- Reaction score
Surely he's got steroid meat head, face from all the juice
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.
Yep already stopped.Didn't you just say Merck is stopping production of Propecia and Proscar?
Who are you trying to convince? I'm already aware of both sides of the discussion.Don't you think if Finasteride was so safe and effective they wouldn't cease production? If there weren't so many complaints relatively to the other drugs they produce they obviously would not stop production so surely the side effects of Finasteride are really bad and surely it's a significant amount of complaints their getting, much more than they would ever truly disclose.
The actual figure is not worth arguing over, it still becomes significant when its a percentage of 2.5millionI repeat, it's not hard to tell its way more than 1-2%
That old study says 1.7% get actual sexual sides, not negative side effects, it doesn't actually go as far as stating what percentage of those were considered persistent sexual dysfunction, these are the kind of things you should research if you are bored rather than just guessing figures.hypothetically only 1-2% of people who get negative side effects
Yes, in business terms its a fairly standard restructuring of a company for financial dividend & growth reasons, its just the hatred of Merck and the controversial nature of propecia that adds a bit of interest.I don't know, could be because of many reasons.
Even the PFS foundation themselves are reporting it, so if its on their website it must be true.source?
The actual figure is not worth arguing over, it still becomes significant when its a percentage of 2.5million
That old study says 1.7% get actual sexual sides, not negative side effects, it doesn't actually go as far as stating what percentage of those were considered persistent sexual dysfunction, these are the kind of things you should research if you are bored rather than just guessing figures.
BTW None of this makes sense most people just live a normal life they are not dicking around 24hrs a day reporting pointless crap on social media.As I said, if anywhere near only 1% to 2% of people got side effects on Finasteride, that would mean that there should be 100 TIMES MORE or 50 TIMES MORE pro-Finasteride comments/people on social media than there are anti-Finasteride comments/people - meaning there should relatively be so FEW anti-Finasteride comments/people that the pro-Finasteride people/comments should enormously drown out all the anti-Finasteride comments/people by 50X or 100x.
BTW None of this makes sense most people just live a normal life they are not dicking around 24hrs a day reporting pointless crap on social media.
Believe what you want, pick any Rate you want, even the 1.7% Merck rate could still suggest 42500 experiencing sexual sides in the US alone How many do you need it to be?
Why bother to try and argue that 'everyone will get sexual sides' like the OP of this thread or even your stance that 50-60% will get negative sides,
when even stating one of the more conservative figures like'
'' 1 in 30 (3.33%) of people who try finasteride could experience sexual sides that may persist for months of years even after treatment is stopped'
should be enough to try and prove your point and dissuade many people from starting its use.
You are actually doing your own argument a disservice when you keep plucking 50-60% figures out of thin air and it ends up making any good you may be trying to do, seam less credible than if you just stuck to provable figures.
At the end of the day the statistic you should be researching is the 'persistent side effects upon cessation of treatment figures' , And this is the figure that nobody seams to be able to agree on. Side effects whilst on medication are always an possibility, and you could even argue that they are 'irrelevant' if they are temporary,
but being left with a permanent disability from taking a medication, that's only taken to treat an cosmetic condition would be a statistic that many potential users would be unwilling to ignore.