, YouTube comments section under hairloss videos, Hairloss/Hair Regeneration websites, and you will always find way more than just a small percentage of users of Finasteride that report their side effects even in the comments sections. Its actually quite a significant % that report side effects on Finasteride or that it hasn't worked for them, which is a big contrast to the almost negligibly small % that Finasteride falsely claims are affected by sides or lack of efficacy.
So it becomes pretty obvious that pro-Finasteride numbers are heavily manipulated.
 
Last edited:

20YearsOnFin

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
437
It's concerning yes.
My point is, I just don't get why people like Micky_007 are arguing and plucking 50% figures out of thin air and rubbishing any study that Merck has been involved in, when even Merck's own study from 2003 suggesting a 1.7- 2% persistent sexual dysfunction after cessation of treatment in 55 year old's, would suggest an unacceptable risk when scaled over all age groups.
 

20YearsOnFin

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
437
It's over for Merckcels.
were-doomed-doomed-jpg.jpg
 
Top