an example of your logic:
dude lets not the point. the point is that you wrote that 60% of ALL finasteride users will experience PERSISTENT side effects:
So basically just jump off a cliff because finasteride is SUPER EVIL BRO? Sweet. Bye.
www.reddit.com
no dude i specifically called you out on this point and you tried to swift to another point. you are a clown
Given how much stock you put in anecdote I'm surprised you recommend minoxidil. Or haven't you heard of post minoxidil syndrome?
Reddit - Dive into anything
Time to throw out your Kirkland foam, copers.
Sure is, I was sympathetic to the PFS crowd initially but I haven't been impressed since reading more into it. Fallacious reasoning, piss poor studies, and anecdotes seem to be the foundation. Becoming more convinced that it's a psychogenic condition.
ethics.harvard.edu
You don't trust studies that are conducted by pharmaceutical companies or dermatologists, and you don't trust the FDA approval process.If you're concerned with studies, there's literally dozens of studies that prove how bad blocking DHT is and how important DHT for males are.
Pigeon posts a lot of those studies along with others. I could also post those same studies but see no need when he's already discussed it in length. My comments here are basically a summary of those. It could take pages and pages if I were to repost those all those studies.
Also, There is no selection bias by getting information from a poll on a hairloss forum that has BOTH pro-Finasteride users and anti-Finasteride users. It's not like this poll was on the PFS website.
It's pretty obvious there's some Big Pharma funded studies that don't just come from via Merck but that claim to be "independent" or "neutral" but aren't.
It's really naive of you to believe that just because some studies that just so happen to be pro-Finasteride studies, which follow almost ideal study methods, can't have data/results that is manipulated and falsified.
I mean Merck initially even covered up sexual side effects initially and you think them understating efficacy or side effects is a reach? That's truly naive.
here's a piece from Harvard about FDA:
Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted
by Donald W. Light A forthcoming article for the special issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (JLME), edited by Marc Rodwin and supported by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, presents evidence that about 90 percent of all new drugs approved by the FDA over the past 30 years are...
"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."
Even those FDA approved studies don't really mean anything, the place is corrupt as hell and that's common knowledge.
And if the FDA is doing this kind of stuff, you really think the other smaller studies which paint Finasteride as mainly good and having minimal sides are accurate? LOL.
If Big Pharma can fund the expensive studies, you seriously are naive enough to believe they would only fund one or 2 studies and just end it there? LOL of course they would easily be able to fund smaller studies and even false marketing like Websites, YouTube videos, bought of scientists, and regulatory body members.
What is lacking from the PFS crowd thus far are high quality studies. Ones that actually make a strong case for finasteride being the causative agent in long term sexual dysfunction. So far we've only had snipe hunts for some kind of etiology on the alleged symptoms. These studies invariably are polluted by selection bias, a lack of control groups, and really small sample sizes. What Pigeon posts is largely speculative studies, pointing at some mechanism discovered in rats or something like that. These are a start, but what we need are outcomes in humans. The clinical trials for finasteride were very thorough and make a very clear case. Side effects are indeed rare and a very small amount of people report persistent ones and it is unclear whether finasteride is actually to blame. You need double blind studies with control groups if you want to make the opposite case. Not pointing to a handful of in vitro and animal studies and claiming it is proof positive that Propecia is a castration pill. Your claims simply don't match the evidence you're citing.If you're concerned with studies, there's literally dozens of studies that prove how bad blocking DHT is and how important DHT for males are.
Pigeon posts a lot of those studies along with others. I could also post those same studies but see no need when he's already discussed it in length. My comments here are basically a summary of those. It could take pages and pages if I were to repost those all those studies.
Also, There is no selection bias by getting information from a poll on a hairloss forum that has BOTH pro-Finasteride users and anti-Finasteride users. It's not like this poll was on the PFS website.
It's pretty obvious there's some Big Pharma funded studies that don't just come from via Merck but that claim to be "independent" or "neutral" but aren't.
It's really naive of you to believe that just because some studies that just so happen to be pro-Finasteride studies, which follow almost ideal study methods, can't have data/results that is manipulated and falsified.
I mean Merck initially even covered up sexual side effects initially and you think them understating efficacy or side effects is a reach? That's truly naive.
here's a piece from Harvard about FDA:
Risky Drugs: Why The FDA Cannot Be Trusted
by Donald W. Light A forthcoming article for the special issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics (JLME), edited by Marc Rodwin and supported by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, presents evidence that about 90 percent of all new drugs approved by the FDA over the past 30 years are...
"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."
Even those FDA approved studies don't really mean anything, the place is corrupt as hell and that's common knowledge.
And if the FDA is doing this kind of stuff, you really think the other smaller studies which paint Finasteride as mainly good and having minimal sides are accurate? LOL.
If Big Pharma can fund the expensive studies, you seriously are naive enough to believe they would only fund one or 2 studies and just end it there? LOL of course they would easily be able to fund smaller studies and even false marketing like Websites, YouTube videos, bought of scientists, and regulatory body members.
