Okay, fine. Let's take that meta-figure that you just threw out.
Stop and think how much bigger 5-8% is than 1-2% (in the original Merck trials). If you trust that larger figure, you are also admitting that the truth is at least a couple hundred percent of the original published figure. Maybe as much as 800%. That's a big difference.
Exactly how much bigger does a newer figure have to get, before I'm allowed to say "Merck's published figure is garbage"? Is that ever okay? Or do we always have to support the researchers (and ridicule the patient community) in any disagreement?
Many years ago guys would get mocked on the forums for saying they though it was 10%. Now that estimate doesn't sound nearly so crazy, does it? Guys used to get mocked for saying the drug made them depressed too, and now that's a recognized issue.
The patients are always crazy, right up until they aren't.
The researchers are always correct, right up until they revise their findings.
Finasteride has a significant side-effect problem. It's usually not life-wrecking, but it's common enough to have made Propecia a commercial failure.
IMO Merck's researchers didn't find a common side-effect problem because they didn't want to find it. That was decades ago and there was a lot more denial about the whole issue on all sides.
IMO this is reality. You can keep throwing more research at it, but that won't do anything to change what is happening in real life. The side effect problem is gonna just keep right on happening. It's been this way for decades.